Rover Pipeline Public Comments

20150102-5234 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 1/2/2015 4:30:42 PM
January 2, 2015
Ms. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20426
Re:
OEP/DG2E/Gas 3
Rover Pipeline LLC
Docket No. PF14-14-000
Rover Pipeline Project
Response to Scoping Period Comments
Dear Ms. Bose:

On June 27, 2014, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC" or Commission) Director
Office of Energy Projects issued a notice approving the use of the FERC Pre-Filing Review Process
for the Rover Pipeline Project in the above mentioned docket. In compliance with the Commissions
Pre-Filing Review procedures set forth in 18 C.F.R. 157.21(f)(10) (2014), Rover Pipeline LLC
("Rover") is submitting herein for filing its Response to Scoping Period Comments.
Rovers Response to Scoping Period Comments as attached hereto, responds to comments received
during the scoping period between November 4 and December 18, 2014 by referencing the Rover
Resource Reports. However, due to the holiday season and the number of comments received at the
scoping meetings, Rover will provide its responses to the comments in the final version of the
Resource Reports.
This filing is being submitted electronically to the Commissions eFiling website pursuant to the
Commissions Order No. 703, Filing via the Internet Guidelines issued on November 15, 2007 in
FERC Docket No. RM07-16-000. A copy of this filing is being provided to Ms. Kara Harris and Mr.
Kevin Bowman with the FERC Office of Energy Projects, and to the Cardno Entrix staff. Any
questions or comments regarding this filing should be directed to the undersigned at (713) 989-2606.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Kelly Allen
____________________
Mr. Kelly Allen, Manager
Regulatory Affairs Department
cc:
Ms. Kara Harris, Office of Energy Projects

Mr. Kevin Bowman, Office of Energy Projects
Ms. Jennifer Ward, Cardno Entrix
1300 Main Street Houston, TX 77002

Phone: 713-989-7000
Scoping Meeting Held in Adrian, Michigan on December 1, 2014
Commenter
John Belknap
John Belknap
John Belknap
Patrick Campbell
Aerial Corp.
Comment ID Number / Comment Summary

AD-1
Speaking to the need, referencing FERC's docket CP12-491-00, that's Charlie, Pappy,
12-491-000, ET, in that docket petitioning permission to abandon its Trunkline pipeline,
which transported natural gas to the Michigan/Indiana border. They claimed the lack of
need and excess capacity. In their request they stated in Section II, paragraph B,
number 8 that after abandonment ET would continue to serve its core market through its
remaining facilities, utilizing supplies through their Panhandle and Rockies Express
Pipeline. In Section II, number B (sic), number 9, they stated, "There is an excess
pipeline capacity available to their market area in Midwest." That's Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan, and parts of Tennessee. Now, just two years later, they're petitioning for
permission to seize our properties, claiming a necessity for extra natural gas supply. In
initial information from ET we received in the mail and initial talks with their personnel,
we heard no mention of this gas being used in Michigan. It was claimed to be going to
Ontario.
AD-2
There are two other current proposals to\accomplish the same gas transmissions.
These are Enbridge's\Nexus Project and the Kinder Morgan Utopia Project. These two
pipelines are proposed to use existing pipeline routes in Michigan requiring no further
condemnation of private owners' lands.
AD-3
Siting requirements also say that you should take into account landowner preferences.
Despite our good faith engagement with the ET personnel, they have been unresponsive
to our request for consideration of alternative routes. We've asked them to modify the
route to avoid wetland areas and our mature wood lots.
AD-4
Aerial is a manufacturer of reciprocating compressors with locations in Mount Vernon
and Akron, Ohio. Aerial's committed to employee safety in providing a clean, desirable
working environment. The Rover Pipeline would be using more than 35 of our large
units, accounting for thousands of labor hours in machining and assembly. With an
expected lifespan of 50 or more years, these units will be supported with spare parts
made and provided by our Midwest-based facilities and distributors, further contributing
to the national economy.
1 of 15
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Purpose and
Need
(Trunkline
abandonment)
RR1
Alternatives
RR10
Alternatives
RR10
Jobs
N/A
January 2015
ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT

Scoping Meeting Comment Summary
Commenter
Kenneth Simonson
Chief Economist
Associated General
Contractors of America
Kenneth Simonson
Chief Economist
Associated General
Pam Taylor
Pam Taylor
Pam Taylor
Pam Taylor

AD-5
This pipeline has been estimated to create 10,000 construction jobs. And a study done
for AGC by Professor Steven Fuller of George Mason University, one of the nation's
leading regional economist, found that for every billion dollars spent on non-residential
construction typically 9700 construction jobs were created -- two times as many jobs in
other industries were also supported by that work.
AD-6
The result has been that while construction employment has been rising recently, the
state is at risk of losing out on projects because there isn't enough steady work for
construction workers here. Many have retired, left the state, gone into other industries,
or gone back to school. And without the pipeline project, those trends will continue and
Michigan will continue to lose those above-average wage construction jobs.
AD-7
Please include this letter of opposition to the project. Michigan's constitution, Article 10,
Section 2, states that public use does not include the taking of private property for
transfer to a private entity for the purpose of economic development or the enhancement
of tax revenues.
AD-8
The pipeline will cross the environmentally sensitive Irish Hills and headwaters of River
Raisin. Theres no public use gained by endangering this area. And, in fact, there is a
possibility of irreparable harm.
AD-9
This pipeline is not necessary for the public good. Shale development may be shortlived if natural gas and oil prices continue to fall as they have, possibly turning this
project into a boondoggle at the expense of local property owners and the environment.
AD-10
Potential private industry jobs created are temporary, probably lasting only a few days at
the most. Little work will be done in Lenawee County and few, if any, jobs will go to
Lenawee County residents. There is little or no economic benefit to the local community
as a whole, only to a few individuals possibly with easements.
2 of 15
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Jobs
RR5
Jobs
RR5
Use of Eminent
Domain
RR1
Water
Resources
RR2
Purpose and
Need
RR1
Jobs
RR5
January 2015

Commenter
Pam Taylor
Rob Cousino
IBEW Local 8
Monroe, Lenawee, and
Hillsdale Counties
Bill Black
Michigan Teamsters
Bill Black
Michigan Teamsters
Bill Black
Michigan Teamsters
Ray Kasmark
International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers
Ray Kasmark

AD-11
The Enbridge, ET Rover Partnership track record when it comes to pipeline safety must
be considered, even though this project, as proposed, would carry natural gas
and not oil. There apparently is no local emergency response plan and no local money
for remediation in the case of incidents.
AD-12
Construction of this pipeline is crucial to this community. It will be a great economic
boost to this economy.
AD-13
The United States is currently in the midst of a massive energy surge. Michigan's
economic recovery has an opportunity to be part of this historic comeback, but in order
to make that happen we need to build out the infrastructure that will deliver the energy to
the residential, commercial, and industrial companies that need it here.
AD-14
Michigan is the ninth largest consumer of natural gas in the nation. Rover would provide
an important and affordable new supply of natural gas to energy-intensive industries
such as automotive, glass, metal, casting, chemical industries, pulp, paper, and many
others.
AD-15
When theres construction going on in local communities, those contractors come and
buy from the local communities,
AD-16
We are sensitive to landowners' concerns about safety and that's why we're on the
project. We want to provide local, world class labor to make sure the installations of the
compressor stations and metering stations are safe and reliable.
AD-17
Our members will spend their money in the local communities. They're residents of
these communities. They'll patronize businesses. They pay their taxes, and that further
boosts the economy. And our members are trained -- men and women are trained for
careers, not just jobs.
3 of 15
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Safety
RR11
Economic
benefits
RR5
Purpose and
Need
RR1
Purpose and
Need
RR1
Economic
benefits
RR5
Safety
RR11
Economic
benefits
RR5
January 2015

Commenter
Dan Minton
Lenawee Local Labor
499
Dan Minton
Lenawee Local Labor
499
Dan Minton
Lenawee Local Labor
499
Dan Volckaert
Frank Zaski
Frank Zaski

AD-18
We are advocates for the ET Rover Projects for many reasons, many of the same
reasons a broad array of groups are, because our nation needs less reliance on energy
from nations and regions that want to destroy our country.
AD-19
These are not just jobs, and this is not just a pipeline. Construction energy infrastructure
is a career which can lead to steady, reliable work and opportunities for advancement. It
is a lifeline to the middle class. We believe approval of this project will benefit thousands
of working men and women who rely on a steady, affordable supply of fuel for
transportation and for their homes.
AD-20
Because we have the experience, skills, and dedication to make sure energy work is
done safely and protects communities and workers we can help this industry continue to
grow. Lenawee members have safely built pipelines since 1949. Our organizations
invest more than $100 million a year on skills training, including 164 hours of specific
training for pipeline construction.
AD21
I am a resident of Lenawee County. I've been a laborer for 29 years. I lived in this area
for 12 years. Sometimes I'll travel 90 to 100 miles to work every day, but that's my job.
What this means to me with this pipeline being in here I don't have to get up at 2:00, 3:00
o'clock in the morning. I could come to work in my area and do my job.
AD22
I sympathize with labor. I used to be a laborer. But this would create 3,000 temporary
jobs in Michigan. Well, right now, Michigan has 4.4 million total long-term permanent
jobs. Three thousand temporary jobs is not going move the needle a whole lot, plus
these temporary jobs would be created purely to support in degrading our property and
environment and enabling more fracking, one of the most polluting in the United States.
AD23
Natural gas usage in Michigan has actually declined over the last 40 years, according to
U.S. Energy Information Agency. So, it's not as though we're going to expand because
this state has an energy efficiency program. The industry is getting smarter. We have
our own gas, and plus, plenty of other reasons to come.
4 of 15
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Purpose and
Need
RR1
Purpose and
Need
(energy
infrastructure)
RR1
Jobs
(skilled
workforce)
N/A
Jobs
N/A
Jobs
(short-term
only)
RR5
Purpose and
Need
RR1
January 2015

Commenter
Frank Zaski
Frank Zaski
Frank Zaski
Frank Zaski
Frank Zaski

AD24
We have a tremendous amount of pipeline capacity right now - almost 10,000 million
cubic feet per day - and we have a huge outflow. We have lots of pipes going back and
forth to Ontario, A&R, Blue Water, Great Lakes, Panhandle, Beckford and others are
supplying Canada with gas from the U.S. and through the U.S. from Alberta.
AD25
As stated previously, Energy Transfer stated two years ago that there was excess
capacity serving the Midwest region and they had to greatly discount their pipeline
services. A year later FERC responded Trunkline is not obligated to continue this
pipeline for which there is no demonstration of market value." That's CP12-491.
AD26
Canada does not need U.S. gas. On the eastern side of the U.S., there are at least eight
existing pipelines crossing between Canada and the eastern United States. The Utica
shale field, which services Ohio and parts of Pennsylvania, extends across Lake Erie
and into Ontario. Plus there are six new pipelines and pipeline expansions on the FERC
record to supply the area from Canada. They don't need the gas coming through
Michigan. Hydro and nuclear accounts for almost 90 percent of Ontario and Quebec
electric generation, plus the wind is a growing percentage.
AD27
The reason this pipeline is subscribed to is because the drillers want the pipeline. It isn't
the public. The drillers in Pennsylvania and Appalachia have spent billions to secure too
many oil and gas leases in Marcellus and Utica shale. Public convenience and
necessity should be determined by the natural gas of the final customers who will use
the gas and not the profit objectives or shippers in pipeline companies.
AD28
The U.S. Geological Survey says that at the rate the Marcellus and Utica shales are
being fracked right now and shipped out, we have a 14-year supply. There are 57 new
pipelines and expansions in front of FERC right now, according to the FERC web site. If
all of them were built, that would be 48 billion cubic feet per day of capacity. Using the
U.S. Geological Survey (sic) number and the capacity from these additional pipelines,
Marcellus shale would be depleted in seven years.
5 of 15
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Purpose and
Need
RR1
Purpose and
Need
RR1
Purpose and
Need
RR1
Purpose and
Need
RR1
Purpose and
Need
RR1
January 2015


RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Commenter
Subject
Thomas Wassmer
Assistant Professor,
Biology at Siena Heights
University
Thomas Wassmer
University
AD29
There are better energy provisioning alternatives to the proposed pipeline available and
the environmental impacts of the proposed pipeline outweigh its potential benefits by far.
Purpose and
Need
RR1
Purpose and
Need
(fracking)
RR1
Purpose and
Need
(fracking)
RR1
Air
(greenhouse
gas)
RR9
Thomas Wassmer
University
Thomas Wassmer
University
AD30
The natural gas to be transmitted is produced by hydraulic fracking, which is a highly
insecure, inefficient, and polluting technology. Workers on fracking sites are at risk of
silicosis caused by the exposure to high levels of silica found in dust particles from
hydraulic fracking sand. In addition, many oil field workers involved in fracking lost their
lives or endured serious injuries.
AD31
The only reason why the business stays profitable are tax incentives and subsidies, and
exemptions from the Safe Drinking Water Act, national emission standards for hazards
air pollutants (NEHAPS), storm water, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRAA), Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA), Antitoxic Release Inventory, and TRI, which requires most industries to
report toxic substances to the EPA, and the occasional high output well. The
environmental impacts of the production end of fracking include ground and surface
water pollution, methane emission, emission of volatile chemicals like Etext,
formaldehyde, hydrogen sulfate, methylene chloride. Most current analysis of the
environmental and social cost benefit ratio of fracking come to the conclusion that the
technology should be put on hold until its flaws are solved or should not be continued
because the production of cheap shale oil and gas allows consumers to continue the
wasteful use of fossil fuels and dust, causing more severe global climate changes.
AD32
The transmission of natural gas in pipelines leads to substantial leakage of the potent
greenhouse gas methane. According to estimates of the EPA, most methane leakage
occurs during the transmission process of natural gas, about .7 percent of all gas that is
transmitted in pipelines is leaking. Future methane emissions from natural gas systems
represent a significant source of global warming pollution in the U.S. In fact, compared
to carbon dioxide, methane is considered to be 28 to 84 times more potent as a
greenhouse gas.
6 of 15
January 2015

Commenter
Thomas Wassmer
University
AD33
Serious incidents in the transmission of natural gas in pipelines are less common, but if
they occur they are more severe. From 1994 until 2013, the PHMSA, the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration recorded in a public database 1,238
significant incidents in gas transmission nationwide, which caused 41 deaths, 197
injuries, and $1,770,072,424 in property damages.
AD34
Fossil fuels cause and continue to cause global climate change. Renewable energy
sources are the only means to cut greenhouse gases and the technology is available
now to switch to 100 percent renewable energy. Fossil fuels leads to hundreds of human
fatalities every year, not in the U.S., but globally, and adds to the extinction of species at
an unprecedented rate, and will substantially threaten the survival and well-being of
humans and non-human life forms for many decades to come. The sooner we switch to
this renewable energy sources the sooner planet Earth will recover from the inevitable
consequences of fossil fuels. Every new investment into fossil fuels is unnecessary and
unethical, and should therefore be avoided.
AD35
I see possibly 3,000 temporary jobs in Michigan, I'm guessing that number would be
substantially reduced and temporary might be for a few days at a time. I see four states
might get 30 to 40 jobs. Eight permanent jobs in Michigan is a good estimate. Now, I
realize we need an economy, and we need energy, but I don't think this is the way to do
it. Pipeline accidents are real, just type in pipeline explosions or pipeline accidents.
AD36
I'm here to talk to you as a resident of Sand Creek and Lenawee County, and I don't
want this pipeline running just west of me. I do not believe it's needed. I totally disagree
with the eminent domain strong arming that's been going on.
Thomas Wassmer
University
Mark Bradley
Mark Bradley
Charles Marcinkiewicz
AD37
I just bought 20 acres that's in the middle of the pipeline. My concern is that they're
coming very close to the Wisner Drain Field, which goes through my property. They'll be
crossing it three to four times just in my area alone and no one seems to be interested if
there is ever a leak where it might go.
7 of 15
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Safety
RR11
Alternatives
(renewable
energy)
RR10
Jobs and
Economy
RR5
Purpose and
Need
(eminent
domain)
RR1
Wisner Drain
Field
RR7
January 2015

Commenter
Robert Wilds
Member of International
Union of Operating
Engineers
Robert Wilds
Union of Operating
Engineers
Robert Wilds
Union of Operating
Engineers
Robert Wilds
Union of Operating
Engineers

AD38
I am in favor of this pipeline project for several reasons. First, a pipeline is the safest
and most environmentally-friendly way to transport product that there is - above railroad,
above highway, trucks. It is the most safe. Natural gas would be a step for U.S.
independence away from Mid-East oil.
AD39
Environmentally, natural gas burns much cleaner than coal or oil, which it's maybe not as
clean as some of the alternative methods people are mentioning, but why can't natural
gas be that bridge to get us to the alternative until the technology is developed in
alternative energies? I have solar on my house I built a few years ago it doubled the
cost of my house to put that solar system on my house. What would that do to the
average person that wanted to build a house? You probably wouldn't be able to afford it.
AD40
When constructing the pipeline environmental regulations are followed. How do I know
this? I worked in the industry since 1986. I was out there sitting in the seat of one of
those tractors on that pipeline project. I was separating the topsoil on the projects,
taking a minimum of 12 inches, sometimes up to 24 (3-foot) in the State of Iowa.
AD41
Our operating engineers have the only nationally accredited pipeline training program
that there is. Right now there's one going on in Howell, Michigan. They will be there
until the end of December. If anybody would like to go out and see what they do at that
training site, you can contact somebody at the Howell training site and they will show you
what we do. As far as our training, we specify environmental regulations, safety - not
only safety for the construction workers, but safety for the general public - and
regulations in the CFR 49, Code of Regulations, as far as the coating on the pipe,
protecting the pipe, the integrity of the pipe, that is the life of the pipeline. That commits
safety to the general public.
8 of 15
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Purpose and
Need
RR1
Air
RR9
Topsoil
segregation
RR7
Safety
RR11
January 2015

Commenter
Robert Wilds
Union of Operating
Engineers
Lee Graham
Training Coordinator
Operating Engineers
Local 324.
Lee Graham
Operating Engineers
Local 324.
John Hartwell
Apprentice Coordinator
Local 324

AD42
As far as long-term economics, natural gas pipeline will draw industry, maybe some
natural gas power plants. Maybe they can convert some of the coal power plants to
natural gas, any kind of industry. We know Michigan, the industry has gone down; the
automotive industry has taken a big hit. We need industry. Industry creates jobs.
Industry creates economy. One hand washes the other.
AD43
Local 324 represents, traditionally, heavy equipment operators working in the
building construction markets. Our training and education centeris located in
Howell. We instruct our apprentices and our journeymen on safety classes with
respect to operating heavy equipment on construction jobs. Our annual training
budget is $4.2 million per year for our training and education. Over the past several
years, we've averaged well over 250 safety classes per year.
AD44
I am speaking today to express the support for the proposed Rover pipeline. This
proposed project would bring Michigan long-term economic benefits, low-cost natural
gas to heat our homes, and even help boost the businesses. Natural gas is a necessary
bridge fuel as in regions prepare to transition to renewable energy in the future,
AD45
I live in one of the communities that's going to be affected by the pipeline. I actually
moved in as an apprentice. I've been able to raise my family there on my career as an
operating engineer. My kids go to the schools. We participate in the community. We
spend our money there, and not part-time money, full-time money. As for the training,
the education part of it, it can't be stressed enough, the safety, the experience, the
professionalism that our members are going to bring to the job site.
9 of 15
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Economy and
jobs
RR5
Safety
RR11
Economy
RR5
Economy,
Safety
RR5,
RR11
January 2015

Commenter
Gary Wolfram
Gary Wolfram
Gary Wolfram

AD46
I represent Hillsdale Policy Group, which is a consulting firm. The Rover Pipeline is
important for both Michigan and the United States. The Rover Pipeline is important for
both Michigan and the United States. Horizontal drilling has made the U.S. the world's
largest producer of natural gas. In fact, there's no other country that produces within 25
percent of what we produce, other than Russia. Now, you need an infrastructure to
transport this natural gas. The new gas pipeline will be needed in Michigan to receive
larger volumes of natural gas so as to not bottleneck flow and to minimize pipeline
transportation costs.
AD47
This will become even more important if this agreement that the President made with
China to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 27 percent below our 2005 level within the
next 10 years becomes a reality. Natural gas produces about half of the amount of CO2
emissions per million BTU of energy and there's going to be an increase in demand for
natural gas to replace coal. As was pointed out, there's a belief that some of global
warming is being produced by manmade emissions and the use of natural gas would
reduce this substantially.
AD48
You may also note that fallen oil prices that we've seen recently will reduce the economic
viability of renewable energy such as wind and solar power, which are already not
currently economically viable. Using natural gas, power plants can yield efficiencies of 60
percent or more, compared with nuclear at 35 percent and coal at 40 percent. This is
particularly important in Michigan as currently about 55 percent of our electricity
generation is from coal-fired power plants. There will be a movement away from coalfired power plants to natural gas combined cycle plants and a substantial increase in the
demand for natural gas in the State of Michigan.
10 of 15
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Purpose and
Need
RR1
Air Emissions
RR9
Purpose and
Need
RR1
January 2015

Commenter
Gary Wolfram
Gary Wolfram
Gary Wolfram
Mark Wilson
Land Stewards

AD49
As this pipeline is going to last for several decades, the development of this
infrastructure will result in and allow for innovations in the use of natural gas. For
example, nationwide natural gas vehicles may become economically viable. Natural gas
is an essential fuel and raw material in many manufactured products, and as a matter of
fact, that House Subcommittee report pointed out that about 98 percent of all
manufactured goods require some natural gas in the manufacturing process. It's used
for heating, cooling, waste treatment processing, and it's a raw material for a number of
manufacturing elements.
AD50
Rover Pipeline will allow for efficient transportation of natural gas throughout the Midwest
and Canada, and in particular, Michigan. And as any product, its efficient use in the
economy depends on the ability to transport it from areas where it's produced to areas
where it's going to be used.
AD51
The Rover pipeline represents an investment of about $4 billion. It would produce
approximately 10,000 temporary jobs and about 3,000 temporary jobs would be in
Michigan. And of course, these workers, as again was pointed out, would rent hotel
room; buy food at the local markets, and at restaurants and other entertainment. It's also
going to provide right-of-way payments to landholders, about $100 million in total, and
generate, as was pointed out earlier, tax revenue for both Michigan and for local
governments.
AD52
Rover has retained Land Stewards to work towards minimizing the impacts from this
pipeline project, and we'll function much like an advocate for the landowner. In many
cases, this is our home too, and we're going to be here long after the pipeline has moved
on; so we want to ensure that the land is cared for properly. We look forward to working
with the landowners in this area, and where necessary we will help the landowners
understand the soil types, the soil characteristics, and many of the actual existing
practices that are on their farms.
11 of 15
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Purpose and
Need
RR1
Purpose and
Need
RR1
Purpose and
Need
RR1
Agriculture
RR7
January 2015

Commenter
Nancy Shiffler
Nancy Shiffler
Nancy Shiffler
Nancy Shiffler
Nancy Shiffler
Nancy Shiffler

AD53
This pipeline really is part of an attempt by the natural gas industry to find a market for its
overproduction in the Marcellus region. There are at least eight existing pipeline
crossing between Canada and the eastern U.S. - six new ones, at least, being proposed.
FERC should look at the cumulative impact of all of those proposed pipelines and really
determine how much is really needed. The real intent for the overproduced natural gas is
really to; in fact, get the gas out onto the global market, which won't necessarily
guarantee cheap prices for the U.S. or energy independence.
AD54
FERC's decision on the abandonment of the Trunkline pipeline 2013, they concurred
with the points made by ET at that time that, in fact, current pipeline infrastructure in the
state could already meet Michigan's needs. And they also pointed out that those that
argued that there was a future for conversion from coal plants to natural gas plants was
at that point merely speculative and should not be part of their consideration.
AD55
FERC needs to take a close look at the route through Michigan. It involves several
watersheds, including the River Raisin, the Heron River, the Flint River, Clinton River,
and St. Clair River.
AD56
The route also runs through areas close to the Irish Hills here in Lenawee County, the
Pinckney State Recreation area in Washtenaw and Livingston County, Metamora-Hadley
State recreation area, Ortonville State recreation area, Sutherland Nature Center in
Genesee County.
AD57
FERC should also take into account situations where the pipeline may be running
through areas that have conservation easements, or agreements with agencies such as
Fish and Wildlife Service for contracts of resource conservation, make sure that those
are not affected.
AD58
FERC should estimate the greenhouse gas impacts of methane leakage from pipeline
and compressor stations, transmission being the largest source of methane leakage
from the natural gas industry.
12 of 15
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Purpose and
Need
RR1
Purpose and
Need
(Trunkline
abandonment)
RR1
Watersheds
RR2
Recreation
RR8
Conservation
Easements
RR8
Air Emissions
(methane)
RR9
January 2015

Commenter
Nancy Shiffler
Nancy Shiffler
Scott Robbins
Michigan Forest Products
Council
John Ford

AD59
FERC should consider the potential environmental impacts of increased used of
hydraulic fracturing in the Marcellus region as a result of the new markets that the
industry is targeting, including increased impacts on air and water quality and on public
health.
AD60
Safety issues are of paramount concern, particularly, when you look at for a pipeline of
this diameter. The area -- the radius of impact if there is an accident runs about 1,100
feet and in some cases the setbacks from homes and other structures can be 2, 300
feet, and that is posing a potential risk for local landowners. And I think landowners are
rightly concerned about the impact on their property values, access to mortgages and
insurance out of all that.
AD61
Our organization works to promote, protect, and sustain a vibrate forest industry in the
State of Michigan, and many of our members are property owners. We're here to voice
our support for the proposed Rover natural gas pipeline. We do so because it's a
promising opportunity for Michigan landowners, an important boost to our infrastructure,
and an investment from a company committed to working with landowners and at the
same protecting the environment and the natural resources.
AD62
I have done considerable research, and I've found that this pipeline and its costs is
unnecessary. I have found that our country has only 14 years of gas production left, not
the 100 years the gas industry would have you believe. This 14 years could be much
less if we export our gas overseas as the industry wants us to do, to spend billions of
dollars on pipeline infrastructure only to have them empty in 14 years or so is a very
short-sighted, expensive mistake.
13 of 15
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Hydraulic
fracturing
RR1
Safety
RR11
Purpose and
Need
RR1
Purpose and
Need
RR1
January 2015

Commenter
Frank Munsell
Frank Munsell
Frank Munsell
Frank Munsell
Keith Bennett

AD63
We started out, my granddad did in 1905 with 160 acres and now we have over 1,100
acres, same location. We already have a 42-inch Vector natural gas line that crosses
our property. We have a 30-inch Enbridge crude oil that crosses our property. The
Vector line right now is running 1,200 pounds of pressure designed to go to 2,200
pounds of pressure, which would increase capacity by 125 percent. Now, we're at the
point where they want to run the new Rover line on the east portion of our farming
operation. I don't want another pipeline. I didn't want the three that we've got there now.
I certainly don't want any more.
AD64
This line that we're talking is perpetual. It's not for 50 years. It's not for It's not for 150
years. It's forever. So, I just can't understand why we need more lines if we've got a line
already installed, which I don't want in the first place, but it is there. Let's increase the
capacity of that line to the 2,200 pounds of operating pressure.
AD65
The operating engineers can put a safe line in, but we've had four integrity digs on our
farm because the pipe has rotted out. A high pressure, natural gas line is a
concussionary bomb.
AD66
I don't see that there's any shortage of gas; but yet, by the same token we've got this line
running through our operation in which we could certainly use natural gas to dry 500
acres of corn, but, oh, it's not a gas line for us. It's for the company in the Pennsylvania
to go to Canada. So, we still end up buying propane to dry our corn.
AD67
I've been to a few of these meetings now, and the one word that I keep hearing is
"temporary" - temporary jobs. There's a temporary amount of gas, but it's going to be a
permanent impact on my woods, my farm, my neighbors, all their wood lines, different
ponds and stuff that these guys are going to cross. And these guys that are getting jobs
out of it, that's great, but it's temporary.
14 of 15
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Alternatives
(use existing
pipelines)
RR10
Reliability
RR11
Safety
RR11
Purpose
RR1
Jobs
RR5
January 2015

Commenter
1 Resource Report (RR) where comment is addressed:

Resource Report 1
Project Description
Resource Report 2
Water Use and Quality
Resource Report 3
Vegetation and Wildlife
Resource Report 4
Cultural Resources
Resource Report 5
Socioeconomics
Resource Report 6
Geological Resources
Resource Report 7
Resource Report 8
Resource Report 9
Resource Report 10
Resource Report 11
15 of 15
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Soils
Land Use, Recreation, and Aesthetics
Air Quality and Noise
Alternatives
Reliability and Safety
January 2015

Scoping Meeting Held in Cadiz, Ohio on November 19, 2014
Commenter
John Morgan
Terrie Berkie
Beverly Riddle
Beverly Riddle
Beverly Riddle
Beau Buton
Vice President
Membership, Ohio
Chamber of Commerce
Beau Buton
Vice President
Membership, Ohio
Chamber of Commerce

CA-1
Statistics showed that on average of 6% of new Shale gas wells have compromised
structural integrity notably failures of the cement mixture between the bore hole and the
casing, allowing methane and other contaminants to migrate in the atmosphere. The
failure rate increases as well cage reaching 50% in as few as 17 years.
CA-2
We don't have a local fire department, the emergency services. So I know there's a
certain amount of risk that the pipeline -- that this will change emergency services and
public things for the county.
CA-3
Stream crossings, woodland protection, nutrient management and -- programs to
improve the productivity of the land and protect the land from water. These practices
should be protected.
CA-4
I worked in Belmont County on behalf of the Soil & Water Conservation District in
farmers when the Rex Pipeline went through Belmont County. The pipeline cut through
spring elements and water sources which rerouted the water or destroyed the water
table. Animals are dependent on water, and much of land has limited sources of water.
CA-5
My concern is that grass and pastures and forests be treated the same as cropland and
classified as agriculture barriers.
CA-6
To fully utilize and reduce potential, however, we need an effective means of
transportation. Pipelines such as the Rover Pipeline will create opportunity and energy
sector for increased development, and will also impact any other businesses in Ohio.
CA-7
The Rover Pipeline will create as many as 10,000 immediate local construction jobs and
spur an estimated 4.3 billion of investment in the state and local economies.
Indirectly, the pipeline will increase the need for goods and services all along its length
during construct phase benefitting small business from manufacturers to restaurants to
hotels and hardware stores.
1 of 6
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Emissions from
gas wells
RR1
Emergency
Services
RR5, RR11
Stream
Crossings
RR1, RR2
Protection of
Water
Resources
RR2
Protection of
land
RR3, RR8
Energy
Development
RR1
Economic
Benefits
(Jobs,
Investments)
RR5
January 2015

Commenter
Jennifer Cline
President of the Ohio
Chemistry Technology
Council
Carolyn Harding
Carolyn Harding
Carolyn Harding
Dave Ledonne
Mark West Energy
Partners
Leatra Harper
Leatra Harper

CA-8
The chemical industry relies on access to important energy resources such as natural
gas. Natural gas drives chemical production for our state and helps create jobs.
With the abundance of natural gas production here in Ohio and neighboring West
Virginia and Pennsylvania we had the opportunity to expand our access to those
resources and increase chemical production here at home.
CA-9
I'm concerned about the safety that was just one man that died last week connected with
the pipelines in Ohio. I'm also concerned -- I know that Nationwide Insurance will not
insure land that has hydraulic fracture because it's too risky. I'm wondering what the
insurance situation will be for the landowners and farmers had on a pipeline going
through them.
CA-10
I'm wondering the value of the property, our property will go down.
CA-11
I'm very concerned if I don't want to sign. If I don't want the pipeline to come through my
land, what will happen to me?
CA-12
We'd like to express our opinion on behalf of the pipelines like the proposed Rover
Pipeline that these projects are critical to transportation natural gas, not only for existing
markets, but the new markets for the State of Ohio and the United States.
CA-13
I came here because I feel like I could swim in the water, but this industry, this [fracking]
industry and pipeline with support is highly unregulated and it's temporary passing
industry that has been actually put there and chemicals in the air and it's upside-down
because we have to prove that that industry contaminate our water, contaminate our air
and made us sick.
CA-14
Now, compressor stations that go with these pipelines. They are volatile compounds.
And now we're just mentioning those kinds of emissions.
2 of 6
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Purpose and
Need
RR1
Safety
RR11
Property Value
RR5, RR8
Eminent
Domain
RR1
Purpose and
Need
RR1
Water and Air

Impacts
RR2, RR9
Air Emissions
RR9
January 2015

Commenter
Leatra Harper
Leatra Harper
George Lenzie
International Union Work
America
George Lenzie
International Union Work
America
Eric Wright
Operating Engineers
Union
Jimmy Stewart
President, Ohio Gas
Association
Jimmy Stewart
President, Ohio Gas
Association

CA-15
Concerned with the detrimental impacts to property values.
CA-16
People don't understand water impacts. It takes over 5 million gallons of water on
average to factor being that and it's the story.
CA-17
The Rover Pipeline will be built with local union labor, create 10,000 immediate local
construction jobs, providing 4.3 billion dollars investment.
CA-18
It will contribute nearly 1 billion in direct spending in the U.S economy and 76% of the
pipefitting will be manufactured here in the United States. In addition, the majority of the
remaining material will be purchased, manufactured or assembled in the United States
including area compressor and manufactured in Mt. Vernon, Ohio. The Rover Pipeline
will also generate 9 to 10 million dollars in Harrison County for taxes per year. It will
immediately affect 1,500 men and women in our local area.
CA-19
The Rover Pipeline project is critical to Ohio and the region. The pipeline will generate
almost 20 million dollars in property tax revenue alone. The project will create
thousands of good quality construction jobs that provide retirement, security, health care
and high wages to the skilled workers who will build the pipeline.
CA-20
In the short term, the Rover Pipeline will create up to 10,000 construction jobs in the
region. It'll generate 100 million dollars in direct payments to landowners and generate
significant additional benefit to Ohio companies building for pipeline combinations
themselves.
CA21
Long term the pipeline will provide affordable and reliable gas supplies through
electricity, heating and other manufacture units right here in Ohio through take-off
points in the Northwest portion of the state.
3 of 6
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Property
Values
RR5
Water Impacts
RR2
Jobs
RR5
Economic
Benefits
RR5
Jobs,
Economic
Benefits
RR5
Jobs,
Economic
Benefits
RR5
Purpose and
Need
RR1
January 2015

Commenter
Bob Hendricks
James Waynekerr
Jerry Ryan
Pipeline Welders Union
Local 798
Mark Wilson
President of Land
Stewards
Edward Derst
Edward Derst

CA22
There's our work force to consider. We went out, put the job fairs together and 60% of
the people couldn't pass a drug test. A lot of those people that couldn't pass a drug test
before couldn't get a job because there was no job. They cut fire wood, they hung
drywall, they done whatever they did. Now they've got something to live for.
CA23
Do you plan on placing the topsoil back over the pipeline and the construction area?
What are you going to require when crossing prime agriculture land and wetlands? Do
you use soil survey maps in planning and locating prime agriculture lands? Do you
require extra conservation measures on modern and steep and very steep slopes? It is
important that our primarily lands be preserved and not damaged.
CA24
The Rover Pipeline project will not only produce the local economies during construction,
but for years to come when using best value or union contractors.
CA25
Rover has retained Land Stewards to help minimize impacts on land from pipeline
construction. We'll function much like an ombudsman. We will have a role in most
cases of advocating for the landowner, advocating for the land. Our mission is simple
and that is to do what's right for the land, to care for that land and ensure that it has longterm productivity.
CA26
In my opinion these [pipeline and compressor stations] should be located away from
populations and peoples' places. They ought to be away from people for the risk factors,
all the other construction and noise, the road problems, everything that comes with it.
CA27
They've got safety checks and tell you about the safety and everything, but I've seen two
pipelines blow up in my lifetime that went through that area, between two, three miles
from where I live.
4 of 6
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Jobs
RR5
Impacts to soils
RR1, RR7
Jobs,
Economic
Benefits
RR5
Land
productivity
RR7
Alternatives
(site away from
populated
areas)
RR10
Safety
RR11
January 2015

Commenter
Edward Derst
Thomas Shaw
Thomas Shaw
Edward Hill
Phillip Wallace
Fire Fighters Local 798
Carolyn Hardin

CA28
It has made a big impact on the environment. The noise level, the, all of it. When they
came in they said bear with us till the construction phase is over and you'll never know
we're here. All you got to do is open your eyes and your ears.
CA29
I read about the possibility of eminent domain, if you don't agree with your settlement,
that's probably a one-time payment, there's never any more money for the landowner.
CA30
The loss of premature timber is not retrievable. Really after the pipeline was installed,
the use of the property is really maybe hay or honey at the most.
CA31
The economic benefits are huge, a $153,000,000.00 a year in annual taxes to the
communities that this pipeline transgresses. That along with the wages and the things
that will be paid during construction of the pipeline and the products that they build that
they committed to purchase that they're going to be made in the United States goes well
with the overall positive impact that the project will have on the communities, any in the
country for that matter.
CA32
Rover Pipeline is badly needed to transfer natural gas from Marcellus and Utica gas field
to the markets across the north, across the northeast states to be distributed for heating
the homes, to fuel as power generator stations, transportation and maybe other uses for
this chief abundant and clean burning energy, and that's most important, it is clean
burning energy.
CA33
I went to a workshop on seismic incidents due to shale gas drilling development which is
earthquakes, and it was crowded. All of these gentlemen and women really wanted to
know because it's making them very nervous. Oklahoma had 4,000 seismic incidents
this last year, and two years ago they didn't have hardly any. Just last week in Kansas
there was a 4.5. These are directly connected and injection wells.
5 of 6
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Noise
RR9
Eminent
Domain
RR1, RR5
Economic
Impact to
Property
Owner
RR5, RR8
Economic
Benefits
RR5
Purpose and
Need
RR1
Earthquakes
from Fracking
RR1
January 2015

Commenter
Mark Umarkurbank
Subject
CA34
So what really needs to be discussed are the benefits or pitfalls of either doing it by
pipeline, by train, by tanker truck or by barge which is the most economic. Which is the
best as far as ecology: driving a semi down the road in a tanker truck with 7000 gallons
of liquid natural gas, or trains with 30,000 gallons per railroad car with trains going
through our cities.

Resource Report 1
Project Description
Resource Report 2
Resource Report 3
Resource Report 4
Cultural Resources
Resource Report 5
Socioeconomics
Resource Report 6
Resource Report 7
Resource Report 8
Resource Report 9
Resource Report 10
Resource Report 11
6 of 6
Alternatives
(pipeline vrs
train/truck
transport)
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
RR10
Soils
Alternatives
January 2015

Scoping Meeting Held in Chelsea, Michigan on November 20, 2014
Commenter
Greg Gillette
Greg Gillette
Sandra Hamilton Tilly

(on behalf of my mother,
Shirley Roller)
Shirley Roller)

Shirley Roller)
John Bulick

CH-1
The farm that we own also is in production, and the proposed pipeline goes through 38
of our acres. We do not farm it ourselves, we rent it and have for many years. The
pipeline is proposed to go diagonally through a 24-acre hay field, at this point it's going
into oats, from what I understand, but it would totally cut off the entire field. The other
part of the pipeline goes across Beach Road and goes across the entrance to a
cornfield presently. [Also noted: land agent issues]
CH-2
We have been good stewards of our land for over 100 years. To have someone come
and say we need your land doesn't make sense to us.
CH-3
It seems to me that the bulk of it is going to Canada, so we don't really have any idea of
the necessity and the common good for them to go through and rape our wooded land,
and this area is very proud of their wooded property.
CH-4
Putting a 42-inch pipe through these woods, you aren't going to replace those hardwood
trees. On our property you are not going to be able to replace those old apple trees or
the new apple trees that are used to produce cider. And the question is for how long
will the gas be going through this pipeline? At some point this pipeline will probably be
abandoned and we will be left with a woods that no longer was the woods we knew and
we grew up with.
CH-5
We are also concerned in regards to the safety as far as how often is this pipeline going
to be checked? We are considered a Class 4, which I understand because we're a rural
area that the welds may not be checked as often, and maybe I need to be enlightened
on that.
CH-6
My understanding is Canada has not even requested it. DTE and Consumers Power,
our major suppliers, have not requested it, they have their own sources. So I question
the need. [Also noted: eminent domain concerns.]
1 of 14
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Purpose and
Need (land
agent concerns)
&
Agriculture
RR 1, RR7
Purpose, Need
and Eminent
Domain
RR1
Purpose and
Need
RR1
Trees &
Operating Life of
Pipeline (Future
Use)
RR1, RR3,
RR5
Safety
RR11
Purpose, Need
and Eminent
Domain
RR1
January 2015

Commenter
Don Laier
Lima Township as the
Trustee.
Don Laier
Lima Township as the
Trustee.
Pamela Riggs Maturo
Pamela Riggs Maturo
Pamela Riggs Maturo
Pamela Riggs Maturo
Pamela Riggs Maturo

CH-7
We got all of this wear and tear on the roads. It's going to cost our county a lot of
money. We're going to have to have existing road repair. It's going to be a safety
hazard for school buses, and one thing or another, and we do not want to tolerate this at
all. [Also noted: land agent issues.]
CH-8
Many farmers here have big investments. They got underground drainage, they got tile
lines.
CH-9
The proposed pipeline would go through my pasture land rendering it unusable from the
onset of construction until completion of restoration. We are trying to organically raise
grass fed sheep on the property. And so we rely on that pasture to feed our sheep
during the summer months. [Also noted: land agent issues.]
CH-10
In addition, I have trees on that pasture land. The proposed pipeline runs right down
the middle of a dozen mature trees that my animals use for shelter during the summer
months. If those trees are not there, they're gone, they come in, they run in for shelter,
and you may laugh, but you know what that means is me scooping poop for I don't
know how many years, so that results in increased labor on my part, and I can
guarantee Rover's not going to take that into consideration. [Also noted sons treehouse
in path of pipeline].
CH-11
I also hunt in that area. Last year I put three deer in my freezer. This year I have two
and I'm expecting more. How will that be impacted?
CH-12
Further, as I get older and I'm not able to farm this land for myself, my adjacent property
through which the pipeline will be going through is my retirement investment. It's a
piece of property that's developable. It's a separate lot. Putting a pipeline through that
takes that away, it's gone, and how am I going to recover from that?
CH-13
We all have safety concerns as well. I have not been able to get an answer from ET
Rover about what the potential impact radius of this pipeline is.
2 of 14
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Land Agents,
Local Costs and
Road Repair &
Safety
RR1, RR5,
R11
Agriculture,
Tiles
RR7
Land Agents
and Agricultural
Impact During
Construction
RR1, RR7
Trees, Tree
Housee
RR3, RR10
Hunting
RR3, RR8
Future Plans
RR8
Safety
RR11
January 2015

Commenter
Pamela Riggs Maturo
Pamela Riggs Maturo
Karl Klement
Christina Snyder
Christina Snyder

CH-14
Everyone talks of the safety of this pipeline, and I really tried to make it through 6 49
CFR 192.103, but I'll tell you it's really long. I tried to figure out whether my house
would be in a Class 1, Class 2, Class 3 location, and I can't figure that out. I also can't
figure out how that would impact the safety of my family. How often will that pipeline be
checked based on the classification of my property? How thick will be the pipe be
based on the classification of my property? And if anyone can answer those questions
for me, I'd really appreciate it.
CH-15
So I challenge FERC, and I also challenge our representatives in the State of Michigan
to please look ahead and look toward our issue of energy needs within the State of
Michigan before we approve a pipeline that's going to be transporting energy outside
of the United States. [Also noted: eminent domain issues.]
CH-16
One of my main concerns environmentally speaking is the fact that all pipes generate
vibration, okay. As a pipe -- fluid flows through any pipe, vibration is created. How
much will that affect nearby homes? Okay. Myself, I am very sensitive to sound. Will
this vibration affect me?
CH-17
It seems to me that looking at the pipeline in isolation is a very serious problem because
this pipeline is enabling far more environmental damage than just the pipeline project
itself. What it's doing is making new markets available to all the places where there's a
fracking gold rush going on. There's -- throughout Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana the
shale gas is being harvested by fracking, and it -- what passes through the pipeline may
be clean, but those fracking chemicals are not.
CH-18
They site that there is a market in Michigan for some of the natural gas that they plan to
move through this pipeline, but I put to you that whatever natural gas expansion in the
market they're citing could probably -- we could probably meet those needs far cheaper
by simply doing conservation measures on existing buildings that are using the gas for
heating. [Also noted: eminent domain issues]
3 of 14
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Safety
RR11
Purpose, Need
and Eminent
Domain
RR1
Vibration and
sound
RR9
Need and
Fracking
RR1
Need and
Eminent Domain
RR1
January 2015

Commenter
Kelly Belknap
Kelly Belknap
Kelly Belknap
Kelly Belknap
Kelly Belknap

CH-19
We question the necessity of this pipeline coming through the State of Michigan. [AND
land agent issues]
CH-20
From my home and from some of my neighbors' homes that are sitting here, there's a
corridor owned by ET Transfer a mile, about 1.10 miles east of us. I have not seen
where there has been any consideration of using that existing corridor. I'm not saying
the pipe that's in it, because they say, no, we can't use that because it's not big enough
because they want to put a super highway in, but the existing corridor is not being
considered at least within Washtenaw County. That is the Panhandle Eastern Pipeline
owned by Sunoco that they just purchased.
CH21
I also argue the necessity because there is another pipeline that is being proposed,
Nexus, which is a partnership with Enbridge, DTE Energy of Michigan, and the Ohio
Energy Company that has already stated that when they enter Michigan, they will be
using existing corridors which I have been able to identify, and they will be connecting to
existing pipeline in Ypsilanti area, Washtenaw County, eastern part of this county.
CH22
FERC has siting requirements that requires the proposed pipeline to consider
alternative routes. We have not seen their proposed -- their preferred and alternative
routes, we have seen no consideration of alternative routes. We've seen no
consideration of using existing corridors in Washtenaw County. There is one, it's a mile
east of my home and my neighbor's home. [Also noted: eminent domain issues.]
CH23
FERC's siting requirements say avoid wetlands, scenic and recreation lands. The
current proposed cross through recognized DNR wetlands on our property, takes out
woods, which we've been told they would not replace the trees, they will pay us for
them, that's nice, but they would cut down our woods, crossing diagonal on our
property. Is that meeting the siting requirements of FERC?
4 of 14
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Need and Land

Agents
RR1
Alternatives
RR10
Need
RR1
Eminent Domain
and Alternatives
RR1, RR10
Trees,Wetlands,
Scenic &
Recreational
Lands
RR 3, RR8
January 2015

Commenter
David Daniel
(Representing Jean
Littlefield Daniel Trust)
David Daniel
(Representing Jean
David Daniel
(Representing Jean
Brian Dever
Brian Dever
Brian Dever
Timothy Timoszyk
Manchester Township

CH24
It should be enough if a man or a woman says that they do not want this company to
seize their property, that should be enough of a compelling reason for you to consider
an alternative. [Also noted: eminent domain issues.]
CH25
Necessity and convenience? What criteria do you use?
CH26
The greatest threat to biodiversity in this nation is habitat fragmentation, degradation, or
destruction.
CH27
We just want to be left alone. We just want our land. [Eminent Domain and Land Agent
issues]
CH28
My wife is scared to death of this pipeline. It's going to be well within whatever blast
zone -- they're only about 400 feet behind my house. She's informed me that we're
moving, that she -- if this goes through, you know, we're moving. She does not feel
safe raising our children there, and I can't say as I blame her.
CH29
It's ironic that most of our rural community is heated with propane here, so I'm going to
have 3.5 billion cubic feet going through where my woods used to be, but I'm still paying
4 bucks a gallon for propane, it's a little hard to handle. [Also noted:If all of this were for
some community purpose, I guess I could get on board.]
CH30
It just so happens that this pipeline that they're proposing goes right through that swath
of trees, so every single stick between when I look outside my living room to M52 will be
gone.
5 of 14
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Alternatives (to
eminent
domain)
RR1, RR10
Need
RR1
Vegetation and
Wildlife
RR3
Need, Eminent
Dommain
RR1
Safety
RR11
Need
RR1
Trees and
Aesthetics
RR3, RR8
January 2015

Commenter
Timothy Timoszyk
Manchester Township
Susan Smirk
Biology professor &
Member of the
Committee to Ban
Fracking in Michigan
Susan Smirk
Biology professor &
Member of the
Committee to Ban
Susan Smirk
Biology professor &
Member of the
Committee to Ban
Susan Smirk
Biology professor &
Member of the
Committee to Ban
Susan Smirk
Biology professor &
Member of the
Committee to Ban

CH31
Secondly, this pipeline will be, by my approximation, less than 120 feet from my home.
That makes me a little uncomfortable. I'm losing sleep over this, the fact that I hear
everything from 660 feet is a kill zone, and I love it when they say that it's a kill zone,
apparently I'll never know it happened, to a quarter mile. [Also noted: land agent
issues.]
CH32
I'm just wondering how much research you people have actually done on the ground as
to the consequences that has happened to our United States since about 2008 when
fracking occurred in Pennsylvania. Do you know that all of the wells, now, I know this is
the pipeline, but where is this coming from are the wells, so the fracking wells are most
definitely a huge part of the big picture here.
CH33
And they say it's safe? It's not safe.
CH34
Are any local workers going to be hired? Is it all the benefit of out-of-state? [Also noted :
Eminent Domain issues.]
CH35
What's wrong with solar, wind, and water? There's plenty of it. Why does it have to be
natural gas? Why do you even think about putting an infrastructure for something that
is not sustainable that causes climate change?
CH36
Now, I'm assuming that some of this gas coming from Pennsylvania is from the
Marcellus Shale. Please do your research. I just learned two days ago, that gas is
highly, highly radioactive, okay.
6 of 14
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Safety, Land
Agent
Communication
RR1, RR11
Fracking
RR1
Safety
RR11
Jobs, Eminent
Domain
RR1, RR5
Energy
Alternatives
RR10
Health Hazard
RR9
January 2015

Commenter
Bill Black
Legislative Director
Michigan Teamsters
Bill Black
Michigan Teamsters
Amanda Sumeris
Council
Amanda Sumeris
Council
Gary Wolfran
Economist

CH37
Rover would provide an important and affordable new supply for natural gas to energy
intensive industries and in automotive, glass, metal, castings, chemical industries, pulp,
paper, and many other key industries in this state. And working families in Michigan are
going to fully benefit from this energy boom.
CH38
And in the short-term, and this is very important, because I heard some comments
earlier today, building Rover will provide over 10,000 construction jobs with a cost of
over 1 billion dollars paid to workers in Michigan. Michigan workers -CH39
For land owners, the multi-billion dollar investment from Rover will provide
over $100 million in direct payments to land owners along the route, an important
economic opportunity for those seeking to develop their individual property rights. For
our economy, the pipeline will create new jobs both in our state and across the Great
Lakes region and provide consumers and businesses in Michigan with the first direct
linkage to the vast natural gas reserves of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.
CH40
The company's efforts to limit impacts to conservation land to less than 3 percent of the
pipeline route is just one example of their good faith efforts to protect Michigan land.
CH41
If you look at the Michigan House of Representatives Subcommittee on Natural Gas in
April of 2012 concluded, quote, "That new gas pipelines will be needed in Michigan to
receive larger volumes of natural gas to not bottleneck flow and to minimize pipeline
transport costs."
7 of 14
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Socioeconomics
(Positive impact
to Industry)
RR5
Construction
Jobs
RR5
Socioeconomic
Impacts
(Positive)
RR5
Vegetation and
Wildlife
(Conservation
Land)
RR3
Need
RR1
January 2015

Commenter
Gary Wolfran
Economist
Gary Wolfran
Economist
Richard Turner
Richard Turner
Dan Minton
Laborers Local 499
Dan Minton
Laborers Local 499

CH42
Natural gas produces about half the amount of CO2 emissions that coal does per unit
of BTU of energy, so there's going to be an increased demand for natural gas to replace
coal. Now, this is particularly important in Michigan since about 55 percent of our
electricity generation is coming from coal, so there will be likely a movement away from
coal fired power plants, as one of the other speakers talked about, and towards natural
gas combined cycle power plants, and this is going to create a substantial increase in
demand for natural gas in particular in Michigan.
CH43
So, in summary, I'd just like to say that the Rover Pipeline will be a significant factor in
improving Michigan's economy and environment.
CH44
Don't forget that the construction craft laborers and other building trades built your
schools, hospitals, water and sewage plants, your roads, your power plants, water and
sewer systems that we use every day. That's why we need to support them now. They
need these jobs that will be provided by the construction of the Rover Pipeline to survive
and be able to continue to provide their needed services in the future.
CH45
We want to build this project right because we live here, too.
CH46
You know, we have 1,500 members in my local union. I'd say probably close to 20
percent of them are still out of work. We need these jobs to get them going back,
produce money to get back in the economy.
CH47
However, these jobs are very well needed and to be done with safe, you know, our
training centers here tonight, you know, we have some of the most highly trained
laborers in the country, our instructors are ANSI certified, so please consider this.
8 of 14
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Climate
Change, Air
Quality
RR91
Economic
RR5
Jobs
RR5
Safety
RR11
Jobs
RR5
Jobs and Safety
RR5, RR11
January 2015

Commenter
Lee Graham
Local 324
Lee Graham
Local 324
Chad Lynch,
Local 324
John Hartwell
Local 324
Brandon Durbin
Aerial Corporation

CH48
We instruct our apprentices and our journeymen on safety classes with respect to
operating the heavy equipment on construction jobs. Our annual training budget is $4.2
million, and our training and education our past several years we've averaged well over
250 classes annually. We the skilled trades responsible for the pipeline construction
pride ourselves on having the most advanced training.
CH49
I am speaking today to express the support for the proposed Rover Pipeline. Local
union workers will be put to work building this pipeline. Across the entire route more
than 10,000 jobs will be created in the short-term during this construction. This project
would bring Michigan long-term, low-cost natural gas to heat our homes and to help
boost our businesses.
CH50
These pipelines will create a lot of jobs for our members and our citizens of the State of
Michigan and these counties in Southern Michigan. I just wanted to get up here and
express to you to consider supporting this project for the people of the State of
Michigan.
CH51
I'm here tonight to speak in favor of the Rover Pipeline. I'm also a resident of one of the
communities that are going to be affected by the pipeline. It's going to come right
through our area. What I would like to speak to is our apprentices and our journey
people that live along the pipeline and in the communities, also. We spend our money
there, we're raising our children there, our children are attending the schools there,
we're a part of the community.
CH52
The Rover Pipeline will use Aerial compressors to transport this gas where it can be
sold on the open market bringing revenue back into the states it runs through including
Michigan. Aerial Corporation is a manufacturer of reciprocating compressors with
locations in Mount Vernon and Akron, Ohio. We employ over 1,800 people between our
six main manufacturing facilities in Mount Vernon and our Akron campus. [Also noted:
In total, we use about 75 Midwest suppliers employing over 5,000 people.]
9 of 14
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Safety
RR11
Jobs and
Socioeconomic
Benefits
RR5
Jobs
RR5
Jobs and Safety
RR5, RR11
Jobs
RR5
January 2015

Commenter
Ken Simonson
Chief Economist
Associated General
Aaron Auten
Robert Wilds
Robert Wilds
Robert Wilds
Robert Wilds

CH53
Estimates done five years ago for AGC of America by Professor Stephen Fuller of
George Mason University, one of the nation's most foremost regional economists, found
that for every billion dollars spent on nonresidential construction, there were two jobs
created outside of construction and nearly 10,000 jobs in construction. So the impact of
building this pipeline will go far beyond the workers who are hired to put the pipeline in
place. So building this pipeline will not only create construction jobs during the period
that is put in place, but will have follow-on effects that will be very important for
construction and for a variety of industries, consumers, and utilities here in Michigan.
CH54
Working union pays my bills. This pipeline will bring financial support to me for the next
couple years.
CH55
An interstate pipeline is the most heavily safety and environmentally regulated method
of transportation of a product there is. To transport the product via railway or via
highway would not only put the general public in harm's way but maybe our children and
grandchildren that are on these very highways where these trucks would have to be or
in these towns where the railways travel through.
CH56
As far as the young lady asking about the welds, all welds are x-rayed or ultrasound. It
is in the CFR 49 code regulations, 195, 192. 195 talks about gas, liquids. 192 talks
about the natural gas, okay.
CH57
As far as the coal power plants being shut down, how can they be converted over to
natural gas if there's no pipeline going through the area. They're not going to build
natural gas power plants or convert coal power plants over to natural gas if there's not
availability of gas.
CH58
Safety issues, DOT regulates a pipeline, the coating, the integrity of the pipe, the
amount of cover on it, the padding on it, it's all done because the safety of the general
public, safety and welfare of the general public and for the environment.
10 of 14
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Jobs and
Socioeconomic
Impacts
RR5
Jobs
RR5
Safety
RR11
Safety
RR11
Air Quality
RR9
Safety
RR11
January 2015

Commenter
Ray Kasmark
(IBEW)
CH59
Our members are career electricians, pipe fitters, laborers, operating engineers,
Teamsters. So this pipeline will bring opportunity for years to come for the huge supply
of clean natural gas available. Economic development follows that. There's a lot of
resources here along this pipeline that will be to the benefit of everybody in the
community.
CH60
I want to urge you to approve and to approve and move forward with the proposed
Rover Pipeline. The project would join a growing network of pipelines connecting
American energy with American consumers and businesses helping reduce our
dependence on foreign oil and bolstering American production. Fundamentally I
support this project because it will create jobs in Michigan.
CH61
Union brothers and all the trades will bring professional pipeline workers to Energy
Transfer to get the Rover Pipeline built safely and on time with the best craftsmanship in
the world.
CH62
Rover Pipeline is badly needed to transport natural gas from the Marcellus and Utica
gas fields to the markets across the northeast states to be distributed for heating
homes, to fuel gas fired power generating plants, transportation, and many other uses
for this cheap, abundant, and clean burning energy. And the best thing, it's ours. It's
not imported from foreign countries where our young military men and women are
fighting and dying every day.
CH63
We do all the gas distribution for the entire State of Michigan and the entire State of
Ohio, and there are some gathering points here in Michigan which tells me a lot of this
gas is going right back to farm taps to run your dryers, your houses, to heat your house,
and that's where we take off when they deodorize the system, that's where the
distribution people take over. 798 takes care of the main line, but, again, there's a lot of
jobs here created, and hopefully you see fit to push this forward.
CH64
This job here will create revenue for my family, for my children, for my grandchildren.
Tim Hutchins
IBEW Local 252,
Phillip Wallace
Local 798
Phillip Wallace
Local 798
Kevin Groeb,
Mike Kuhl
11 of 14
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Jobs and
Socioeconomics
RR5
Socioeconomics
and Jobs
RR5
Safety and Jobs
RR5, RR11
Need and
Socioeconomics
RR1, RR11
Need and Jobs
RR1, RR11
Jobs
RR5
January 2015

Commenter
Scott McDonald
Brandon Hawkins
Local 499
Jason Geer
Director of Energy
Environmental Policy for
the Michigan Chamber of
Commerce
Mark Wilson
Land Stewards
David Garmenn

CH65
The bottom line is, and I'm speaking to the homeowners, if these crews end up on your
property, you're going to have the best trained, most professional, safest trades
people in the country on your property, and certainly we respect you, we respect your
concerns, we hold no ill will towards you, this is not you on one side, us on
another, we are your neighbors, we're also fishermen, we're also hunters, and certainly
us being here is not to intimidate.
CH66
I do support my family doing this. This pipeline is going to be a good thing for us. We
do work ourselves out of jobs, it's what we do, but that's how we choose to make our
living. We have operators and Teamsters and welders, and everybody needs to work.
We're not here against land owners. The pipeline runs through some of my family's
property, it's just, it is what it is, and we need to work together, and I push for this
pipeline, and that's all I have to say.
CH67
The Michigan Chamber of Commerce strongly supports the proposed Rover Pipeline
and urges the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission diligently and efficiently in its
approval for this project. The Michigan Chamber promotes conditions favorable to job
creation and business growth, and we believe the Rover Pipeline Project will benefit
Michigan's economy and help keep Michigan moving forward. It is estimated that the
pipeline will create 10,000 jobs and 13.4 million in annual tax revenue for Michigan.
CH68
I would like the record to reflect that I'm here tonight and would like to speak with any
land owners that are still in the audience.
CH69
So we got two things going on. We've got economics, and it makes sense, I get the
need for the pipeline, certainly get the need for the work. What I don't understand is the
rest of us, the farmers are put in a bottle to feed the world..[notes pipelines visible
aerially in farm fields so despite efforts effects to topsoil]. If you want these people
to work, then make them lay some more miles of pipeline, make them run along the
right-of-ways along the roads, along existing places, but don't come across the farm
land when you don't have to.
12 of 14
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Safety and
Environment
RR11, RR3
Jobs
RR5
Socioeconomics
RR5
Lands and
Landowners
RR1, RR8
Soils, and
Alternatives
RR7, RR10
January 2015

Commenter
David Garmenn
David Garmenn
Earl Horning

CH70
I also, I've been through multiple meetings and listened to and went to all the stops on
their previous format, and I still fail to see how we're all going to benefit directly with the
availability of the natural gas. I've heard people make those comments, I just haven't
seen the proof. And I'd really like to see the proof.
CH71
And, lastly, when I was at these other meetings, I brought up a request specifically, and
I'll be honest, this is a selfish one, but for the farmers, why can't we put a tap into this
line, if you're going to run it across my land, then part of that negotiation should be to be
able to put a tap in the line so I can dry my corn and dry my beans at a cheaper rate,
but they damn near threw me out when I brought that up the last time.
CH72
I've had pipelines on my property for 60-plus years. There's Panhandle Eastern,
Consumers Energy, there's Wolverine, there's Enbridge, there's a whole group of
pipelines across my land at this time. And what this gentleman just brought out I think is
very, very important, that the pipelines need to consider where they put their lines in
relation to the land they use, because once they've done it, it's only one time, once
they're there, we can't change, we can't go sell it off for development or we can't sell it
for some other improvement or change in what we do. So, therefore, it's very important
where this all ends up and where it works. I've had natural gas at my farm for 50 years,
very, very important to my business, very cheap energy, but how it got there and what it
did, it was lines that came back in the 40s. Those lines have been -- some of them
have been very minimal as far as the maintenance and upkeep of them, but others of
them have been terrible[AND] I challenge these groups of people to meet with the
agricultural industry to improve their skills as far as where they work and how they
return the soil to the things that they need.
13 of 14
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Availability of
Natural Gas
(Distribution
Level)
RR1
Access to
Natural Gas for
farms
RR1, RR11
Future Use of
Land, and
Operational
Maintenance
RR1, RR8
January 2015

Commenter
Mr. Kimball

CH73
I want to communicate what it feels like to be a land owner just briefly. For those of us
that own acreage, for those of us that are farmers, the land is more than just crop fields
and swamps and forests. For most of us, it's how we earn our living, it's where we
make the money to keep a roof over our head. For those of us that hunt, it's where we
get food to feed our family every year, and for most of us it's how we recreate. We're
not going to spend the evening with our feet up. A lot of times we're going to go work in
the workshop or take a walk through the woods or check on the animals in the fields.
And so when you talk about building a pipeline across a portion of my land, it's not just
that you're cutting through a piece of pasture, it's that you are taking what I work every
day to keep -- it's that -- it's that you're taking what I hope to pass on to my family.

Resource Report 1
Project Description
Resource Report 2
Resource Report 3
Resource Report 4
Cultural Resources
Resource Report 5
Socioeconomics
Resource Report 6
Resource Report 7
Resource Report 8
Resource Report 9
Resource Report 10
Resource Report 11
14 of 14
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Land Impacts
RR8
Soils
Alternatives
January 2015

Scoping Meeting Held in Defiance, Ohio on December 2, 2014
Commenter
Bob Armstrong
James Meyer
James Meyer
James Meyer
James Meyer
James Meyer

DE-1
One of the things that was talked about was jobs. They're temporary jobs called, but our
area that has a lot of people that are in construction that follow those types of temporary
jobs. They mean revenue for those people. They mean revenue for our city, for our
county. I think it's important that we realize that the word "part-time" is what those
people are looking for. They're looking for like if you're building a school or if you're
building a road, or if you're building something like that that calls for crews of people.
DE-2
My farm has been in the same family for three generations, and I want it to be as
productive when this project is completed, if it is completed, as it was before the project
takes place.
DE-3
The first is the proposed pipeline goes through my timberland, my woods. And in the
opinion of the Ohio State Forester and the Defiance County Soil and Water my woods is
a wetlands.
DE-4
This proposed project will also impact my ability to graze and market timber because that
is my crop on that woods, resulting in the land being of little or no value to me, to my
descendants, and forever on the permanent right-of-way 'cause I cannot grow trees.
DE-5
My second concern is about the ecology survey that was conducted. And my
understanding the purpose of that survey was to see how the proposed project would
impact the environment, and I cannot see how it was able to do that. The survey was
conducted in September, the first of September, a 7-foot tall, the beams are in 7-1/2-inch
rows, waist high, full leaves, and I can't see how they could even see the ground let
alone any artifacts. Maybe this survey needs to be done again.
DE-6
Not to mention the fact they did not even wait for my permission to enter my property,
was not even given notice so I could be present to monitor what they were doing on my
own property.
1 of 11
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Jobs, tax
revenues,
economic
benefits
RR5
Agricultural
impacts
RR
Vegetation,
wetlands
RR2, RR3
Vegetation,
loss of
business
RR3, RR5
Environmental
survey
RR2, RR4
Permission to
survey
RR1
January 2015

Commenter
James Meyer
James Meyer
James Meyer
Rob Riddick
Rob Riddick
Rob Riddick
Rob Riddick

DE-7
In fact, over the last few years the price of farmland around here has increased to about
8 to $10,000, and I'm just afraid that this is going to have an impact, a negative impact
upon the value of my property.
DE-8
The project is a valued part of my draining system because we need to remember we're
in the middle of the great black swamp that was the last evolved part of Ohio because of
the drainage problem.
DE-9
Also, our concern was that the dips, settling of the ground. In modern agriculture, as
equipment becomes larger and wider, levelness is very, very, very important because of
no tilling and harvesting and so forth.
DE-10
I have concern that the accelerated pace of this process may cause many of the details
pertinent to a proper assessment in installation to be overlooked. The initial survey
crew, as Mr. Meyer mentioned, not only forced their presence upon us, they didn't even
ask any of the details which are pertinent to any of applicable property.
DE-11
It is difficult to imagine such an evasive process as the installation of this pipeline would
not have a negative impact on the quality and productivity of that natural resource.
DE-12
Each farm is systematically tile drained all within the last 10 to 20 years. The proposed
pipeline lies perpendicular to a natural flow of water in this area, and it will present a very
formidable challenge in remediation and repair. I would ask, as a minimum requirement,
that repair and remediation be consistent with the standards established by contractors
and on file with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources.
DE-13
I'd also ask that such practices be installed by local contractors familiar with local
standards and whose reputations are at risk. As well, and very importantly in my
estimation, in many instances a very slight modification in pipeline routing would result in
considerably less damage to the farms and their respective drainage tile systems.
2 of 11
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Property values
RR5
Drainage tiles
RR2, RR7
Agricultural
impacts
RR7
Surveys
RR1
Agricultural
impacts
RR7
Drainage tiles,
compensation
RR5, RR7
Drainage tiles
RR1, RR7
January 2015

Commenter
Jerry Haze
Ben Polasek
Ben Polasek
Ben Polasek
Ben Polasek
Ben Polasek

DE-14
I have a part-time job in the far land, but I would ask all of us to consider that there is a
reward at the end of this, and that is economic investment and jobs for northwest Ohio,
utilization of Ohio's natural resources, and a more prosperous future for our families.
DE-15
The first issue I would like to address is the detrimental impact this project will have on
the production of our agriculture land. As this area was once the great black swamp,
complex drainage systems are required to ensure productivity of the farmland.
DE-16
Damage to this underground drainage infrastructure will require a great deal of redesign,
repair and planning to allow it to continue working properly. I'm concerned how ET
Rover will compensate and remediate this damage and issues caused to properties
which are not even directly passed through by the pipeline.
DE-17
Homeowners in the area have much of their drainage systems interconnected to this
agricultural drainage system. They may experience things such as backup breach
systems, flooded basements, and yards aren't able to drain. Although they have no
direct relationship with ET Rover, therefore, they will most likely blame the farmer for
this problem. I feel it is critical that all issues to affected property owners be
compensated and rectified by ET Rover even if Rover does not require a direct
easement to pass through their property.
DE-18
The second issue I would like to address is that of the damage to the soil infrastructure
due to the disturbance and compaction.
DE-19
As the first subcontractor land agents approached us several months ago, requesting
survey permission, it was presented as give us permission or else. We're going to come
on anyway. We asked several times for notification if they were going to come out and
did not receive it. There was no concern for the timing of the survey. We explained to
the land agents our concerns that you cannot conduct this survey with our crops growing
in the land.
3 of 11
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Economic
benefits
RR5
Agricultural
impacts
RR7
Drainage tiles,
compensation
RR1, RR7
Drainage
systems,
compensation
RR5, RR7
Soil quality
RR7
Permission to
survey
RR1
January 2015

Commenter
Leatra Harper
Leatra Harper
Leatra Harper
Leatra Harper
Leatra Harper
Leatra Harper
Terry Lodge

DE-20
The Chamber of Commerce I've noticed that they promote the fracking and its
infrastructure, and yet, they seem to ignore the other industries, especially, you know,
agriculture, which is so vitally important to Ohio's economy and recreation and tourism,
which will be affected by all this.
DE-21
Why would anyone support the fracking industry that's destroying our water and polluting
our air when the gas is not really for us?
DE-22
And we know this is not the only 42-inch pipeline coming through Ohio. There's also the
Nexus, and I believe there's a third one.
DE-23
So, and then the huge amount of acreage that is taken over by this industry and a
cumulative affect I think that Rover was about 4,200 acres. And how are people going to
be compensated for this in the long run when their land is taken into perpetuity and what
kind of recourse would they have if there is subsidence or there's any kind of remediation
that needs to take place once the pipeline's put in?
DE-24
The EIS is supposed to look at the cumulative impacts of a pipeline. Does it look at all
the compressor stations that are along the way and what's going to happen to the air
around Defiance, Ohio when this hub is expanded because we know that there are toxic
chemicals released into the air from fracking gas and its production?
DE-25
So, eminent domain, I go back to that because it's supposed to be for the public good,
but I see no way that this is for the public good, and we're going to have to take a stand
against this however we can.
DE-26
I think that that's a vital first step to provide an assurance to the public that there is some
integrity and some objectivity being maintained by the agency because FERC is
notorious for what I call, having done a lot of NEPA litigation, quick and dirty
environmental impact statement type work.
4 of 11
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Fracking,
agriculture,
recreation
RR1, RR7,
RR8
Fracking
RR1
Cumulative
impacts
RR1
Cumulative
impacts,
compensation
RR1, RR5
Cumulative
impacts, air
quality, fracking
RR1, RR9
Eminent
domain,
benefits
RR1
Reliability
RR11
January 2015

Commenter
Terry Lodge
Terry Lodge
Terry Lodge
Terry Lodge
Lisa Kochheiser
Lisa Kochheiser

DE-27
There are cumulative effects and induced effects that will be produced by building large
volume pipelines, such as this. Therefore, for scoping purposes it's very necessary for
there to be serious, objective quantification of the environmental damage that will be
done by the fracking drilling industry, which, incidentally, owns or will own or has options
to purchase portions of the pipeline company itself.
DE-28
There will also be affects such as inadvertent industrial accidents causing leaks of
methane, which is, of course, a very potent, climate change gas.
DE-29
Also, for scoping purposes there needs to be some serious inquiry into alternatives to a
pipeline, not just wiggling a few colored lines around on a map, not just avoiding a farm
or a woods, but whether it should be built at all. The No-Build alternative is statutorily
something which must be covered. And in this day and age, this No-Build alternative is
all of the competition from other energy sources that is going to ultimately undermine the
need to continue to frack.
DE-30
The fact is that fracking creates a waste stream of enormous proportions compared to
conventional oil and gas drilling, which is unfortunately creating its own employment
opportunities because fracking wastes are legally allowed to be disposed of in any of
Ohio's 39 sanitary landfills.
DE-31
First, my first geologic concern is the shallow Trenton limestone karst formation of this
area is not a safe foundation for such a high-pressure piece of equipment, especially,
when there is a major fault line called the Bowling Green Fault running the entire length
of Wood County where there will be not only one major pipeline, but at least two. What
happens to nearby residents if a seismic event destabilizes the already unstable karst
geology and damages the pipeline?
DE-32
Another geologic concern is that the ground underneath Wood County is riddled with
tens of thousands of abandoned oil wells, many of them have unknown locations. What
will happen when pipeline construction hits unknown abandoned oil wells?
5 of 11
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Cumulative
impacts
RR1
Air quality
RR9
Alternatives
RR10
Fracking
RR1
Geological
impacts
RR6
Geological
impacts
RR6
January 2015

Commenter
Lisa Kochheiser
Lisa Kochheiser
Lisa Kochheiser
Ray Kasmark
Ray Kasmark
Terry Langley
Terry Langley

DE-33
I'm also concerned about the surface waters of northwest Ohio. Land disruption in this
region, which is 90 percent agricultural land use, will cause a higher rate of runoff
leading to sedimentation and increased contamination in the western basin of Lake Erie.
DE-34
The purpose of Energy Transfer's Rover Pipeline Project is to move domestic natural
gas out of the country. If it were meant to benefit people here in Ohio, it wouldn't be
going to Canada.
DE-35
I have a socioeconomic concern about this project as well. Why is this industry allowed
to take their product to market through our communities and why do they have a special
governmental agency to help them pave the way?
DE-36
It's about the opportunities that are opened up after the construction of this pipeline, not
just the one job. Our members look forward and relish the opportunity to work in their
community and build it.
DE-37
Finally, natural gas is America's chance to bridge the future towards renewable energy.
DE-38
This project will impact close to 750 of our members and families that live within a 100
radius of this area of this project who these people -- of this project who spend their
hard-earned wages in each of their communities for food, clothing, gas, and everything
else that we have to do in an everyday life.
DE-39
We need to build an energy infrastructure for all the natural gas. If we don't, we are not
leaving our kids anything to build on for their future. Where would we be in this country if
75 years ago we wouldn't built the highway and interstate system that we have today?
The same goes for energy in this country. We need pipelines.
6 of 11
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Water quality
RR2
Purpose and
Need
RR1
Purpose and
Need
RR1
Jobs
RR5
Purpose and
Need
RR1
Jobs
RR5
Purpose and
Need
RR1
January 2015

Commenter
Bill Box
Kevin McComas
Kevin McComas
Curtis Johnson
Curtis Johnson
Curtis Johnson
Mark Wilson
President, Land
Stewards

DE-40
It's the most important, and I'm here to represent and speak on behalf of this pipeline. I
hope it goes through, and I hope no ill will comes from any impact, but everyone needs
jobs.
DE-41
Sun Gas Canada, like Rover representatives stated, 80 percent is going to be for use in
America. This helps stimulate commerce. I can't see where it can't do anything but help.
DE-42
The number of workers in the pipeline industry will be supported by this pipeline, and
that's about all I have to say.
DE-43
I'd heard areas where pipelines had gone through and the drainage systems were
damaged and the soil could never be restored to its prior level of fertility and health.
DE-44
In the mile road that I live on, at one time there were seven bridges and now there's one.
These areas have all been closed up with tile. When these tiles are cut off, it will affect
drainage for several farms away that the pipeline is not even going through, and how
would this damage be handled by the Rover Company?
DE-45
As you look at this company's request for this project, I would ask would you please keep
in mind that while energy is an important resource for America, so is the business of
growing America's food.
DE-46
In summary, by working together, by establishing an open and honest and trusting
communication line, and most importantly, by building trust we will be able to identify and
protect and properly restore the existing drainage infrastructure, existing drainage
systems. And by doing that, we'll begin the process of returning that land to its long-term
productivity goals.
7 of 11
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Jobs
RR5
Purpose and
Need
RR1
Jobs
RR5
Soil quality,
drainage
RR7
Drainage
RR7
Purpose and
Need
RR1
Agricultural
impacts,
drainage tiles
RR7
January 2015

Commenter
Clark Emmons
Chesterfield Township
Trustee
Clark Emmons
Trustee
Clark Emmons
Trustee
Clark Emmons
Trustee
Clark Emmons
Trustee
Clark Emmons
Trustee

DE-47
First, as far as the environmental impact, our first and foremost concern is the safety of
our residents. As a real township, we are forced to contract for our first responders by
our EMS. We are concerned about who will be training and providing specialized
equipment in the case of a construction injury, accident, or God forbid, an explosion in
the first.
DE-48
Secondly, my concern is for the potential township infrastructure damage during
construction. The proposed pipeline will be running through our entire township from
north to south, and will be crossing at every mile of Township Road that's not designed
for heavy equipment or large volumes of heavy equipment.
DE-49
And second to that is the drainage that will be required or that must be maintained to
allow those roads to stay sound enough to carry our residents and this heavy equipment,
so that's my concerns. They are roads and drainage, as far as township infrastructure.
DE-50
As a landowner whose property will be intersected by the pipeline as well, my first and
foremost concern is a 1.5 million gallon manure pond that will be within about 100 feet of
the proposed pipeline.
DE-51
Secondly, the location of the proposed pipeline is within about 200, 250 feet of
approximately 500 highly productive milking cows, growing female heifers and growing
steers. It's extremely important to milk every eight hours. It's extremely important not to
have loud, disruptive environment. And I see large equipment, 3, 15, 20, 30, 100 guys
welding, pounding, banging -- I don't know how they're built and I do respect the people
that would be building them, because I'm positive they're professionals, but I have a
direct concern for the safety and the productivity of my cows.
DE-52
The second concern I have as far as the location of the pipeline is my sons and their
heirs' ability to continue in the dairy business.
8 of 11
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Safety,
emergency
personnel
RR11
Construction
impacts, road
impacts
RR1, RR5
Road impacts,
drainage
RR5
Siting, property
damage
RR1
Siting, loss of
business
RR1
Loss of
business
RR1
January 2015

Commenter
Clark Emmons
Trustee
Mark Watchman
Mark Watchman
Mark Watchman
Mark Watchman
Robert Wilds
Robert Wilds

DE-53
The fourth concern I have with the pipeline being that close to dairy cows is the potential
for stray voltage. I'm not an electrician, so I don't know how stray voltage exactly could
potentially move through pipeline, but I know for a fact that stray voltage is a killer on
cows.
DE-54
First, is on the impacts of clearing forested area. The current route cuts through a
woods that I currently own. The route, from my understanding, would not be allowed to
have trees replanted on that and returned to its current state. I would be expecting to be
compensated to the degree in which multiple lifetimes of logging will be lost.
DE-55
Second, the current impacts on land use for agriculture use and drainage systems
associated with said land. The depth and width of the proposed gas line will take
multiple years to settle. What happens and who and/or whom is responsible for the -- if
the repaired tile lines become inoperable three, five, ten years after installation?
DE-56
The top one is the topsoil in which our crops primary source is located and it's 6- to 9inches deep. Will this land be removed and replaced separately? We also have a
second layer, referred to the B horizon. This is a layer in which drainage tile resides.
Compaction of this layer will result into little or no performance of our said drainage tile.
Will this also be removed and replaced separately?
DE-57
The third area of concern is the integrity of the pipeline and its affiliated companies.
DE-58
One, for the environmental, I've stated this before; a pipeline is the safest and most
environmentally friendliest way to transport a product.
DE-59
I understand pipeline and I live in the heart of the Marcellus or southwestern
Pennsylvania, and I can tell you the industry that has moved in and created jobs for
people other -- and not what's so-called temporary jobs, which I've done for 28 years in
construction, but these with industry.
9 of 11
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Safety
RR11
Vegetation
RR3
Agricultural
impacts,
drainage
RR2, RR7
Soil quality
RR7
Reliability
RR11
Safety
RR11
Jobs
RR5
January 2015

Commenter
Paulette Bresler
Paulette Bresler
Paulette Bresler
Paulette Bresler
Paulette Bresler
Paulette Bresler
Sherri Fleming

DE-60
A portion of the property was placed in the Conservation Reserve Program of the United
States Department of Agriculture. It continues in that program at the present time.
DE-61
Our first objection to the Rover Pipeline is based on the fact that the route of the pipeline
will run diagonally through the property, and thus, cut through every tile in its path. We
do not want the pipeline at all, but if we are required to deal with it, we insist that the
route be parallel to the tile system rather than diagonally across the property.
DE-62
The result of compaction on the soil is also of great concern to us. Installation of two
pipes 20 feet apart will create a huge amount of damage to the soil that we have taken
great pains to care for. In addition, the compaction will diminish the productivity of the
farmland as will any soil temperature anomalies due to the passage of the product
through the pipeline.
DE-63
The second objection we have to the pipeline is the loss of property value in the event of
sale of the property.
DE-64
The third reason we are opposed to the pipeline is that there will be no benefit to the
citizens of the local residents since there's no plan for decompression so that natural gas
can be utilized by anyone until it reaches the area for export in Canada.
DE-65
My other concern is what happens if 20, 40 years down the road the amount of natural
gas being produced peters out like it did when we had the oil boom in Wood County,
Ohio?
DE-66
And so I guess I just wonder from you, as an agency, how do you deal with this when
landowners have had negative experiences and feel like that the surveys being done
weren't done adequately or correctly? Do you require those to be redone, and who
decides what is adequate?
10 of 11
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Conservation
area
RR8
Drainage tiles
RR7
Soil quality,
Agricultural
impacts
RR7
Property values
RR5
Purpose and
Need
RR1
Reliability
RR11
Survey process
RR1
January 2015

Commenter
Brent Wofasso
Brent Wofasso

DE-67
The pipeline, historically, is the safest, cleanest and greenest method of transport over
all of the other methods.
DE-68
The more energy we have available on the market the cheaper it gets; and with the
cheaper energy you have more industries moving into the area where that energy is
cheaper. And the more businesses that move here the more jobs we have. Ultimately,
that's union and non-union jobs, which raises the boat for everybody.

Resource Report 1
Project Description
Resource Report 2
Resource Report 3
Resource Report 4
Cultural Resources
Resource Report 5
Socioeconomics
Resource Report 6
Resource Report 7
Resource Report 8
Resource Report 9
Resource Report 10
Resource Report 11
11 of 11
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Safety
RR11
Economic
benefits
RR5
Soils
Alternatives
January 2015

Scoping Meeting Held in Flint, Michigan on December 10, 2014
Commenter
Linda Barber
Linda Barber
Linda Barber
Rebecca Fedewa
Executive Director Flint
River Watershed
Coalition
Issue/Concern
FL-1
I live in the southern part of Lapeer County, an area of spectacular beauty, peace and
quiet. I have many concerns about safety issues. More than 500 residences of Berrien
County in Southwest Michigan were evacuated from their homes when a TransCanada
pipeline between 24 and 30 inches ruptured. I was at a meeting at Lapeer Township
Hall where the ex-Mayor, Bruce Smith attended the meeting and spoke about the
devastation caused when a 30-inch Enbridge line ruptured. I have also heard about the
natural gas pipeline in Virginia last year that damaged or destroyed one hundred
homes. This was from a much smaller line.
FL-2
I understand that there is no odor to the gas and no warning if a leak were to occur.
What happens to all the promises made by E.T. Rover maintenance if they sell this line
to another company and why did they sell a prior line to Enbridge not that long ago.
FL-3
I am concerned about our emergency services in Lapeer County already stretched to
the max. Who will pay for the loss of my property value? Who will buy my house or
property when a 42-inch unprecedented line runs on my property or next to it? I am in
the buffer zone. Will E.T. Rover seize my house? What about my rights? I had been
told by my township supervisor my taxes will not go down. How is this fair? E.T. Rover
gets to disfigure our land, creates a major safety issue and we get to pay the taxes.
FL-4
The Flint River Watershed Coalition promotes efforts to protect, preserve and improve
our area's ecosystems. The proposed pipeline route runs through the headwater
regions of the Flint River Watershed and affects six sub-watersheds These subwatersheds contain wetland features that provide critical ecological services such as
floodwater storage, filtration or sediments and nutrients and critical and sometimes rare
habitat for aquatic and terrestrial wildlife. For example, Crusely Creek is the only cool
water stream system in the region and supports a vibrant and lucrative trout fishery
supported by the Michigan D&R.
1 of 23
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed 1
Safety
RR11
Operations
RR1
Emergency
Services,
Property Value,
Taxes
RR5
Water, Fishery
Resources
RR2, RR3
January 2015

Commenter
Rebecca Fedewa
River Watershed
Coalition
Rebecca Fedewa
River Watershed
Coalition
Mark Cornwell
Amanda Sumerix
Michigan Forest Council
Issue/Concern
FL-5
The project could also could undo years of hard work and partnership and financial
investment to protect, preserve and improve the Flint River Watershed. Investments
include, but are not limited to: investment by the state to stock the streams with fish,
additional state investments in Section 319 grants which include planning grants for the
South Branch, Swartz Creek and Crusely Creek as well as implementation grants in the
South Branch. Federal investments through the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and
the Swartz and Crusely Creek watershed and countless local efforts by the restoration
of those areas.
FL-6
Regarding public necessity and convenience, we don't believe that there is a need or a
purpose for an additional pipeline nor is there a public benefit for the people of the State
of Michigan and the residents of Flint River Watershed. Between 2008 and 2013, the
U.S. Energy and Information Administration asserted that Michigan has far more
underground natural gas storage capacity than any other state, representing
approximately 12% of the nation's overall storage capacity. In fact, Michigan supplies
natural gas to neighboring states during high demand winter months.
FL-7
As a township trustee for Hadley Township and a 13-year planning Commissioner. My
concern is that we hold our citizens in our community to standards in protecting our
natural resources, in particular protecting wetlands ordinances. To allow some outside
person and entity, a corporation from Texas or wherever, to come in and circumvent the
rules that we hold our own citizens feet to the fire, to protect our resources just is not
fair.
FL-8
We are here today to voice our support for the proposed Rover Natural Gas Pipeline.
We do so because it is a promising opportunity for Michigan landowners, an important
boost to our infrastructure in an investment from a company committed to working with
landowners and protecting Michigan's environment and natural resources.
2 of 23
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed 1
Water, Fishery
Resources
RR2, RR3
Purpose and
Need
RR1
Wetlands
RR2
Purpose
(infrastructure)
RR1
January 2015

Commenter
Amanda Sumerix
Michigan Forest Council
Robert Kaplan
Jocelyn Scofield
Issue/Concern
FL-9
We are also confident that the pipeline will be built to the most stringent environmental
standards following guidelines set by this body and other federal regulatory agencies.
We are confident of the Rover Project's ability to do right by Michigan property owners.
Many people had voiced concerns over the way they were treated by subsidiaries of
Energy Transfer. We understand that Energy Transfer has acknowledged these
instances and has taken measures to avoid them in the future. We have been pleased
with Energy Transfer Partners commitment to responsible construction practices. Their
decision to utilize experienced local labor and construction and their efforts with
landowners to minimize impacts and fully restore impacted land.
FL-10
I got a booklet in the mailbox and it said we are E.T. Rover, could we please survey
your property. I never got any phone calls, nothing, no certified letter, no registered
letters so I figured it was not even coming near me. It is just probably maybe some
other county or something. I go into my township and I ask them what is going on and
they said "Oh, we have maps now" which are actually out of the newspaper. I happen
to look and it is going right across my road and it is a quarter mile from my house. E.T.
Rover has been had a proposal through Oakland County and again, it is like I am just
stating rumors and what I hear, but it was too costly and effected too many people to go
through Oakland County. To me that doesn't seem like a justifiable reason for it to come
through Lapeer Country, or Genesee just because it is going to move people or is too
costly for the company or whatever the reason may be.
FL-11
I was about the only person that I knew that was not against this project. I was trying to
be open-minded. We all enjoy benefits in America, somebody had to give up something
along the way. My problem is has become I do not feel comfortable with dealing with
the Rover Pipeline. I have met some terribly polite young men but generally I feel like I
am being run over by a juggernaut, that a meeting of this kind is a bit of a charade and I
am sorry about that but that is the way it is
3 of 23
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed 1
Construction
Procedures
RR1
Alternatives
RR10
General
--
January 2015

Commenter
Norman Nicklas
Janice Rivard
Kelly Sexton
Issue/Concern
FL-12
Since about 1975, the federal government has spent 1.6 billion dollars cleaning up the
Saginaw Bay, Flint Watershed, Clinton River Watershed and that is a lot of money, b
with a billion. I was lucky enough to be on the conservation board of Lapeer County for
15 years and can't tell you the countless hours people spent, not being paid, cleaning
up streams no wider than this podium, putting buffer strips in along drainage ditches,
planting trees, countless hours of people cleaning up our water. Now we have trout, we
have got walleye, we have got beautiful water and you know, I look at this pipeline. I
don't know how they can put it back. There is one and a half cubic yards of dirt for every
one-foot of that pipe displaced. I don't see the greater good here and my neighbors. We
cleaned up our state and we want to keep it that way. I think there is not enough man
power to watch these people when this project starts and they get started ripping
through our forests, filter forests and streams. Who is going to watch them? Michigan
doesn't have the manpower. They don't have the manpower to watch us now.
FL-13
This pipeline is going to cross 80 acres of my property on a diagonal. There are two
areas that will be crossed: one will be a stand of hardwood that has been there from 70
to 100 years old, the other is a wetland. This land has been in my family for 70 years. I
know what it was like when we got there and what it is like now and it has not changed
one bit. I question how Rover can come in, open up 150 foot strip of land, lay the
pipeline and return it to its original condition. It is impossible. The filtering, it is going to
affect the filtering of this land, the watershed will be disrupted.
FL-14
Rover plans to traverse through about one-third of my entire parcel, rendering almost
four acres of it useless for development in the future. We have the ITC corridor which is
one mile to the north of us and I am asking that you request that Rover talk to those
individuals about trying to lay this pipe down the already existing easement. We have
provided an alternate route to them also and we are told that it is not a viable option but
it affects ten or so less than the original route.
4 of 23
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed 1
Purpose and
Need, Surface
Water
Resources
RR1, RR2
Forest, Water
Resources
RR2, RR3
Alternatives
RR10
January 2015

Commenter
Kelly Sexton
Bill Black
Michigan Teamsters
Lloyd Lewis
Susan Hendricks
Issue/Concern
FL-15
I have some real issues with the certificate of public convenience being issued because
this pipeline, east of Shiawassee County does not benefit anyone.
FL-16
Rover will provide an important, affordable, new supply of natural gas to energy
intensive industries such as automotive, glass, metal casting, chemical industries, pulp,
paper and many other industries. If working families in Michigan are going to fully
benefit from the U.S. energy boom, we need to get more of that energy to our state.
Rover will bring that to our doorsteps and in the short term, Rover will provide over
10,000 construction jobs in Michigan with some one billion dollars paid to workers and
contractors. Most importantly, the work will be done by skilled, experienced union
contractors that employ local Michigan workers. Energy Transfer is committed to doing
this work according to the highest safety and quality standards, ensuring natural gas will
be brought in by skillful and qualified Michiganders. You might not know this but
Michigan has more underground natural gas storage capacity, 1.1 trillion cubic feet,
than any other state in the nation. The reason you do not hear much about this in
Michigan, its existing natural gas infrastructure, is because it is so interwoven into our
daily lives, operating safely and efficiently day in and day out. Energy is the life blood of
Michigan's economy and the Rover Pipeline will inject new life into this economy.
FL-17
I am here to support the Rover Project in the Flint area. The Rover Pipeline will create
many needed jobs in the area, motels will get more business in that area, restaurants
will have more business and the hardware stores will do a lot better business too. We
have a lot of members that live in this area that look forward to the work and the city
and the counties will get tax revenue from the project and from the Rover Pipeline too.
FL-18
I am a landowner in Southern Genesee County. I live in an area with huge amounts of
wetlands. My water is well water and though they see my well is deeper than that, this
water filters through from all the other wetlands. You cannot damage one wetland
without damaging the others. They are all interconnected. I think the pipeline is
unneeded. It is putting my area at risk and to no actual benefit to myself.
5 of 23
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed 1
Purpose and
Need
RR1
Purpose and
Need
RR1
Jobs, Economy
RR5
Water
Resources
RR2
January 2015

Commenter
Tamra Hartwig
Tamra Hartwig
Tamra Hartwig
Tamra Hartwig
Issue/Concern
FL-19
We are 4th generation farmers. We will be having an unfortunate impact from this ET
Rover Pipeline - about a half a mile of our property, actually. My experience with
pipelines is that productivity is never the same over those areas. There is a parallel
pipeline to this property in the right of way. Crops have never grown well on top of the
right of way, whether it is corn, soybeans or potatoes. The difference in corn averages
about 2 feet in height, shorter than the rest of the crop in the field.
FL-20
According to an article in Cyber Health for Organic Farmers, disrupting a no-till farm's
soil structure with its relationship of bacteria and fungi can do severe damage,
sometimes with irreversible effects. If you are not familiar with no-till farming, it is the
process of not disturbing the ground. It has been also noted that in addition to less
fertile soil, the heated flow or the gas that is floating through the pipeline creates heat
which dries out crucial moisture in the soil during the growing season, stressing crops
quicker in dry periods. The difference in corn height again would be clearly visible for
those growing corn. We also have crops of soybeans, wheat and hay. What happens
is that if you are drying out the soil, the crop does not mature properly, does not grow
properly. The yield is not there. Also, sometimes it melts the snow faster as well and
there again creating faster crop growth, more maturity quicker and the rest of the field
has not caught up.
FL21
Many farmers put tiles in their property to drain the water and excess water out.
Drainage tiles have been painstakingly laid according to grid and pattern tiling of fields.
Once disrupted and damaged by the construction of the pipeline corridor they cannot be
replaced accordingly. This will cause an environmental headache for farmers because
excess water will not properly be directed away. How can financial compensation be for
this? The three years that they are eluding to give for crop damage or low/slow crop
isn't going to take place, is not going to effectively benefit when this goes on for years
and years and years.
FL22
We do have other alternatives. We have state property south of us that this corridor
can go through with no landowner issues.
6 of 23
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed 1
Agriculture
(production)
RR7
Agriculture
(no till farming)
RR7
Agriculture
(drain tiles)
RR7
Alternatives
RR10
January 2015

Commenter
Ken Abeare
Alon Marie
Alon Marie
Chris Bunch
Six Rivers Land
Conservancy
Issue/Concern
FL23
We have all heard several people here mention our water systems and our wildlife, our
natural resources that Rover will damage. There is no doubt about it. There is no way
they cannot damage it.
FL24
Here in Michigan we have one of the largest water resources in the entire world, 20% of
the world's fresh water is sitting right here around us. That's just counting the Great
Lakes. That is not counting all the rivers, ponds, wetlands, lakes, smaller lakes within
our state. So if you live here in Michigan this affects you. None of you, none of us want
this in our yard and that is the way we need to see this. It is our yard, Michigan is our
yard. It is our water. It isn't about making a buck off of a short-term job. It isn't about I
want to say to the companies or the jobs or the people in Pennsylvania that you know, I
don't want you to make your living but we have got to start looking at our water.
FL25
I think this meeting was confusing because I think a couple of the Rover people here
kind of led us to believe that we would be able to hook up to it, where at every other
meeting I had been to we didn't get the idea we would get any benefit or any possibility
of hooking up. This was just a pathway to go to Canada and we were all going to lose
our property values over a pathway.
FL26
We have a 538-acre parcel that this pipeline is proposed to go right through the middle
of. It is a nature preserve that was acquired a little over a year ago. It is very important
to us and we are very concerned about the impacts to the property. We are very
grateful to the folks at Rover for their willingness to work with us and adjusting the path
of the pipeline through the property should it actually come to be, but of course we
would prefer not to have the pipeline through the property at all.
7 of 23
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed 1
Water
Resources,
Wildlife
RR2, RR3
Water
Resources
RR2
Purpose
RR1
Conservation
Land
RR8
January 2015

Commenter
Chris Bunch
Six Rivers Land
Conservancy
Shane Mooney
Shane Mooney
Issue/Concern
FL27
We understand there is another proposed pipeline project that is in the wings and you
probably are already somewhat aware of that. Some adjustments to the Vector Pipeline
that is already in existence and a proposed pipeline that is in the actualization process
and that pipeline will serve as basically the same constituencies. Those pipelines look
to go through existing right-of-ways so what we hope is that as you go through this
evaluation process you will evaluate these in parallel and see if you cannot ensure that
all of the transmission needs are focused in one right of way, specifically the one that
already exists. If you can put the pipeline in the existing right-of-way then you cut the
environmental impact in half or more because you avoided a significant amount of
damage and that of course will serve our most important selfish purpose, which is
keeping it out of the Lost Lake Nature Preserve.
FL28
Recent Michigan studies show that by simply fixing our roads, 15,000 long-term jobs
would be created. A study by the Michigan Energy Conservancy Forum concluded that
by continuing the current Michigan Energy Efficiency Program, and increasing the
state's renewable energy requirements to 20% by 2025 would add another 100,000
jobs and 10 billion in economic activity to Michigan. This is not about local jobs for this
pipeline. We can see that these energy initiatives by our own governor and our own
legislative bodies will increase economic activity without this pipeline.
FL29
Even with additional plant retirements, coal plant retirements, higher energy efficiencies
and renewable energy requirements in Michigan will be able to negate the need for
more natural gas for electrical generation, building and water heating. Michigan already
has considerable gas pipeline inflow and outflow capacity with considerable existing
capacity to and from Ontario. There are at least 5 gas pipelines between Michigan and
Ontario. DTE is planning their own Nexus pipeline which will serve Michigan and
Canada. Michigan has its own large natural gas reserve as mentioned earlier in the
atrium and Utica Collingwood fields and Michigan has more underground natural gas
storage than any other state in the nation with over one trillion feet of capacity again,
8 of 23
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed 1
Alternatives
RR10
Economy
RR5
Purpose and
Need
RR1
January 2015

Commenter
Shane Mooney
Shane Mooney
Brigham McCown
Brigham McCown
Issue/Concern
FL30
Locally, placing a high-pressure, 42-inch pipeline within 300 feet of a community, of
homes, in Holly Township, Michigan, North Oakland County with no captan, which is a
foul-smelling gas chemical that is put in there to signal a leak is dangerous and
irresponsible. For a citizen not to be able to recognize a sign of failure and rely strictly
on man-made components to signal a failure in a pipeline is irresponsible.
FL31
If this pipeline should be permitted by the FERC, it should be moved to existing utility
right-of-ways of which exist south of Holly Township and other areas which should not
impact our neighbors to the west of us in Livingston County, Fenton Township or to the
East of us, Groveland or Holly, uh Groveland or Atlas Township.
FL32
I am the former head of the Federal Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety
Administration. That is the federal agency responsible for ensuring pipeline safety
across our country. I am often asked to comment on new infrastructure projects and my
response is that we must continually support new projects. Why? Because continued
investment in state-of-the-art infrastructure is in fact necessary to support our economy
and our way of life, whether it be roads, bridges or pipelines we all count upon the safe
and efficient movement of goods, services and even ourselves from point a to b.
Pipelines are also the safest of transportation options our country has when it comes to
transporting these products.
FL33
One point worth making tonight, Rover is a natural gas pipeline, not a crude oil pipeline.
In the unlikely event of a release, there is no spill. Comparing Marshall Michigan to this
project is comparing apples to oranges. When we speak of Methane concerns, let us
keep in mind that a brand new pipeline is preferred over an older one.
9 of 23
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed 1
Safety
RR11
Alternatives
RR10
Purpose and
Need
RR1
Safety
RR11
January 2015

Commenter
Brigham McCown
Dan Husted
Laborers Local 1075
James Rubel
Issue/Concern
FL34
Without new infrastructure, our goods and services will have a harder time getting to
market. Unfortunately that is exactly what some desire. Make no mistake about it,
failure to invest in new infrastructure not only costs us all money, it means we have to
rely on older and less efficient infrastructure. Safely transporting energy to market
knows no political ideology and our current transportation safety record is unparalleled
in the world. Do we have spills? Yes. Can we do better? Yes. Can we do without
pipelines? The answer is no. That said, the failure to invest in new infrastructure is
actually even more impactful. It ultimately makes us less safe. Such actions undermine
the environment. They don't enhance the environment. They rob us of productivity,
time and quality of life.
FL35
I represent 600-700 labor members that work along if this pipeline goes, for the
counties, which is Shiawassee, Genesee, Lapeer and St. Clair County. We take people
from our communities and we send them to three of the top training schools around.
We have one in Wayne County, we have one in Perry, we have one in the UP at no
cost to them. People that need jobs, we bring them in, we send them over. We train
them on how to put these pipelines in and how to do it safely. We really need to create
the jobs for the community for the people and this pipeline going through will do that. It
is not 187 jobs, it is a lot of jobs. So am I in favor of this pipeline? Absolutely.
FL36
I am a trainer and also an evaluator for pipeline employees and I would like to reiterate
the safety that is incorporated into the construction of pipelines throughout the state of
Michigan and basically the country. As of 2002, the federal government mandated that
all employees that work on the pipeline are LQ qualified, operator qualified, so they are
aware of the hazards on the job plus they are able to react to abnormal operating
conditions such that if an employee is going to directly affect the integrity of a pipeline,
the government states that they have to be certified to perform that task or be
supervised by somebody that is certified through the course of evaluation to perform
that task.
10 of 23
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed 1
Purpose and
Need
RR1
Jobs
RR5
Safety
RR11
January 2015

Commenter
James Rubel
Kevin Groeb
Local 190
Kevin Groeb
Local 190
Kevin Groeb
Local 190
Kevin Groeb
Local 190
Issue/Concern
FL37
Once installed, there is a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System that
monitors the pipeline while it is in use from a remote location so in cases of emergency,
they can remotely shut down the system. That system basically monitors the flow in,
the flow out, the pressure, multiple idiosyncrasies of that line so if there are any
problems whatsoever they can remotely shut that line down. Then, the owner/operator
is required to maintain cathodic protection for the life of that pipeline. Cathodic
protection inhibits the rate of corrosion. We need pipelines. I mean, that is our energy.
Our energy consumption is not decreasing. It is increasing.
FL38
Building this critical new energy highway is vital to our economy. Natural gas is bringing
back American manufacturing. Access to more affordable, reliable natural gas means
lower energy costs for consumers, more opportunity for manufacturers and businesses,
and a very valuable raw input use for construction of plastic, cars and other important
products made right here.
FL39
This 4 billion dollar project will create 10,000 local construction jobs. The pipeline itself
is American made, with 76% of the pipe manufactured here and all of the compressors
built here. Once operational, the pipeline will provide more than 150 million dollars in
tax revenue yearly for states and counties along that route.
FL40
Rover agricultural crossing plan to protect landowners compensate them for any
impacts which will be approved by relevant state agencies. Rover has also hired an
independent agricultural auditor to review ag mitigation plans and advise on complete
restoration.
FL41
The Rover Pipeline will meet or exceed all required safety systems and be constructed
in accordance with all applicable state and federal standards. Construction will include
a state-of-the-art x-ray inspection on every weld that joins sections of pipe together.
Most importantly, our trade has been selected to do this work because Energy Transfer
Partners knows we will do it right the first time. The skilled trades responsible for
pipeline construction pride ourselves on having the most advanced training. We expect
11 of 23
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed 1
Safety,
Reliability
RR11
Economy
RR5
Economy, Jobs
RR5
Agriculture
RR7
Safety,
Reliability
RR11
January 2015

Commenter
Nark McMillen
Ellen Waaza
Ellen Waaza
Ellen Waaza
Issue/Concern
and work to ensure a safe workplace.
FL42
I have been a gas pipeline welder for over 30 years. Our welders today are qualified
when they show up on the job; before the job they are tested. They are qualified every
six months in most situations. These guys have been trained under apprenticeships,
years of welding. They are well-experienced welders. All the jobs will be x-rayed.
Some will be ultra-sounded. It depends on where the tie-ins are; and everything will be
hydrotested.
FL43
I have serious concerns about the aquifer that sources all of the drinking water
surrounding me and the potential for any leaks or accidents to contaminate not only this
area but all of the interconnected 90 percent of our largest inland lake which is all
interconnected, and the continuous freshwater Great Lakes and adjoining waterways,
which is in fact the largest in the world.
FL44
We live in the heart of horse country where international champions are bred and we
live in the heart of the pileated woodpeckers that are threatened and need at least 72
acres of peaceful habitat to be present or they will leave. We live in the heart of
migratory paths of other rare mergansers, loons, whooping cranes, five types of herons
and flocks of migratory butterflies and feathered beings.
FL45
Although the appearance of commercial transactions and employment appear
attractive, the risk for our land, air, sound, safety and unique ecosystem and habitat
make this area a bad choice for many reasons. There are short term employment
opportunities which are incidental for a local work force, and there is no way to
guarantee the safety of our people and land if this is allowed to proceed. I am
particularly concerned about the fact that there are already three pipelines planned for
our area and I am sure that there are more that will follow, all to pad the pockets of
investors who have no vested interest in our area or its safety long-term.
12 of 23
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed 1
Safety,
Reliability
RR11
Water
Resources
RR2
Wildlife
RR3
Purpose and
Need
RR1
January 2015

Commenter
Gary Wolfam
Economist
Gary Wolfam
Economist
Gary Wolfam
Economist
Gary Wolfam
Economist
Harold Harrington
Local 370
Issue/Concern
FL46
The Rover Pipeline is important for both Michigan and the United States. An
infrastructure is needed to transport natural gas. In fact, the Michigan House
Subcommittee on Natural Gas in April 2012 concluded that quote, "New gas pipelines
would be needed in Michigan to receive larger volumes of natural gas so as to not
bottleneck flow and to minimize pipeline transportation costs."
FL47
This will become even more necessary if the agreement the President has with China
for the United States to reduce its greenhouse gases by 26 percent below the 2005
emissions in the next ten years is ratified, as natural gas produces about half the
amount of CO2 emissions per million BTU of energy as coal does. There is going to be
an increased demand for natural gas to replace coal. Combined-cycle natural gas
power plants yield a heat efficiency of 60 percent or more compared to nuclear at 35
percent and coal at 40 percent.
FL48
Now this is particularly important in Michigan, as currently about 55 percent of our
electricity generation comes from coal. As there is likely to be a movement over time
away from coal-fired power-plants to natural gas, there will be a substantial increase in
the demand for natural gas.
FL49
Since the pipeline will last for decades, development of this infrastructure will provide
incentives for innovations in the use of natural gas, further reducing energy cost and
adding to economic activity. Pipelines are currently the most efficient, safest way to
move natural gas.
FL50
I represent 440 members in Lapeer, Genesee and Shiawassee Counties. The State of
Michigan has over 10,000 members of the United Association and 340,000 members
nationwide. We currently spend over 200 million dollars a year training for the process
of installing these pipelines and the welds on these pipelines. There is only one
organization in the United States that spends more money on training than the United
Association, and that is the U.S. military. We can build this pipeline safely.
13 of 23
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed 1
Purpose and
Need
RR1
Purpose and
Need
RR1
Purpose and
Need
RR1
Purpose and
Need
RR1
January 2015

Commenter
Chris Begley
Chris Begley
Issue/Concern
FL51
We have the people that are looking at their short-term career versus the homeowners,
farmers that have invested in the land and are looking at that as a long-term place to
live. Imagine having a knock on the door, it is a land agent saying, "I want to put a
pipeline through your property." So you get interested and you start looking at the
regulations for pipelines. You find out that hey, this is Genesee County, Oakland
County, it is a rural community so we are in a Class 1 area. Class 1 is the same as
offshore. So the safety regulations for the pipeline next to our homes are the same as if
it was going through the Gulf of Mexico. For a Class 1 area, the design factor for the
steel pipe is the lowest, so they can use thinner pipe going through our areas. The
blocking valves to shut off the pipeline only have to be within 10 miles for a pipeline
within a Class 1 area. So you have 10 miles of pipe at 1400 PSI. That is a heck of a lot
of methane that is going to come out before that is ever shut off. They say they are
going to inspect 100 percent of the welds. I do appreciate that, but it is not a regulation.
The regulation says that in a Class 1 area they only have to inspect 10 percent. So I
only believe that they will truly have to inspect 10 percent. Also, being in the Class 1
area, the cover only has to be 30 inches, 30 versus 36, not a huge deal.
FL52
If FERC gives them the right of eminent domain, they can come in, put this pipeline on
my property, next to my house within the potential impact radius. The potential impact
radius of this is a minimum of 961 feet, because they have already said that the
minimum PSI is going to be 1100 PSI, and maximum pressure appears to be 1440 PSI
so I don't know, something greater than 1000 feet.
14 of 23
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed 1
Safety
RR11
Safety
RR11
January 2015

Commenter
Chris Begley
Karl Roehrig
Karl Roehrig
Karl Roehrig
Karl Roehrig
Issue/Concern
FL53
The other problem that I have, due to these Class 1 regulations that have the lowest
requirements for our area; is that there will be a failure of the pipeline at some point. No
pipeline is perfect. So you have almost ensured that the failure will be somewhere in
the Class 1 area. So the lives and property values of the people in the Class 1 area is
less than in the high residential areas where the pipe is thicker, the valves are closer
together, the welds are more inspected. We are concerned because you are talking
about our safety. You are talking about our family's safety. You are talking about the
money we have invested in our property and our houses. It is a lifetime for us. It is not
a one-month job.
FL54
My brother and I own 33 acres of beautiful undisturbed land in Dexter Township, MI.
The proposal presently is directly through the middle of my property. I asked the Rover
Pipeline Employee how we could go about getting the pipeline run down the west side
of the property. They said no. Energy Transfer should be required to work with
property owners to minimize impact and the value-destruction of property.
FL55
I find it interesting that they [Energy Transfer] sold a gas line two years ago in 2012. At
the time they wanted to sell the gas line, they stated there was no need for such a line.
Our governor of the State of Michigan, Rick Snyder, implored FERC not to let them sell
that line. FERC granted permission Now, Energy Transfer has the right to come back
to FERC and ask for approval for something they had in their portfolio two years ago?
FL56
If this is really a needed pipeline, why are they not using existing right-of-ways? There is
an existing electrical transmission easement directly to the west of our property. I
believe it is owned by ITC. There is an easement already in the area, why can't they
use it?
FL57
There is a lack of necessity for this project. There is a limited benefit for the State of
Michigan and local communities, and it will cause disruptions to private property and
environment that are not needed.
15 of 23
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed 1
Safety
RR11
Alternatives
RR10
Trunkline
Abandonment
RR1
Alternatives
RR10
Purpose and
Need
RR1
January 2015

Commenter
John Kupiec
John Kupiec
John Kupiec
John Kupiec
John Kupiec
Issue/Concern
FL58
We own Kupiec Farms, approximately 834 acres in Genesee and Oakland County.
Loss of property value is an unquestioned liability that all of us who own property in this
project will see, lose access, potential development. I am a farmer, I lose the value of
the ag land, not only for the time they are building the project but as you have heard
tonight, several studies show that the agricultural value declines.
FL59
I currently have over three miles of public right-of-way for electrical on my property.
It was obtained through a land lease 74 years ago, for 99 years for the total
payment of 1 dollar. The ongoing tax liability that I am currently subjected to does
not get any waiver of liability from the assessing departments in either of the
counties. It is disregarded. I have to pay it. The residents get the benefit of
electricity at my expense.
FL60
This pipeline is also proposed to go through pristine wetlands, which adversely impacts
wildlife and fragile lands through our area. For those of you who do not know, the
property that I currently own and that this is proposed to go through is in the 500-yearflood plain in Genesee County, which our county government decided to put a landfill in
and adversely impact it as well.
FL61
Our property is tiled, what happens to the tiling of that property once this pipeline goes
through, it will adversely impact the wetlands and the soft areas that we currently have
on our farm. It also provides for an increase in trespassing which provides for mischief
because it now opens up a pipeline of pure trespassing with no infringement from trees,
fence lines or anything of that nature.
FL62
Consider the use of existing rights-of-way and laying the pipeline alongside of roads.
This will not disturb the natural beauty of the land and will not impact any landowner in
this room.
16 of 23
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed 1
Property Value
(agricultural
land)
RR5
Property Taxes
RR5
Wetlands,
Floodplains
RR2
Drain tiles,
Trespass
RR7, RR8
Alternatives
RR10
January 2015

Commenter
Jeff Schlatman
Jeff Schlatman
Jeff Schlatman
Elaine Dobrowolski
Issue/Concern
FL63
In July, ET Rover had a land agent come to our place and said that they are going to
put a pipeline on our property. The laws are archaic. I have no say in what ET Rover
plans to do on my land. They will be able to take it, with the power of eminent domain
and pay me what they think. Again, I have no power or no say. I can try to get an
expensive attorney, but if you look at the precedent, we all kind of know what the end
result is: They get to do what they want.
FL64
And so the pipeline is going to be 136 feet from my house. Basically, it overlaps my
septic field. I talked to the health department. The health department told me, 'Look,
that is a protected area. You can't let anybody do anything there," but I am between a
rock and a hard place. ET Rover says they are going to put it there. It is four feet from
my septic, easement, and the health department says "No, you can't.
FL65
I will be forced to have the risk of accepting a dangerous pipeline. I call it dangerous,
they say it's safe. I guess we can argue that point. The fact of the matter is, I bought
property without a pipeline, which means my risk was zero. Now there is a pipeline on
my property, so the risk went up, and essentially I have to I have to bear the full burden
of that risk. I was told that now that there is a pipeline on my property it is possible that
I may not get a home equity loan if I want to borrow some money and put my kids into
college or something, so there is a financial risk associated with all of this, and I am not
for sure how to mitigate all of that.
FL66
Many of us here tonight have invested our livelihoods in the affected properties, working
and making improvements through the years. The pipeline installation amounts to the
taking of land and farmland we have been the responsible stewards of for decades.
What it all comes down to is, the property of landowners large and small will be
devalued monetarily and intrinsically forever.
17 of 23
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed 1
Eminent
Domain
RR1
Septic System
RR8
Safety, Home
equity loan
RR11, RR5
Property
Devaluation
RR5
January 2015

Commenter
Ronald Kardos
Julie Griess
Julie Griess
Julie Griess
Issue/Concern
FL67
I have read to date all 763 comments presented to FERC, and see that many of those
comments point out the concern over two issues soil degradation and compromise of
water resources. I feel that we have a unique perspective of these issues since we
encountered the installation of the Vector Pipeline, two maintenance repairs to the
Enbridge Pipeline and the subsequent, so-called replacement of the Enbridge Pipeline.
When property owners are approached by land agents, they are repeatedly told we will
preserve your soil and return your land to its original condition. I have meticulously
documented, in photos and videos, the methods that are used when they approach
these projects. They are no doubt well-intentioned but fall short of returning the land to
its original condition. The topsoil and subsoil become intermingled and the soil
becomes so compacted that it no longer resembles productive land. It has been over
three years and we are still negotiating an appropriate solution to having our soil
restored.
FL68
My concerns about the impact of this proposed pipeline relate to the fact that it is clearly
only for the purpose of exporting fracked gas out of the United States. This is purely for
the economic benefit of the oil and gas industry and pipelines while we get our state
torn up and our property rights compromised.
FL69
The industry has been telling us and funding studies that claim that these resources will
last for many years. In fact, there is substantial widespread opinion that there is
possibly no more than a 14-year supply of gas from shale, even without exporting it.
Some articles supporting this, I list three and I am going to turn in a copy of this so you
have the links, but I have articles from Forbes this past September, Bloomberg October
and British Petroleum last June.
FL70
The production of gas by high volume, horizontal fracking has caused environmental
contamination, despite the attempts of the industry to deny it. We should not be
contaminating our country so that private corporations can squeeze the last dollar of
profit from fossil fuels. We should be instead investing all effort toward the development
of clean, renewable resources which are now available both technically and
economically.
18 of 23
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed 1
Soil
Degradation
RR7
Fracking
RR1
Purpose and
Need
RR1
Alternatives
(renewable
energy)
RR10
January 2015

Commenter
Fred Townsend
Board Member
Lapeer Land
Conservancy
Mark Wilson
Land Stewards
Kathy Pleness
Kathy Pleness
Cadey Sontag
Issue/Concern
FL71
In 1998, a 75-acre parcel of land in the south one-half in the southeast one-quarter of
section 10 in Hadley Township was deeded to the Lapeer Land Conservancy to be
cared for as a nature sanctuary. The deed specifies that the land shall always remain in
a natural state. For 16 years, the 75 acres has been managed by the Lapeer Land
Conservancy as the Sutherland Nature Sanctuary. The construction and presence of a
pipeline through the Sutherland Nature Sanctuary would violate the mission of the
sanctuary and the deed restriction, the land should always remain in the natural state.
FL72
Land Stewards will be a consultant to the Rover Pipeline. We will provide services to
repair the drain tile and conservation practices, and over time we will begin the process
of restoring the long-term productivity to the land. Yes, while Rover will be paying us,
the reality is we will be working for the landowner. We will be an advocate for the land.
Our mission is simple, it is challenging but it is simple, to do what is right for the land
and for the long-term productivity for the land.
FL73
I would like to propose an alternative area using the ITC power lines for the pipeline to
go through between milepost 108 and milepost 183. Milepost 188 is approximately
halfway between Fowlerville and Durand, and then it goes east past Elmont, the town of
Elmont and into St. Clair County.
FL74
We have 100 acres (crying) we have 100 acres-plus of beautiful farmland that our dad
tiled, and it is going to be a very extensive job to fix the tile work that he has done
because our farm was kind of a, very wet ground. I would strongly ask that you guys
look into this ITC power line proposal between mile marker 108 and 183.
FL75
I am concerned about the impact of the proposed ET Rover Pipeline on Michigan's
environment, our water, our wildlife, our future generations. An approval of the
proposed pipeline would continue prioritizing short-term gains for the benefit of a few at
the expensive long-term sustainability for the majority. Michigan cannot afford another
accident or even another threat to its increasingly rare and precious fresh water.
19 of 23
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed 1
Nature
Sanctuary
RR8
Agriculture
RR7
Alternatives
RR10
Agriculture
(drain tiles)
RR7
Water
Resources
RR2
January 2015

Commenter
Ellis Boal
Ban Michigan Fracking
Lalaine Kilbourn
Lalaine Kilbourn
Sharyn Robles
Issue/Concern
FL76
My main interest in opposing this pipeline is that it will enable more fracking, more
production, more gas and inevitably more oil to be produced in the United States and in
the locations where this pipeline goes to. My concern about this pipeline, is not that it
should be here rather than there, my concern is that the pipeline could be constructed
at all because it is going to enable and facilitate this process.
FL77
I own property both in northern Oakland County or residences, I should say, with
houses in northern Oakland County and Southern Gran Blanc Township, Genesee
County. So this is going to impact me. Most of where you are trying to run the pipeline
through has already been designated as resource conservation by the communities, by
the townships, in the cities, in the villages. We have worked really hard to specify those
areas of wetlands and woods and you know animals and all that good stuff as resource
conservation. We don't want a pipeline running through it and shame on you for not
trying to find a better way around it.
FL78
I am an advisory committee member on a welding advisory committee for one of the
local colleges. Now it is really naive to think that these [union] people are all going to be
employed on this pipeline. They are not. This company is going to bring in outside
welders. Pipe welders are a special certification. Right now in Michigan and other
areas we can't get enough trained, certified welders. We can't train them quick enough
so while these welders are probably on other jobs, some of them may go on this
pipeline but not a lot of them.
FL79
My husband and I live on land that is directly affected by this proposed pipeline. We
have already submitted two letters to the Commission. I run a State of Michiganregistered childcare business from my home. I have been in business for 23 years. I
care for other people's children for 12 hours a day in my home. I feed them, I play with
them, I care for them and I love them. I have an important job, it is my environment and
it should be just as important as the environment of the frogs and the pileated
woodpeckers. The center of the pipeline would be 150 feet from my large playground
and about 200 feet from my home. I don't feel safe letting children play so close to the
buried pipe.
20 of 23
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed 1
Fracking
RR1
Water
Resources,
Wildlife
RR2, RR3
Jobs
(welding)
RR5
Alternatives
RR10
January 2015

Commenter
Mari Yancho
Roger Welsh
Township of Holly
Roger Welsh
Township of Holly
Issue/Concern
FL80
In Genesee County, despite the Road Commission's efforts, it is very, very difficult to
maintain roads. We don't even call them gravel roads anymore because there is no
gravel on the roads, it is dirt. And in the springtime and in the wintertime when we are
getting a lot of rain and other kinds of precipitation, anybody here who is from a farmingrural area can tell you that the roads are treacherous at best and we are usually doing
about 5 or 10 an hour down the roads. So when they talk about ET Rover bringing in
the pipeline, the reality of all the heavy equipment that they are moving in, I think that
they are going to render the roads in these areas undriveable.
FL81
I work for the Township of Holly. Our township office was given a map for our use and
to share with our residents. The map has been printed upside down. Our residents
have come into the office, hopeful to get some information about the pipeline because
we seem to have become the place where you might come to get that information. And
they try to read this map and it is completely nonsensical.
FL82
There is also a public safety concern that has to be fully addressed before any approval
is granted. The proposed pipeline route crosses North Holly Road, only north/south
paved road in Holly Township. We must be sure to receive guarantees that North Holly
Road is never closed or traffic ever disrupted. We have one hospital, which is Genesis
Regional Medical Center. It is one mile north of the Holly Township line in Genesee
County in Grand Blanc. There is no reasonable route to get to Genesis Hospital from
Holly Township otherwise.
21 of 23
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed 1
Road Damage
RR5
General
--
North Holly
Road
RR1
January 2015

Commenter
Roger Welsh
Township of Holly
Jason Michael
Bruce Haniak
Bruce Haniak
Richard Donahue
Issue/Concern
FL83
Chris Bunch spoke earlier about the Southeast Michigan Land Conservancy and the Six
Rivers Conservancy Property - a 538-acre property that is now a land conservancy
crossed by the pipeline. One of the reasons this property is so important to the
residents of Holly township is the Great Lakes Veterans Cemetery, the national
cemetery for all of southeast Michigan. We serve millions of veterans and have even
zoned the property completely surrounding it for a mile in every direction for one house
per 5 acres so that there is no disruption of the National Veterans Cemetery for
Southeastern Michigan. Holly Road has become extremely busy. During the winter it is
about 18 burials a day, during the summer it is 24. We cannot have noise, we [cannot]
have disruptions, and it is only 2,000 feet from this pipeline.
FL84
I have about an acre of property that abuts 80 acres of family property, that the plan
was to conserve for future generations. My wife and I stand in line to inherit the use of
this land and my home is located very close to the area you know, that they want to put
this thing. I do not think that a lot of these people out here have invested their lives in
improving the areas they live in and protecting it for this long to just have their rights and
their land and watch their neighbors' rights and their land dissolve under something like
eminent domain.
FL85
Before I came to Hadley I worked up at the Rouge, at the Fort Rouge plant down in
Dearborn. We had an explosion in 1999. We have a lot of good pipefitters and a lot of
good certified welders. These welds are subject to metal fatigue and human error. We
have all the equipment to X-ray the pipe, to X-ray the metal but we still have many
leaks. We had certified welds, too.
FL86
So here I have a historic farm with four streams on it. We have a road, Farmer's Creek
that is one of the oldest roads in the state. We have Farmer's Creek, the water that
feeds several lakes. We have sink holes. It is a historic area.
FL87
So what I am wondering is how many of these permits does FERC turn down? I would
22 of 23
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed 1
National
Veterens
Cemetery
RR8
Eminent
Domain
RR1
Safety
(welds)
RR11
Historic Farm,
Water
Resources,
Geology
RR4, RR2,
RR6
Purpose and
RR1
January 2015

Commenter
Tom Gagnon
Tom Gagnon
Nathan Bendall
Issue/Concern
Subject
rather it not be built. We are turning the corner on fossil fuels. We need not to make
this investment in this pipeline. That is something from the past.
FL88
I am a property owner in Atlas Township in Genesee County. I submitted a letter to
FERC already. You cannot replace a 100, 200-year-old maple tree which is what
happening in my yard.
FL89
Shipping natural gas via pipeline has got to be the safest way to do it. I understand
that. I am also very well-versed with the idea of not in my backyard. I have two
transmission lines going through my backyard, and I understand people have to do it.
But the thing is with the things going on right now is there are a lot of, there is a lot of
the utilities easements that are not being used. That is where this thing needs to go if it
has got to go in any area, that is where it needs to go. I still don't want it close to my
house but if that is what it has got to be that makes more sense.
FL90
Basically, what I want to speak about tonight is the PGE gas explosion in Santa
Barbara, California of 2010. Basically what happened was it was a hugely populated
area in San Francisco, California and PGE did not do the testing like they were
supposed to, and the pipeline exploded. I know we need power, but we should be
looking for alternatives and we are not and what a lot of people these corporations, they
say, "Look, it is safe. We know what we are doing." We are building a big bomb in front
of people's houses. A bomb ten miles long, 4 feet wide.
Need

Resource Report 1
Project Description
Resource Report 2
Resource Report 3
Resource Report 4
Cultural Resources
Resource Report 5
Socioeconomics
Resource Report 6
Resource Report 7
Resource Report 8
Resource Report 9
Resource Report 10
Resource Report 11
23 of 23
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed 1
Old Growth
RR3
Alternatives
(Use Existing
Easements
RR10
Safety
RR11
Soils
Alternatives
January 2015

Scoping Meeting Held in Navarre, Ohio on December 3, 2014
Commenter
Alex Epstein
David DiPietro
Brad Belden
Brad Belden
Brad Belden
Rhonda Reda
Rhonda Reda

NA-1
Obviously the benefits that we see primarily are our jobs.
NA-2
And as a whole the gas industry -- gas and oil industry -- has brought us from this
recession back into -- I want to say -- full force of employees. Most of our customer-base
are blue-collar people, and our sales have been fantastic the last three or four years and
we're looking forward to the Rover Pipeline Project coming in.
NA-3
Before shale gas increased the domestic supply of natural gas, there were moments
where the high price of natural gas threatened our business. The brick industry is still
feeling the effects of the recession and the more stable, affordable price of natural gas is
one of the main reasons we're able to stay profitable today.
NA-4
Ohio competes with other states for manufacturing investment. Energy policy and
energy infrastructure are both important considerations when companies make
investment decisions. The OMA believes energy policy can enhance or hinder Ohio's
ability to attract business investment, stimulate economic growth, and spur job creation,
especially in manufacturing.
NA-5
The construction of a natural gas pipeline from the Marcellus and Utica shale formations
will also allow manufacturers across Ohio increased access to gas feedstocks and a bid
to supply the construction and operation of pipelines and related infrastructure. The
Rover Pipeline stands to benefit manufacturing in Ohio and throughout the Midwest.
NA-6
I testify here today in support of the Rover Pipeline Project. This project would allow for
the continued development of Ohio's crude oil and natural gas resources and benefit the
entire region by providing additional capacity for increased natural gas production
primarily in the Utica and Marcellus Shale.
NA-7
Consumers also stand to directly benefit from similar project, since seven out of every
ten homes here in the state of Ohio utilizes natural gas as its primary heating source.
1 of 9
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Jobs
RR5
Economic
benefits
RR5
Economic
benefits
RR5
Economic
benefits, jobs
RR5
Economic
benefits, jobs
RR5
Economic
benefits
RR5
Economic
benefits
RR5
January 2015

Commenter
Rhonda Reda
Philip Williams
Philip Williams
Greg Sautter
Mark Wilson
Land Stewards
Charles Willoughby

NA-8
Continued crude oil and natural gas development and projects like the Rover Pipeline
are crucial to the continued growth of the state of Ohio.
NA-9
I'm going to highlight some of the importance of this project and the benefits it will bring
to the area. Our region has greatly benefitted from the development of the natural gas in
our area and it has revitalized our communities. The Rover Pipeline will add to this
revitalization and will be a safe way to transport the natural gas.
NA-10
The Rover Pipeline will be built with local union labor and as a result the construction of
the pipeline will add nearly 10,000 jobs immediately along the way of this route. Along
with these jobs there are the economic benefits they provide. The projected construction
of the pipeline would generate $73 million in Ohio via sales tax. Additionally, the pipeline
will bring $4.3 billion in investment to the state and local economies.
NA-11
However, though back in late October a new survey was done and along with the
environmental and archeology studies and so forth, which moves the pipeline very, very
close to our house, through the corner of the septic system and through the corner of the
geothermal system we have, the power line, plus the septic drain line, fences and so
forth.
NA-12
So in summary, I'd like to state that by working together, landowner, land improvement
contractor and the pipeline, by establishing open trust and good communication, and
most importantly establishing trust, we will be able to identify, protect, and restore the
drainage tile systems and the conservation practices. Make no mistake about it, it's not
going be pretty out there. There is going to be disruption in productivity. But if we do it
right, and we are the right ones to do it, we will begin the process of restoring the
productivity to the land.
NA-13
New natural gas pipelines such as the Rover Pipeline will not only create opportunity in
the energy sector for increased development, but will also positively impact many other
businesses in Ohio.
2 of 9
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Economic
benefits
RR5
Economic
benefits, safety
RR5, RR11
Jobs, economic
benefits, tax
revenues
RR5
Siting (septic
system)
RR10
Drainage tiles,
agricultural
impacts
RR7
Economic
benefits
RR5
January 2015

Commenter
Charles Willoughby
Charles Willoughby
Charles Willoughby
Linda Zaleski
Linda Zaleski
Leslie Pitts

NA-14
Additionally pipelines are the most effective and safest means of transporting valuable
natural gas from extraction to its destination.
NA-15
The Rover Pipeline will create as many as 10,000 immediate local construction jobs.
And spur an estimated $4.3 billion of investment into state and local economies.
Indirectly the pipeline will increase the needs for goods and services all along its length
during its construction phase benefitting small businesses from manufacturers,
restaurants, hotels, and hardware stores.
NA-16
The Rover Pipeline will create an estimated $154 million in tax revenue yearly for states
and counties along the route including up to 78 million in additional sales taxes just for
Ohio.
NA-17
But nothing was said about the actual construction, what is going to be there once you're
gone. No one has said anything about what the blast zone is for a double, 42-inch
pipeline.
NA-18
What kind of equipment can you take across it? Are there going to be herbicides that
are going to be sprayed on that? Are you going to be able to -- obviously you can't build
anything on it. What about fence posts? I mean, there are hundreds and hundreds of
questions that individual landowners may have that need to be brought to light as well as
the positive aspects.
NA-19
And I realize that people have concerns when the pipeline crosses their property and in
the 40-some years that I've been pipelining when we cross people's property, when we
leave, it's as good or in better condition than it was when we got there.
3 of 9
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Safety
RR11
Jobs, economic
benefits
RR5
Tax revenues
RR5
Safety
RR11
Use of
Permanent
Easement
RR8
Property
RR5
January 2015

Commenter
Leslie Pitts
Leslie Pitts
Harold Pile
Harold Pile
Harold Pile
Harold Pile
Harold Pile

NA-20
And as far as I know, it's going to be good for the state of Ohio, it's going to be good for
the nation as an economy. The more natural gas and oil that we produce, and I live over
in the shale area, the farther we distance ourself from OPEC. And the farther we can get
from foreign dependence, the better off we're all going to be as a community and a
nation.
NA-21
And the pipeline -- I've worked a lot right around here. We used a lot of local labor from
the local labor unions, and to me it's a good thing. And the country and the State of Ohio
needs it.
NA-22
The big problem with the pipeline is that it creates demand where it does not exist.
Downstream it will enable businesses downstream to spring into being to use the gas.
But at the present time there is not that demand.
NA-23
And the pipeline encourages fracking which I could go into at great length about the
dangers and evils of fracking, but I'm not going to do that here today. People can look
that stuff up.
NA-24
They're going to build this pipeline, the gas may not last as long as predicted, and if it
does not, there will still have been all this environmental damage of the construction and
the benefit will not be realized. It's public policy in the United States to develop the
Appalachian region.
NA-25
So, you may remember a number of years ago there was a man named H. Ross Perrot
who talked about the giant sucking sound and what you're going to see is as the gas
leaves, the opportunity leaves also. We need to keep these jobs here, we need to
attract industry to the region where the pipeline is going to draw the gas from and not
enable job creation in other states or even other countries.
NA-26
There's a possibility of pipeline accidents and with the volumes of gas being talked about
and the pressures being talked about, would certainly not be minor accidents.
4 of 9
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Economic
benefits
RR5
Jobs
RR5
Purpose and
Need
RR1
Fracking
RR1
Reliability
RR11
Economic
impacts
RR5
Safety
RR11
January 2015

Commenter
Harold Pile
Bell Everett
Bell Everett
Bell Everett
Tish ODell
Tish ODell

NA-27
And also in conclusion, the Rover Pipeline Company has made commitments to how
safe they're going to be and how friendly and what nice people they are. There's no
guarantee that the ownership of the company will stay the same or that the pipeline will
not be sold or that new people will take over as director of the company. There's no
guarantee that the policy of the current management of the Rover Pipeline Company will
remain in place.
NA-28
Tuscarawas County is currently though in need of natural gas infrastructure. Without it,
the industry's production decreases. The pipeline and others are desperately needed in
order to develop the industry for the future.
NA-29
Most of us know though that the pipeline construction phase only creates temporary
jobs. That being said, I would like to encourage Rover Pipeline to hire qualified local
labor for their construction phase.
NA-30
My last and most important request would be that Rover Pipeline and/or any pipeline
company for that matter respect the environment and our community as if it were your
own backyard.
NA-31
One year ago, maybe you don't know, but the House passed a bill to speed up pipeline
approvals. And at that time over 90 percent of the applications were approved anyway.
So it's really when the Rover rep stands up here and says she's hopeful that the permit
will be issued, that's a little, you know, kind of comical, I think.
NA-32
But, you know, we could produce energy and create jobs that don't jeopardize our water,
our air, and our precious, precious farmlands. All the pipelines do is keep us addicted to
dirty, fossil fuels and destroy more of our environment that sustains all our lives.
5 of 9
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Reliability
RR11
Economic
benefits
RR5
Jobs
RR5
Environment
RR3
Purpose and
Need
RR1
Purpose
RR1
January 2015

Commenter
Tish ODell
David Kaminski
Scott Elliott
Scott Elliott
Robert Wilds
Mike Chadsey

NA-33
Our economy in Ohio is largely based on tourism and agriculture. Those are actually our
two biggest industries. And no one ever mentions the impact of the oil and gas
extraction and, of course, the waste disposal because we are like the toilet of the
Midwest here and for a lot of the country for their toxic waste and what this does to the
quality of these industries, agriculture and tourism.
NA-34
But among our members are construction companies and electrical contractors, many
others that are rapidly expanding because of the work they are receiving from the oil and
gas infrastructure build out. Overall Ohioans are benefitting from low gasoline and
natural gas prices and they are helping to contribute to the growing energy security of
the United States.
NA-35
It's not a temporary job, it's a career, and we take a lot of training to learn what we're
doing and to make sure that what we end up with is a safe product.
NA-36
The pipeline is better than trucking it, put the semis on the road and you truck gas, you
create danger to the neighborhoods and the truck drivers, you create bad fossil fuels
from the -- like carbon emissions from the trucks. The pipeline -- the pipeline is the safest
way, the most environmentally friendly way to transport this product.
NA-37
Getting to the environment, I personally have solar panels on my home. When I built it
four years ago, I put a geothermal heating system in. So, I am for protecting the
environment. Natural gas is the cleanest burning fossil fuel there is. And I know from
the cost of installing the geothermal, from installing the solar on my home, it is very
costly. We can use this natural gas as a bridge until we can get there.
NA-38
It's a tremendous community and you heard this evening about all of the jobs that are
going to be brought here, tremendous news. All of the investment that will be brought
here, tremendous news.
6 of 9
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Recreation,
agricultural
impacts
RR7, RR8
Economic
benefits
RR5
Jobs
RR5
Safety
RR11
Economic
benefits
RR5
Jobs, economic
benefits
RR5
January 2015

Commenter
Mike Chadsey
Jon Barner
Gary Alsdorf
Gary Alsdorf
Ed Hill
Ed Hill

NA-39
It's going to be a good opportunity for us to continue this play that we're experiencing
here in this Appalachian basin, not only with this project, but many of the others that
we've also seen announced and started.
NA-40
And so I'm here to just represent landowners to tell you what you're possibly in for. I
don't know what Rover Pipeline is going to do or even FERC, but I can tell you, from my
dealings with First Energy, I have nobody.
NA-41
As you've heard the comments from the farmers, we certainly agree with the people that
have come up and they've talked in great favor of having the pipeline, I wouldn't have
any problem with it necessarily, but I do have a concern about eminent domain. This
was a program that was originally put in place, according to my brief understanding, it
was put in place to aid rural electrification.
NA-42
Now, I come back and I say to you that the eminent domain, as it relates to agriculture
and as it is currently interpreted from previous experiences with pipeline, we would get
paid an appraised value. The appraised value is not necessarily the true value to the
landowner.
NA-43
Number one, they've committed to using the highest quality personnel to construct this
project. They've committed to using union labor all along this pipeline. And as such,
they'll be using people that have been trained and focused on safety every day on their
job.
NA-44
The second commitment they've made is the quality of products they've chosen on this
project. One hundred percent of the project -- 100 percent of the components of the
project outside the steel piping will be made in the United States. That bodes for the
quality of the components but also the economic impact of that choice.
7 of 9
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Economic
benefits
RR5
Reliability
RR11
Eminent
domain
RR1
Eminent
domain,
compensation
RR5
Jobs, safety
RR5
Economic
benefits, safety
RR5
January 2015

Commenter
Ed Hill
Ed Hill
Rob Tienarend
Rob Tienarend
Rob Tienarend
Rob Tienarend
Dallas Charton
Jim Cantley

NA-45
It's simply the safest way to transport natural resources in this country. It's seven times
more safe than using the railroads to move this natural resource to where it's needed.
NA-46
Lots has been said about the economic benefits of the project. The numbers are really
staggering. More than $4 billion invested alone. The impact that that has on our local
communities is tremendous. Just in this county $7 million a year in taxes. That helps
keep a lot of the streetlights on. And it's important.
NA-47
Everybody is getting the economic benefit except for the benevolence of the farmers
who are the ones this is actually affecting.
NA-48
The difference is, it cuts 600 acres right down the middle.
NA-49
You know, in my opinion, and I don't know what the federal laws are, you know, where
this goes, run that is thing right down Route 30, run it right up I-75, those already have
federal, and, you know, U.S. government right-of-ways for roads. You know, you can
run it down state roads.
NA-50
So how can we approve something environmentally and know that it's sound when we
don't know how deep it's going to be, you know, how it's going to affect it.
NA-51
If that means that my property is within 200 feet of that, but I could no longer put a
dwelling on there, am I going to be compensated for the loss of potential income there as
well as if the pipeline were going through my property.
NA-52
Also, why, if that's true, is there no setback if we're looking for safety for residents? Two
hundred feet is still pretty close for a 42-inch pipeline to a residence. Also, there's
nothing been said about these compressor stations. What about the safety of them?
What are their setbacks, and what is the noise impact of these compressor stations?
8 of 9
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Safety
RR11
Economic
benefits, tax
revenues
RR5
Economic
impacts
RR5
Siting
RR10
Alternatives
RR10
Environment,
safety
RR3, RR11
Future plans to
build,
compensation
RR8
Siting, safety
RR1, RR11
January 2015

Commenter
Jim Cantley
Daryl Morrison

NA-53
No one has said anything about the noise impact, let alone the life impact if you live out
in the country.
NA-54
Second, in using eminent domain for this pipeline, I understand the use of FERC and
eminent domain for things like the public good, bringing electric, bringing highways
across the United States that made sense. But this to me is more like better producing
profit for a company. And if we're producing profit for a company, the landowners, like
the people who lease their oil rights should lease the right-of-way from the landowners.
Not eminent domain forever and ever, a perpetual right-of-way.

Resource Report 1
Project Description
Resource Report 2
Resource Report 3
Resource Report 4
Cultural Resources
Resource Report 5
Socioeconomics
Resource Report 6
Resource Report 7
Resource Report 8
Resource Report 9
Resource Report 10
Resource Report 11
9 of 9
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Noise quality
RR9
Eminent
domain
RR1
Soils
Alternatives
January 2015

Scoping Meeting Held in New Washington, Ohio on December 4, 2014
Commenter
Kenneth Simonson
Chief Economist
Associated General
Kenneth Simonson
Chief Economist
Associated General
Kenneth Simonson
Chief Economist
Associated General

NW-1
I'm here to speak in favor of construction of the Rover Pipeline for two reasons. The
pipeline itself will obviously generate a lot of construction jobs and a lot of jobs in other
sectors of the economy, and the existence of the pipeline and the natural gas that it will
deliver to customers in Ohio and Michigan will also improve the competitiveness of those
states and increase the standard of living of residents in those states. And that, in turn,
will also generate more construction activity.
NW-2
Five years ago, Professor Steven Fuller of George Mason University, one of the nation's
leading regional economist, did a study for AGC of America on the impact of a billion
dollars of investment in non-residential construction. He found that, on average, that
type of investment results in 28,500 jobs, about one-third of those are construction jobs.
Another one-sixth come from supplying industries, ranging from quarries to
manufacturers of equipment and materials to service providers, architects, engineers,
financial, and other services. And the remaining half, 14,300 jobs, show up throughout
the economy, as the workers and owners in the construction and supplying businesses
spend their additional earnings and profits. The impact of that billion dollars cascades
through the economy. Professor Fuller estimated that the ultimate addition to gross
domestic product would be as much as $3.4 billion, including about a third of that
showing up as personal income for all of those affected workers and owners.
NW-3
Construction employment is still 27 percent below that peak set way back 14 years ago.
So, there is a strong need in the state for construction jobs that will produce an asset of
lasting value to the entire economy and society. The pipeline's greatest value will be in
that it will deliver secure, lower-cost natural gas energy to homeowners, to electric
utilities that will generate electricity from natural gas instead of alternatives, and to
manufacturers who will use the natural gas as a very clean source of fuel for heat or for
its petrochemicals to turn into plastics and other valuable products. So, the benefits will
extend well beyond the construction period for decades to come.
1 of 6
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed 1
Jobs, Economy
RR1, RR5
Jobs, Economy
RR1, RR5
Jobs, Economy
RR1, RR5
January 2015

Commenter
Kenneth Simonson
Chief Economist
Associated General
Ray Kasmark
Electrical Workers
(IBEW) 25
NW-4
In the alternative, if this pipeline is not built, those manufacturers who depend on lowcost and clean energy or petrochemicals as feed stocks are going to choose other
locations for their operations and Ohio will suffer for decades for not having that pipeline.
NW-5
The IBEW respects landowners' rights and concerns. We are landowners and residents
of the local community as well. We believe everyone should be treated with respect and
dignity on the job as well as in your own home and in the community. This is why we are
excited and eager to perform our scope of work on the Rover compressor stations,
including the one at Richmond County.
NW-6
This ample supply of domestically-produced energy is America's best chance to restore
our lost manufacturing base and restore our local, state, and national economies to the
levels they once were.
NW-7
Crawford County ranked 11th out of the 88 counties in the highest percentage of
unemployed people. That's higher or that's in the, you know, the top 15 percent. And
we are in favor of construction jobs being performed in our area and has the manpower
ready to do the work.
NW-8
Our organization is the leading advocate for Ohio's chemical technology industry, the
second largest manufacturing industry in Ohio and the sixth largest chemical
manufacturing state in the nation. 15 The growth of the chemical manufacturing
industry in Ohio has lead to the current employment of over 44,000 people and indirectly
contributes an additional 131,000 to the economy of Ohio. For every chemical industry
job in Ohio, an additional 2.9 jobs are created. The industry also generates an additional
almost 53,000 jobs in plastic and rubber products. These jobs generate 3.3 billion in
earnings and 882 million in federal, state, and local taxes.
Ray Kasmark
Electrical Workers
(IBEW) 25
Carl Neutzling
IBEW 688
Jen Klein
President, Ohio
Council
2 of 6
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed 1
Alternative (No
build)
RR10
Jobs (Respect
for landowners)
RR1
Jobs
RR5
Jobs
RR5
Purpose and
Need
(economy)
RR1
January 2015

Commenter
Jen Klein
President, Ohio
Council
Jen Klein
President, Ohio
Council
Mark Wilson
Land Stewards
Mike Moran
Robert Wilds
International Union of
Operating Engineers

NW-9
With proper infrastructure in place, the Utica and Marcellus shale will provide Ohio
chemical manufacturers with abundant, reliable, and affordable supplies of domesticallyproduced energy. Energy cost have a large affect on any company's bottom line, and to
the chemical industry it also serves as a speed stop for the products we make.
NW-10
Pipelines like the Rover Pipeline represent the safest means of transportation of value
natural gas to markets throughout the Midwest and Great Lakes regions. New industries
in this area, including our own, stand to benefit from new access to cheap and affordable
energy produced right here in America, delivering benefits directly to the people of Ohio.
NW-11
Rover has retained Land Stewards to minimize the construction impacts on the adjacent
lands. And yes, it is true Rover will be paying Land Stewards, but the reality is we will be
working for the landowner. We will be an advocate for the landowner. Often we will
function as a translator. A landowner has concerns and we're there to help facilitate that
process. Our mission is really quite simple. It's difficult, but it's simple. We're to do
what's right for the long-term productivity of the land.
NW-12
Since I was 28, I belonged to Pipeliners, Local Union 798 out of Tulsa, Oklahoma. And
in my opinion, they do their job. They're above reproach and integrity. And I've been with
now -- well, I'm retired now, but I've been with them for 35 years. And if you've got a
worry about the work that was being done or will be done, I've been on a lot of jobs, and
like I said they're above reproach.
NW13
I've been hearing a lot of things about during the construction how the pipeline's going to
harm the environment. I can just tell you what I know from being out there in the field
and working the job since 1986 on the pipeline as an operating engineer.
Environmentally, there's going to be crews there -- that's their job title, environmental
crew. They're going to do things like install silt fence, silt sock, hay bales to protect the
environment, to keep the topsoil from running off into the streams. They will follow
regulations laid out specifically by FERC, by the local DEP. Everything will be followed
to minimize the runoff
3 of 6
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed 1
Purpose and
Need
(economy)
RR1
Purpose and
Need
(economy)
RR1
Agriculture
(drain tiles)
RR7
Construction
Workforce
RR5
Construction
Procedures
RR1
January 2015

Commenter
Robert Wilds
Operating Engineers
Robert Wilds
Operating Engineers
Robert Wilds
Operating Engineers
Robert Wilds
Operating Engineers
Terry Langley
Pipeliners Local Union
798

NW14
As far as safety, DOT regulations will be followed with the pipeline because a lot of
people don't realize it, a pipeline is a form of transportation, so it falls under the
Department of Transportation, and there are regulations, CFR 49, Part 192 and Part 195
covers pipelines, natural and liquid.
NW15
I can speak for the operating engineers. We spend about $4 million a year on pipelinespecific training. And the key factors -- the key things that we teach in that training are
the environmental regulations I just spoke about, DOT regulations, safety regulations as
far as OSHA, the safety as far as protecting the pipe, the coating on the pipe, that's the
integrity of the pipe. That's what makes the pipe safe is protecting that coating. So, by
doing that that ensures the safety of the general public for years to come.
NW16
In Ohio there are over 10,000 members of the operating engineers that will have
opportunity to work on this project. And I know I hear a lot about transient workers
coming in, not local people. Our agreement says 50 percent of the hires are local hires.
So, 50 percent of the people are going to be local people, so they're going to be right
here, keeping their tax dollars right here and helping keep the tax base up to help build
beautiful schools like this. This is a beautiful place, and that's what the tax dollars did -had to build this.
NW17
As far as the long-term, industry will come because there's availability of gas. Natural
gas power plants, if they want to build a natural gas power plant they're not going to build
where there's no pipeline, no availability of gas. They're going to do it close to where the
availability of gas is. I hear a lot about alternative energy sources 'cause fossil fuels are
not good for environment. Natural gas is the cleanest burning of the fuels, and all the
alternative energies, wind farms, solar panels; they all need some sort of energy to
produce the products. The blades on the windmills they need petroleum products.
NW18
We have at least 750 members that live in and around and landowners up in this part of
the country, and we really like to see it go for our members to have a livelihood out of it.
4 of 6
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed 1
Safety
RR11
Safety
RR11
Jobs
RR5
Economy
RR5
Jobs
RR5
January 2015

Commenter
Steve Smith
Steve Smith
Steve Smith
Steve Smith

NW19
We've got two and half miles of pipeline coming through our property, which I guess it's 5
miles now. We have other gas pipelines through it. Every time we go to tile on some of
these farms it costs us a lot of money to tile around these pipelines to get around them.
You used to be able to, you know, put tile parallel to them and dig underneath them.
Sometimes we barely could get couple inches underneath the pipeline. Now, on old
easements - and pipelines been around for 50, 60, 70 years - you got to be 2 foot
underneath their pipeline or 2 foot above it, and you cannot put a tile parallel to their
pipeline on their easement. We've got tile on our ground 20 or 30 feet apart. A 60-foot
easement means we can't tile that ground.
NW20
If I've got a hole on that easement, I give them 72 hours. They'd better be there with their
truck, trailer, and backhoe and men to dig it. I'm not digging on an easement. It's going
to be a 100 percent their expense. Now, you can't say that ain't a more safety
improvement because tile contractors have hit pipelines and other construction. If they
want this easement and tell us how safe it is and how good it is, good, you do the
digging. It's your expense. We've had many times my contractor comes out. They probe
the tiles. There it is. It's still deep. Don't hit it. They stand there and watch my
contractor dig it, and we're on their easement. Why?
NW21
On private property, it's a quarter-inch pipe. So, is this something that DOT and
government agencies think that quarter-inch pipe ain't safe enough, but it's plenty safe
for you dumb farmers out here? If it's required a -inch pipe underneath roads its and
rivers and stuff, I think I'd want that on my farm too for added safety
NW22
Hey, I'm all for jobs. I ain't against this pipeline, but I'm damn sure against getting run
over by the pipeline company. There's one come through. There's some people got
paid ten times the amount to come through their property as some little old lady in a rest
home didn't want to hire a lawyer to fight for her.
5 of 6
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed 1
Agriculture
(drain tiles)
RR7
Agriculture
(drain tiles)
RR7
Safety
(pipe
thickness)
RR11
Compensation
RR5
January 2015

Commenter

Resource Report 1
Project Description
Resource Report 2
Resource Report 3
Resource Report 4
Cultural Resources
Resource Report 5
Socioeconomics
Resource Report 6
Resource Report 7
Resource Report 8
Resource Report 9
Resource Report 10
Resource Report 11
6 of 6
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed 1
Soils
Alternatives
January 2015

Scoping Meeting Held in Paden City, West Virginia on November 18, 2014
Commenter
David Beverage
Eric Wright
George Ferrell
George Ferrell
George Ferrell
Mark Wilson
Jerry Ryan

PC-1
The pipeline is affecting the oldest tree in the area, so it's probably 100, 150 years old -within the drip line of the tree. I was wanting it to come down a certain area of the nice
meadow and it's not there. I have no reasons for that. But I was supposed to get 24
hour notice before surveyors showed up and they said they'd walk with me and we did
discuss where to put it.
PC-2
The Rover Pipeline project is important to me personally because of the benefits it will
provide to the construction industry. This project will be built with local workers creating
10,000 immediate area construction jobs and provide 4.3 billion of investment into the
economy.
PC-3
In and around the area. On my left is 230 members of IBEW Local 972 to support the
Rover Pipeline project for the following reasons: The economic impact that was
mentioned, will inject not only a 100 million paid to the landowners, 109 million in sales
tax and revenue during the construction as mentioned.
PC-4
The Ariel compressors will be manufactured in Mount Vernon, Ohio, creating additional
jobs for the State of Ohio and a lot of pipeline will be manufactured in the United States.
PC-5
Job creation is also very important to us. We'd like to see new jobs come to this area.
PC-6
Our function will be to advocate for the landowner. Our mission is simple, and that is
we're to do what's right for the land and care for the land during and after this pipeline
construction to ensure long-term productivity of the land.
PC-7
The Rover Pipeline project when complete will help bring America closer to energy
independence from foreign countries.
1 of 6
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Impacts to
Property
RR1, RR8
Jobs
RR5
Economic
Benefits
(tax revenue)
RR5
Economic
Benefits
(manufacturing)
RR5
Jobs
RR5
Land
Productivity
RR7, RR8
Benefits
(energy
independence)
RR5
January 2015

Commenter
Jerry Ryan
Corky Demarco
Corky Demarco
Ronnie Hills
Rob Richards
Rob Richards

PC-8
The Rover Pipeline project will not only boost the local economies during construction,
but for years to come when using a best value or union contractors.
PC-9
The pipeline offers a myriad of benefits both direct and indirect to our state, our region,
and our countries. Over 4 billion is direct to private invested over 8,000 well-paying
construction jobs. The influx of workers will pay sales tax and bring money to our West
Virginia economy through everyday purchases.
PC-10
The real benefit, however, is the increased capacity of our natural gas can be sold on the
market and other places. If we do not have an outlet for our natural gas, what good is it
going to do us? What good is it going to do to sit under the Appalachia Mountains the
oldest, second oldest mountain range of the world if we can't have benefit from these
resources?
PC-11
I'm a member of the Pipeliners Local Union 798, 065 and Pipeline Workers and we come
here in support of the Rover Pipeline project. Not only will this project create thousands
of construction jobs, it is going to bring a huge -- to the economy in along the route of
this pipeline.
PC-12
We support this project because hundreds of thousands of candidates including
thousands of families in our communities and across the country depend on energy.
These are not just jobs and this is not just a pipeline. Construction energy and
construction is a career and we -- a lot of work an opportunity for advancements is a life
line to the middle class.
PC-13
We are advocates for a safe network of pipeline to lower your risk of transfer,
transporting fuels by other means. Many of our members live approximately to realize
and believe that pipelines reduce the risk of unions moving fuel by trains. Pipelines
contribute to public safety. In fact, according to recent special reports, pipelines are
seven times safer than other means.
2 of 6
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Jobs
RR5
Jobs
RR5
Economic
Benefits
(energy
production)
RR1, RR5
Jobs
RR5
Jobs
RR5
Alternatives
(pipeline versus
rail)
RR10, RR11
January 2015

Commenter
Duane Nichols
Duane Nichols
Duane Nichols
Duane Nichols
Duane Nichols

PC-14
The vested interest that others have in the pipeline might be justified if it's in fact
necessary, but when you do an Environmental Impact Statement you have to consider, I
believe, the alternatives. How could the objective be satisfied with alternative
approaches? And one alternative approach is not to build because already our
atmosphere is above 400 parts per million carbon dioxide. Everything that we do in
terms of producing gas, pumping to transmit it and using it at the other end will continue
to increase, contribute to the increased carbon dioxide.
PC-15
But another alternative that I think is important to think about, to consider in the
statement, is if we were to use the gas to make electricity here in this region where
we're producing the gas, then we could use the high efficient turbines that General
Electric is making. If high efficiency production to electricity and transmit it by
transmission lines to wherever that energy is needed. The advantage there is it avoids
many of these environmental impacts of digging up the land.
PC-16
Now, with regard to compressor stations. I have visited a number of them and talked to
the residents that live near us, and every one of them tell me of the disturbance it is to
their life. The noise of the compressor station is not squelched by the walls of the
building.
PC-17
The line here not only is going to Tyler but also Doddridge County. Many of us know
Doddridge County is one of the most impacted counties in all United States because of
drilling and fracking, and so it's become an issue for roads, for the school children and
their school buses, it's become an issue with using up the water out of the mill line
and creek watershed, it's become an issue with regards to air pollution. This line is
going to be tying in at the Sherwood Plant over in Doddridge County, which has already
involved the destruction of the hills and the valley.
PC-18
There's the problem over there with what we call the flood plain that hasn't been
considered.
3 of 6
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Alternatives
(no build)
RR10
Alternatives
(no build
electricity
generation)
RR10
Noise
RR9
Cumulative
Impacts
RR1
Floodplain
Impacts
RR2
January 2015

Commenter
Duane Nichols
Ed Hill
Alfred Tuttle
Alfred Tuttle

PC-19
And when we look at the stream crossings and the steep slopes that are involved with
pipeline construction we see tremendous slippage sedimentation. It erode that involves,
it's nearly impossible to correct that.
PC-20
A lot has been said with regard to the economic impacts this project will have on the
local communities in and around it. I think most people are aware that it would be highly
beneficial if this project go through on those merits alone. Energy security, national
interests, jobs, taxes, investment infrastructure, all these things are very, very important.
PC21
Many pipeline companies are buying to use the same areas to push their pipes through,
and in some cases some landowners are facing two or even three pipeline companies
wanting across their lands, and I would ask that FERC consider common right-of-ways
for these pipelines so that you don't end up with Sherman's march to the sea through our
forest lands. We end up having multiple pipelines running down the same valley and
over the same hills. That it be very beneficial if the pipeline companies could see it, the
benefit of the people on the environment to use common right -f-ways instead of trying to
go every which way and run over top of some of the people.
PC22
I would also like to share that the Rover pipeline discuss the nature way that they deal
with the landowners, and I don't know whether it's in particular with Rover, but many of
the other companies and the gas companies included seem to be the 800 pound -- when
it comes to the community. They do not seem to respect the community rights and hold
the idea of eminent domain over top of people; that if you do not agree with us, then we
will use eminent domain to push this through and we'll get what we want at our price
regardless of any objections you might have with where you might like it to go across
your land. They have arrogance. Irritates and angers a lot of people.
4 of 6
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Erosion,
Sedimentation
RR2, RR7
Economic
Benefits
RR5
Alternatives
(use of
common rightsof-way)
RR10
Eminent
Domain
(landowner
rights)
RR5
January 2015

Commenter
Marcia Wells
Arlen Wells
Arlen Wells
Doug (no last name

given)
Tom Gray

PC23
It was my understanding that this meeting was on the environmental impacts, and I
understand about the jobs and the patriotic aspect of using our own gas. I understand
that and that's all well and good, but as a landowner I'm concerned about what the
previous speaker spoke about eminent domain, and the first speaker who spoke this
evening spoke about finding surveyors on the land without anyone contacting landowner
previously which was the same experience that we had. I just would like to know what
will happen later on down the road if everything doesn't go as rosy as, as the picture is
being painted. What recourse do the landowners have later on if things don't go well?
PC24
They're been numerous accidents in Doddridge County. We've had pipeline explosions
in West Virginia, and most of this work was done by union men.
PC25
I want respected and I want listening to about this pipeline, 'cause it's going through my
home, not somebody from Oklahoma's home, somebody from West Virginia, it's going
through my home, and I want to be listened to in the future as this pipeline proceeds.
PC26
We at the IBW have supported local construction in the area. Now it's -- to turn local gas
into power right here in the area. We at local golden trades have stood together to hire
local workers. Some of them deeply entangled in society. Your local fireman, your local
baseball coaches and your local leaders in the community. All we ask, we'd like to come
do the work involved in this area.
PC27
We'd like to do the work in our own area. We hire people from within our own area
training. A lot of steel people in the area and they do just about everything they can -products skill. That's why I'd like to see this go through.
5 of 6
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Landowner
complaint
resolution
RR1
Safety
RR11
Coordination
with Land
owners,
Eminent
Domain
RR1, RR5
Jobs
RR5
Jobs
RR5
January 2015

Commenter

Resource Report 1
Project Description
Resource Report 2
Resource Report 3
Resource Report 4
Cultural Resources
Resource Report 5
Socioeconomics
Resource Report 6
Resource Report 7
Resource Report 8
Resource Report 9
Resource Report 10
Resource Report 11
6 of 6
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Soils
Alternatives
January 2015

Scoping Meeting Held in Richmond, Michigan on December 11, 2014
Commenter
Amanda Sumerix,
Michigan Forest
Products Council
Amanda Sumerix,
Michigan Forest
Products Council
Bill Black
Legislative Director for
the Michigan Teamsters
Bill Winn
Supervisor, Berlin
Township
Bill Winn
Supervisor, Berlin
Township

RI-1
Our economy stands to greatly benefit from the immediate hiring of Michigan workers
to build the pipeline. Further, our economy will continue to benefit from the state's first
access to energy reserves produced within the Marcellus and Utica shale region. As
Michigan continues to move away from conventional energy production, natural gas
will be a key part of the system that provides Michigan's energy needs.
RI-2
Finally, and probably most relevant to this hearing, we are confident of the Rover
Project's ability to do right by Michigan property owners. Many people have voiced
concerns over the way they were treated by subsidiaries of Energy Transfer. We
understand that Energy Transfer has acknowledged these instances and has taken
measures to avoid them in the future.
RI-3
If working families in Michigan are going to fully benefit from the U.S. energy boom,
we need to get more of that energy to our state, and Rover will help bring that to our
doorsteps. And in the short term, building Rover will provide 10,000 construction jobs
with some one billion dollars paid to workers and contractors in the state. Most
important, the work will be done by skilled, experienced union contractors that employ
local Michigan workers. Energy Transfer is committed to doing this work in
accordance to the highest safety and quality standards, ensuring natural gas will be
brought in by skilled and qualified Michiganders.
RI-4
I am here to inform you guys, if you already don't know, we have three pipelines in our
township already. We would appreciate it if they could find another route and you
know, put it in a different location or, if that is not possible, then follow the pipelines
that we've got.
RI-5
If you do approve it, we have a lot of tiled ground in our farmland. We would like to
have the farmer be able to pick his own tiler.
1 of 22
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Jobs and
Socioeconomics
RR5
Land Owner
Treatment
RR1
Jobs
RR5
Alternatives
RR10
Agriculture
(tiles)
RR7
January 2015

Commenter
Dwight Tacie
Burville Lyons Club
Sandra Hamilton-Tilly

RI-6
We hold events where we have mud bogs, heavy tractors, monster trucks. We have a
lot of vibration on the field. At any one point when we have these events, there can
be over 1,000 people on that field. This pipeline is running down our property line and
it is not very far from where we have these trucks staged, we park semis in that area.
We have a playground, we have four baseball fields and when we have these events
everything is in operation. We want to know if we are going to be able to run our
events and what effect will we have on that pipeline? How much danger is involved
with the public?
RI-7
I would like to address the concerns I have with FERC's handling of the comments
and filings on the website as well as the overall environmental review process. [Also
noted: eminent domain issues.]
RI-8
Secondly, I wonder why the union members are allowed to send mass comments that
are marked as individual comments to the FERC website. There is no mention of the
necessity of the pipeline, other than it would create jobs. There is no mention of the
impact on the environment. Thirdly, in Chelsea I was surprised to hear that the union
members were allowed to speak because their comments had nothing to do about the
environment but rather the economic impact on their lives.
RI-9
In your Notice of Intent to Prepare the Environmental Impact Statement, the first
paragraph, last sentence reads: The Commission will use this Environmental Impact
Statement in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the
public convenience and necessity. I would like to know, as I am sure others, what
does that word 'public convenience' mean?
2 of 22
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Safety
RR11
FERC process
RR1
FERC process
RR1
FERC process
RR1
January 2015

Commenter
Gary Wolfram
Economist
Gary Wolfram
Economist

RI-10
Further, since the introduction of this project to the public, the pipeline has moved
three times in the area that my family has their property, in Washtenaw County. Just
this week, unofficially, we heard that it is going to perhaps move a fourth time. My
concern here is with all this moving and with the time deadline coming and
approaching fast -- and I heard tonight you are going to extend that deadline of
December 18th, but how are these people going to have their concerns met?
RI-11
It would be good if people were aware of how you file a comment on FERC. Had I not
attended the meeting in Dexter and a gentleman from another county gave a
presentation on how to do the filing and what was necessary, I would have been
clueless as to how to go about this process. So I feel there is definitely a lack of
communication and knowledge. Why are township supervisors notified later in the
project? Why aren't they notified right early on so that there can township meetings
and that the individual pipeline people come to the meetings on a local basis.
RI-12
Today our government should be focusing on ways for improving and using
renewable energy. We are headed in the wrong direction. If our government okays
this additional pipeline such as Rover Pipeline, which is bigger and poses more risk, it
would be very detrimental.
RI-13
The U.S. Energy Information Agency is estimating that the U.S. production is going to
increase by 44 percent by 2040. An infrastructure is needed to transport natural gas.
The Michigan House Subcommittee on Natural Gas in April 2012 concluded that
quote, "New gas pipelines would be needed in Michigan to receive larger volumes of
natural gas so as to not bottleneck flow and to minimize pipeline transportation costs."
RI-14
Natural gas produces about half the amount of CO2 emissions per million BTU of
energy as coal, and this means there is going to be a greater increased demand for
natural gas to replace coal.
3 of 22
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
FERC process
RR1
FERC process
and township
notifications
RR1
Alternatives
(renewable
energy))
RR10
Need
RR1
Need and Air

Quality (carbon)
RR1, RR9
January 2015

Commenter
Gary Wolfram
Economist
Gary Wolfram
Economist
Gary Wolfram
Economist
Brigham McCown
Brigham McCown

RI-15
This is all particularly important in Michigan, as currently about 55 percent of all our
electricity generation comes from coal. There will likely be over time a movement
away from coal-fired power-plants to natural gas, and this will be a substantial
increase in the demand for natural gas. It is also possible that natural gas vehicles
may become economically viable, which will result in demand for refueling stations
that may reach critical mass.
RI-16
Pipelines are the safest way to transport natural gas, and currently, there are over
300,000 miles of natural gas pipelines in the United States.
RI-17
The Rover Pipeline will be an investment of over 4 billion dollars and create
approximately 10,000 temporary construction jobs which about 3,000 of these would
be in Michigan. These workers then would generate economic activity as well by
buying things in restaurants, heating, renting spaces to live, entertainment, etc. The
pipeline would produce a right-of-way payment to landholders and generate tax
revenues for the State of Michigan and for local units of government. In summary, the
Rover Pipeline will be a significant factor in improving Michigan's economy and
environment.
RI-18
Served as the first head of the federal government's Pipeline and Hazardous Material
Safety Administration. I am often asked to comment on new infrastructure projects
and my response is that we need to support these new projects. Why? Because
continued investment in state-of-the-art infrastructure is necessary to support our
economy and our way of life.
RI-19
Speaking of pipeline infrastructure, I have heard safety concerns. I have heard from
landowners who simply do not want it in their backyard and I have also heard from
some who say we have to be green. Even the rosiest energy projections state that
renewables will not be capable of providing the majority of our energy needs until
sometime well after 2040. Natural gas is an important bridge fuel. It works well with
renewables and is the preferred choice for electric generation.
4 of 22
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Need and Air

Quality
RR1, RR9
Safety
RR11
Jobs and
Socioeconomics
RR5
Need
(infrastructure)
RR1
Alternatives
(renewables)
RR10
January 2015

Commenter
Brigham McCown
Brigham McCown
Brigham McCown
Bruno Walter
Mark Wilson
Land Stewards
Eileen Tesch

RI-20
Most people understand the pipelines are not only required, they are the safest
method for moving large amounts of natural gas. Our country is a great nation and
we have been successful because we dare to do and build things. At a 99.999952
percent safety rating, no other transportation method is as safe or superior.
RI-21
It troubles me frankly, when people refer to their jobs as temporary. I served as a
military officer but perhaps my job was temporary also. Our country needs as many
shovel-ready jobs as possible and these are not temporary jobs. These brave men
and woman work construction projects as their way of life.
RI-22
Make no mistake that failure to invest in new infrastructure not only costs us all
money, it means we have to rely on older and less efficient infrastructure. Newer
pipelines include state-of the art technology and controls, they use more stronger and
flexible steel and offer the highest levels of safety possible.
RI-23
The pipeline goes into Canada, where this proposed pipeline will go, but they choose
a different route and I can't see why they can't stay on the existing pipeline corridors
and use those for the pipeline.
RI-24
My point is we have the knowledge, the skills and the expertise to restore the
drainage tile systems and conservation practices that will be disrupted by this pipeline.
And yes, Rover will be paying us, but the reality is we will be working for the
landowner. We will be an advocate for the land. Our mission is simple. It is
complicated but simple and that is to do what is right for the long-term productivity of
the land.
RI-25
I just wanted to express some conclusions that we have made on behalf of the private
landowners on the St. Clair River and the Rover Pipeline crossing site as presently
proposed. We are very concerned regarding the safety, economic, social, cultural and
environmental effects. In fact we think it is a virtual time bomb.
5 of 22
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Safety
RR11
Jobs
RR5
Need and Safety
RR1, RR11
Alternatives
RR10
Agriculture
Drain Tiles
RR7
Safety
RR11
January 2015

Commenter
Eileen Tesch
Eileen Tesch
Dave Miotke
Dave Miotke

RI-26
An attempt by Rover personnel to secure a new and less expensive river crossing site
on this private property under the guise of the eminent domain, this tactic would
alleviate Rover having to negotiate with other pipeline competitors and public utilities
who own available rights-of-way and easements within a half-mile north and south of
the presently proposed private property. There are other available river-crossing
routes not associated with private property as presently proposed by Rover.
RI-27
Particularly, will this pipeline be constructed on existing easements and how it will
minimize the adverse impact to landowners who will be impacted by the construction
and the eventual loss and use of their property. Perhaps most importantly, what steps
Rover is taking to ensure the safety of the residents who live in the vicinity where this
pipeline will ultimately be placed.
RI-28
If this pipeline goes in it will be 40 feet from our bedroom, north of us and south of us,
so the property that they want to put it on is only 75 feet wide so you can see how that
will really affect our home. If this does go in, we are very concerned about it.
Besides the concerns for our safety on a daily basis, the potential hazard to our home
and family and other consequences of the project. There are homes up and down the
river that will be affected by this and we are concerned about our property value also.
RI-29
In addition, currently, the University of Michigan and Michigan State University have a
spawning reef under construction right in front of where this proposed pipeline is
going. This project has been under federal funding and University of Michigan and
Michigan DNR, and the cost of this project has been over a million dollars and it has
just started just shortly; so if the pipeline goes through will this affect what they have
done in this spawning? So, we are also very concerned about that.
6 of 22
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Eminent Domain
and Alternatives
RR1, RR10
Safety
R11
Safety and
Property Value
RR5, RR11
St Clair River
(spawning reef)
RR3
January 2015

Commenter
Dave Miotke
Robert Farley
Robert Farley
Robert Farley

RI-30
And there are existing energy corridors approximately one mile north and one mile
south of our location. The location to the north, adjacent to Puttygut Road, currently
houses some high voltage transmission lines and numerous pipelines that cross the
river from Michigan to Canada with approximately 300 feet of riverfront way. The
location to the south of us is DTE, and so that would also be a possibility that they
could do that. So we would certainly like them to look at alternative crossings and not
go through a residential area.
RI-31
The environmental consequences of hydro-fracking are unknown, but concerns have
been raised that the quantity of toxic chemicals injected deep into the ground and the
use of massive quantities of fresh water needed to perform hydro-fracking have the
potential to significantly damage the freshwater aquifers needed for agriculture and
domestic consumption. I am opposed to continued hydro-fracking operations until
such time that unbiased scientific study confirms the complete safety of these
practices.
RI-32
Furthermore, according to a New York Times article published January 28, 2012, the
estimated quantity of natural gas available for extraction in the Marcellus region has
been greatly reduced as reported by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. In
January of 2012, the estimates available indicated that a six-year supply of gas was
available from the Marcellus shales. Considering the proposed pipeline is not
scheduled for completion until 2017, it would appear that the resources planned for
this pipeline may be nearly exhausted before the line is in service.
RI-33
The proposed routing of the Rover Pipeline will disrupt forest and land with mature
stands of trees throughout much of the currently planned route. The stated need for a
100-foot wide construction easement would destroy thousands of acres of forest and
other vegetation. In areas of mature forest, the trees destroyed cannot be replaced
and would take generations to regrow a similar forest.
7 of 22
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Alternatives
RR10
Hydro-fracking
RR1
Need
RR1
Forest and
Vegetative
Impacts
RR3
January 2015

Commenter
Robert Farley
Robert Farley
Robert Farley

RI-34
The permanent easement will prevent reforestation of the land thus disrupting it. On
my own property, the originally proposed pipeline route would destroy scores of
mature white oak and maple trees, many in excess of 36-inches and caliper and 80feet in height. Michigan State University Campus Construction Standards placed the
value of $30,000 to $40,000 apiece for trees of this size. It is unlikely that individual
landowners will be compensated fairly for this loss of property, nor will the citizens at
large be compensated for the degradation of the natural environment resulting from
this type of destruction.
RI-35
The proposed route through Lapeer County in Southeast Michigan crosses many
wetland areas. On my own property, the proposed line would destroy wetland,
encroach on the unique Linwood Muck Agricultural soils that lie within the drainage
area in the flood plain of Bell River. In Almont Township, the residences located in
agricultural property immediately south of Bell River are considered well-sensitive
properties. My own well was difficult to establish and required a significant investment
in treatment equipment to produce an adequate domestic water supply. Clean water
aquifers are difficult to locate and tap due to the heavy clay soils extending
uninterrupted to bedrock levels. Wells extending into the bedrock are obtainable but
often produce sediment-contaminated water and/or saltwater brine that is useless.
The type of heavy equipment and soil disturbance necessary to construct the
proposed line will potentially damage established private wells, rendering them
useless.
RI-36
Personal experience with the existing pipeline construction and easements has
revealed that soil productivity on agricultural land has been reduced for decades. The
compaction of soils, disturbance of topsoil and unnatural responses to freeze/thaw
cycles directly over the buried pipelines all appear to negatively impact the agricultural
productivity of the soil. I strongly object to the practice of granting the power of
eminent domain to private corporations for use in seizing private land for for-profit
organizations
8 of 22
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Compensation
for Lost Trees
RR3
Water Wells,
Wetlands
RR2
Agricultural
Productivity
RR7
January 2015

Commenter
Robert Farley
Robert Farley
Robert Farley
Robert Farley
Robert Farley

RI-37
I have been told that TransCanada 'will not permit' another pipeline within their
easement. I fail to understand why the power of eminent domain would apply to my
private property but would not be used to compel TransCanada to accept lines within
their easement, especially -- considering the easement that TransCanada owns does
not confer ownership of that private land. The practice of continually carving up
private land for the benefit of large corporations is not consistent with the fundamental
principles of private property and of individual sovereignty guaranteed by the
Constitution.
RI-38
The proposed construction will disrupt the integrity of this registered centennial farm,
potentially destroying cultural significance to the Bell Harbor site that has yet to be
fully examined and documented, as well as destroying my landscape art installation.
RI-39
A simple search of the internet reveals an extensive list of pipeline accidents in the
U.S. just within the last 15 years, emphasizing the unpredictable and erratic safety
record of all energy pipelines. It has been noted by several sources that the proposed
pipeline extending across unsecured, rural, private land presents a threat to national
homeland security, an opportunity for terrorists to actually use a simple, improvised
explosive device to create massive devastation.
RI-40
Having seen firsthand the economic effects of an existing pipeline corridor on my
property, I can attest that no local employment has resulted in the decades that there
lines have been in existence. [Also noted: local versus out of state workers.]
RI-41
If the FERC determines there is a need for additional pipeline construction within the
U.S. to serve the Marcellus region, then I must strongly urge consideration of less
disruptive alternatives, not represented by the Rover Pipeline Project. At the very
least, new pipeline construction should be limited, whenever possible to be located
entirely within existing utility easements.
9 of 22
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Eminent Domain
RR1
Cultural
RR4
Safety
RR11
Jobs
RR5
Alternatives
RR10
January 2015

Commenter
Robert Farley
Robert Farley
Robert Farley
Anne Sousanis

RI-42
Consideration should also be given to modifying existing practices to allow
construction of such pipelines within interstate freeway rights-of-way. These freeway
rights-of-way are already owned by the citizens and use of land within these rights-ofway and would eliminate further encroaching on the property of private citizens.
RI-43
Since the relocation of the proposed route, ET Rover has pressured local landowners
very aggressively to permit surveys to the extent of issuing written correspondence via
certified mail threatening legal action if permission is not granted. This was done with
no prior notification of local government officials and the very vague information
offered at public meeting and via robo-printed corporate propaganda.
RI-44
In consideration of the current widespread opposition, the concerns for the
cumulative, negative impact on agriculture, safety and the environment and property
values, I urge the FERC to deny permission to ET Rover for the proposed
construction. At the very least, I request that any decision to proceed be delayed until
January of 2018.AND If any approval is ultimately granted, I request the power
of eminent domain be removed from such approval so that the private citizen's
property rights are not effectively eliminated.
RI-45
As far as the need for the project, in 2012 the Energy Transfer Company made a
request to the FERC to abandon its Trunkline Gas Pipeline through Michigan and
convert it to oil because the additional gas capacity wasn't needed.
10 of 22
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Alternatives
RR10
Land Agents
(surveys),
Communications
RR1
Deny Pipeline or
Remove Right of
Eminent Domain
RR1
Need (Trunkline
abandonment)
RR1
January 2015

Commenter
Anne Sousanis
Anne Sousanis
Anne Sousanis
Anne Sousanis
Anne Sousanis

RI-46
As far as impact on water resources, Lapeer County -- and I am from Lapeer County,
if I didn't say that already -- Lapeer County has 20,000 acres of wetlands, three rivers
and four or five watersheds depending on who is doing the figuring; and along with
that, with the impact on watersheds according to MSU extension freshwater mussels,
which live in these rivers, are one of the most endangered groups of animals in North
America. The Bell River, which is in Lapeer County and would be impacted by the
pipeline, the Bell River has one of the most diverse mussel populations in Michigan
and has several known locations of rare and threatened species.
RI-47
Also, along with that information on watersheds, the Flint River Watershed is home to
the Metamora Hadley recreation area, Ortonville State recreation area and Sutherland
Nature Center. Not only with the pipeline disrupt these public lands, but in some
areas it goes through officially-designated wetlands on private property that
technically cannot be disturbed, but there it is.
RI-48
As far as impacts of clearing forested land in areas where pipeline construction has
cut paths through forest, there is concern about forest fragmentation, loss of
biodiversity and invasion of invasive species.
RI-49
As far as the impact on soil, Penn State University did research on the impact of
pipelines. Soil compaction from the siting of pipelines and other natural gas activities
significantly reduced the soil productivity, possibly for decades. Also, replacing topsoil
and subsoil correctly is a problem. Also, the soil over the pipelines at least from this
study tends to dry out quicker because of heat from the gas flowing through the
pipeline, stressing the crops quicker in dry periods.
RI-50
Many of us, at least from Lapeer County, have heard the story of a resident who has a
home in Northern Michigan that he has been unable to sell and the property value is
down next to nothing due to its proximity to a gas well and a high-pressure pipeline.
11 of 22
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Wetlands,
Waters,
Freshwater
mussels
RR2, RR3
Designated
Recreation and
Wetland areas
RR2, RR8
Forest Impacts
and
Fragmentation
RR3
Agricultural
Impacts
RR7
Property Values
RR5
January 2015

Commenter
Anne Sousanis
Anne Sousanis
Anne Sousanis
Anne Sousanis

RI-51
Many county roads, at least in Lapeer County, have dirt or gravel surfaces. In
September, when ET Rover had its open house in Lapeer County, I asked about the
truck traffic for this project. I didn't receive any answer, but the volume of trucks on
rural roads, the hours of operation, the wear and tear on roads, the dust and the noise
level are additional areas of concern.
RI-52
It is my understanding that in the event of a rupture a leak, the minimum area affected
would be an approximately 1000-foot radius in any direction, and this is in the path of
homes, farms and farmland. Some residents, as I believe has already been
mentioned, had three pipelines running through their property. This is not only a
safety issue but additional burden on police, fire and EMS facilities.
RI-53
Also, I read an article from the Pittsburgh Tribune Review: an investigation found that
state and federal regulators employ far too few inspectors, about 500 total to cover the
country's 1.3 million miles of mains that distribute natural gas directly to customers.
Nearly 500,000 leaks were reported on those lines last year.
RI-54
High-volume fracking and injection wells pose many serious issues including
contaminated groundwater and well water from the chemicals used in fracking, the
use and taking of millions of gallons of fresh water per well, the strain on the
community's resources with the rapid influx of hundreds of out-of-state workers and
the leakage of contaminated wastewater from injection wells into groundwater.
12 of 22
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Traffic and Road

Impacts
RR1, RR8
Safety
RR11
Safety
(Inspections)
RR11
Fracking
RR1
January 2015

Commenter
Alan Mead
Alan Mead
Dan Husted
Laborers Local 1075 out
of Flint
Lynn Coleman
Michigan Labors Training
and Apprenticeship
Institute

RI-55
There are many factors that have impacted our environment in our country. Starting
in '71, OPEC was put together by the offer of Richard Nixon to provide military support
to Saudi Arabia. You've seen what happens with oil, dependency on oil is the catch
phrase that everyone is aware of and everyone uses. The thing that concerns me is
having worked on many infrastructure projects, including the Fermi Nuclear Plants,
Marathon Oil, Rouge Steel Complex Towers and many other construction projects, I
have seen that the important thing we need to consider is what direction is the country
headed? What can we do to improve in any way possible the capability of the
country to support itself and not be so dependent on foreign energy. Foreign energy is
a tool at times; it can be used for our good or against us.
RI-56
Natural gas and the delivery of it is so important to the United States. It is the
cleanest fuel there is, second only to hydrogen, but we do not produce hydrogen.
Maybe that is in the future. The only pollution produced by hydrogen is water vapor.
Natural gas is clean. There is some pollution involved but not to the degree of the
coal burners I have worked on.
RI-57
So we are very enthusiastic supporters of modernizing our existing pipeline
infrastructure. My union members have been safely building pipelines for more than a
century. We build pipelines in virtually every state, and in just the last year my union
members helped more than 100 pipeline operators and other trades build and
maintain projects.
RI-58
Every day there are things transported by rail and highway across the state. No one
has any idea what is going past their neighborhoods by rail or by highway. Natural gas
pipelines are far less hazardous, as the gentleman earlier stated and can be found in
the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration site. I just wanted to get
up here to let you know, as well as the community members, that between the Labors
International Union of North America and members here in the State of Michigan and
our other Union brothers and sisters, the other trades that are represented here in the
room, everything that we do is going to be with the utmost respect for the property,
with the safest and most efficient workforce available.
13 of 22
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Purpose and
Need
RR1
Air Quality
RR9
Jobs and Safety
RR5, RR11
Safety
RR11
January 2015

Commenter
Lynn Coleman
Michigan Labors Training
and Apprenticeship
Institute
RI-59
Everyone has a stake in this game. Nobody wants to see coal plants, nobody wants
to see nuclear plants. We have an obligation to the state and to our local ecosystems
to reduce carbon footprint. I believe this is the best way that we can reduce that
carbon footprint.
RI-60
A lot has been said about this pipeline before and the jobs that are important for us.
My current residence, where my wife and I raised our twins and now where my
granddaughter plays, directly abuts a Consumers Energy gas pipeline. My
granddaughter's swing set is right in the middle of a pipeline. We have never felt
threatened or been put in harm's way. There has been some repair work, the crews
were respectful and our property is restored to mine and our neighbors' satisfaction.
RI-61
I am a small business owner, self-employed, and the biggest thing I have learned is
you have to look into the future. This is not only good for the community, but it is good
for the state of Michigan, the United States of America and the whole world, actually.
I really cannot see a problem with use having a large natural gas pipeline coming
through.
RI-62
I own a small parcel here in McComb County, ten acres; and my back four acres
currently has a pipeline on it. There has been a lot of talk tonight about using the
existing pipeline there and the existing easement. It is my understanding that this new
line will actually be right outside my back door, probably about 200 feet or 150 feet out
my back door. My original intent was when I bought this house is to build a barn and
to have horses. My understanding is I am not going to be able to build a barn
anywhere in the back and you know that's the reason I bought this place so I am
quickly running out of land here with all the pipelines running through it.
Mark Pulice
Neighbors Local 1191
Mark Ellis
Douglas Prewitt
14 of 22
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Need (less
carbon footprint
RR1
Jobs and Safety
RR5, RR11
Purpose and
Need
RR1
Future Use
RR8
January 2015

Commenter
Douglas Prewitt
Pat Acciavatti
Pat Acciavatti
Dave Naeyaert

RI-63
You know the other thing that -- I've got two gas lines running through the property but
you can't get gas down our road. I have to buy propane, which is very expensive, I
was told. I should have done my homework. I was told that the pipeline was going to
be right down my road and it's not. So I am running out of land quick and I get no
benefit from it.
RI-64
I've installed pipeline for 50 years of my life. Let it be known that I am not a union
member, never have been. I see a lot of my old adversaries here tonight which I
didn't recognize. They never could convince me to join. But I support this pipeline
construction simply because it is good for the economy of Michigan and the United
States and basically all of us, which makes it good for my children and my
grandchildren.
RI-65
Last year they put a 30-inch pipeline through my property so now I have three. I
would like to let the landowners know that I have 78 acres there, two natural water
courses; the Pine River and Patalona Creek with more than a 50-foot differential in
elevation crossing the Pine River. They installed the pipeline very careful of erosion
control, save the topsoil. They were responsible, responsive to problems; dust, noise,
even moving my mailbox when I requested it. The restoration was done properly and
I see nothing but benefit for the majority of people involved, for the state of Michigan
and for the United States. I urge you to approve this pipeline.
RI-66
So, my experience has been with the pipeline companies, they may give you all kinds
of platitudes and good wishes but they do what they want. Right now, with the three
pipelines, I have a hill running across my field where the pipeline goes. There are
drainage issues, they broke off the natural drain. Tiling couldn't probably be done
across there. Back to this other property that is the sensitive soils, I have talked with
the soil conservation service and they don't know what to do because in the previous
area I can't farm that land. Potentially I have three acres I won't be able to work. I still
pay taxes on it, but I won't be able to use it.
15 of 22
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Access to
(inexpensive)
Gas
RR5
Economy
RR5
Pipeline
Construction
RR1
Agricultural
Concerns
RR7
January 2015

Commenter
Mark Lauwers
Mark Lauwers
Mark Lauwers
Mark Lauwers
Nathan Fisher

RI-67
I believe there are three different pipelines potentially to do this same job. I look at it
as a job to move natural gas from Western Pennsylvania/West Virginia up to
Michigan/Canada and if there are three different ones bidding on it or three different
ones trying to do the job, approving all three of them or maybe two of them would
seem foolish because it would be like "I've got three private companies that want to
build a toll road across the country"; and if you give all three of them in a domain and
let him go at it, all three will go, they will do it. They will wreck a lot of natural
resources and they will all go broke.
RI-68
The gentleman from Rover said that 78 percent of the gas would be used in the
United States. My fluid dynamics would ask then why is the largest pipe going to
Canada?
RI-69
Rover is proud of 80 percent of the pipeline being in agricultural land and I have
concerns about that because I spend most of my life trying to feed this country and
most of the world. A lot of people spoke about demand for fuel in the future and I
agree; but at the same time the world's population is going to grow to about more than
a billion people and we can't keep destroying farmland. Farmland is an important
natural resource, we are environmentalists, we work to take care of it. I appreciate
Land Stewards sincerity, but you can't put it back the way you found it. It is
impossible. I mean, tile lines are going to settle, the drainage systems are not going
to be as efficient as they were. It is just a fact.
RI-70
We really need to follow the existing pipelines.
RI-71
I do agree with most people here who say that the pipeline should follow most of the
easements that are already established, and that this does bring a lot of work to many
of us employees that do construction, and it does bring money to our economy here in
Michigan and that I would just like to say I approve for the pipeline to come through to
help provide for my family.
16 of 22
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Purpose and
Need,
Alternatives
RR1, RR10
Need
RR1
Agricultural
Resource
(drainage tiles)
RR7
Alternatives
RR10
Jobs
RR5
January 2015

Commenter
Gary Detheridge
Gary Detheridge
Gary Detheridge
Gary Detheridge

RI-72
Our biggest concern with this proposed pipeline is granting Rover a Certificate of
Public Necessity and Convenience where there is no necessity and it is only
convenient to them. As a country, the U.S. keeps on saying we need to be energy
independent. Last year, the US imported 2.785 trillion cubic feet of natural gas from
Canada. Why would we build a pipeline exporting our natural resources when we
should be using it here at home? Rover should be building a pipeline that supplies
American cities rather than going to Canada.
RI-72
Rover states that the majority of the gas being transported will stay in the US only 18
percent will be used in Michigan. If this is true, then why is the pipe running through
the last six counties of Michigan after the final drop off point, still a massive 42-inch,
1400 PSI line? These six counties will get no benefit from this line other than hardship
and devastation of their properties.
RI-72
I don't think that 4.1 miles of 209 miles is maximizing the use of existing utility
corridors. We requested, and has our township and county, that they use existing ITC
corridor that is a half a mile north of the proposed route. Elba Township, who only has
four affected properties has even asked that the ITC corridor be used, which would
then run the pipeline the entire length of Elba Township. Rover point blank has told
our county commissioners that they are not interested and will not use this right-ofway; they want their own easement. Rover is asking for properties that are not theirs
and should be made to use easements that are already existing.
RI-73
In Rover's draft research report, 34 percent of the route in Lapeer County would be
forested, wooded land. This is absolutely unacceptable. Using our alternative route,
there would be less environmental impact, fewer bends and turns in the route, which
would mean less welds, less resistance in the pipe and a decreased chance of a leak.
Please decline their certificate if not for the entire project, at least through the last six
counties in Michigan going to Canada.
17 of 22
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Purpose and
Need
RR1
Purpose and
Need
RR1
Alternatives
(existing utility
corridors)
RR10
Alternatives
RR10
January 2015

Commenter
James T. Weiner,
President - Southeast
Michigan Land
Conservancy
James T. Weiner,
Michigan Land
Conservancy
James T. Weiner,
Michigan Land
Conservancy
James T. Weiner,
Michigan Land
Conservancy

RI-74
At mile 136 and 137 of the proposed route, ET Rover plans on going directly through
a 540-acre nature preserve. We have gone through some steps to try to minimize.
That nature preserve contains unique natural features that are unique to the area, to
Southeast Michigan; it contains about 200 acres of wetlands, two lakes, 150 to 200
acres of upland hardwood. They would affect maybe 25-30 acres of the 540, but the
original route that was planned was going through a unique, natural glacial moraine
that was unique to the area and it was original; it hasn't been disturbed.
RI-75
In 2012 -- which was finalized in 2013, ET Rover abandoned a pipeline directly
through the area that I understand it goes to Marysville. They could have repurposed
that line for this project, especially if only 18 percent of the gas or 20 percent of the
gas is going to what-do-you-call-it. Instead, they filed a certificate that the property
and that the pipeline was not necessary and that goes right to their filing. They said it
was not necessary less than a year ago. They let it go through. What changed?
What changed, that is my big question.
RI-76
Now I find out that the Vector pipeline, which is another pipeline planned to go through
the area, that will be in existing rights-of-way and it follows essentially the same route
out to Marysville. My question is this last six acres. Why?
RI-77
Again, there are substantial questions in my mind about necessity and then there is
the impact on Lost Lake. Originally, back in September when I went to a public
meeting, representatives of ET Rover said, "Do you have a conservation easement on
your property? We won't go through it, we will change the route." A month and a half
later, they hadn't done it. We phoned them and they said they looked; 'We can't
reroute it."
18 of 22
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Nature Preserve
and Alternative
Route
RR10
Need (Trunkline
abandonment)
RR1
Need and
Alternatives
RR1, RR10
Conservation
Land and
Alternatives
RR8, RR10
January 2015

Commenter
James T. Weiner,
Michigan Land
Conservancy
John Heidelberg
Local 1191 Detroit
John Heidelberg
Local 1191 Detroit
Carole Chi
Carole Chi

RI-78
Again, I speak as a representative of the landowner. SMLC intends, will be opening
up that property to the public for nature study, for hiking, for the public's enjoyment. It
is a unique natural feature for northern Oakland County and southern Genesee
County. We have already had significant interest for educational purposes. We know
that it has been -- archeological digs that have been on it, going back, and they found
very significant potential of indigenous peoples, old hunting and camping sites.
RI-79
I have a hay field on an existing pipeline, on the area proposed. The hay field,
working the hayfield, after the work has been done, the field has been put back
together better than it was before. I am able to produce more hay. It has been
wonderful having the opportunity of working with pipeline companies that come
through the back yard and through my property; and work with them with any
problems, any drainage problems to kind of better my hayfield and my property, and
to fix any problems that there might be with the topography of the land.
RI-80
As a property owner I look forward to working with Energy Transfer Partners on this
project both as someone that does pipeline work and someone that is a property
owner.
RI-81
No one should outlaw solar energy. We have enough solar and wind energy. There
is enough solar power and wind power in the whole world to run the entire world
without fossil fuels. Remember, natural gas is a fossil fuel. It's not clean. It is
methane. It's not clean at all. In fact methane is going to speed up by eight times,
eight times, speed up climate change.
RI-82
I believe in jobs, absolutely. But they are temporary. Not part-time, we didn't say
part-time, they are temporary jobs and what about all the construction jobs that could
be done repairing the bridges, the roads, all kinds of things like that?
19 of 22
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Recreation,
Cultural
Resources
RR8, RR4
Agriculture
RR7
Jobs
RR5
Alternative
Energy Sources
(solar, wind)
RR10
Jobs
RR5
January 2015

Commenter
Carole Chi
Carole Chi
Carole Chi
Carole Chi
Nancy Beaufort

RI-83
The question about the pipeline, it is not about whether the pipeline is going to fail but
when, because eventually all pipelines fail and many of them, I think it is like 10
percent, fail in the first year.
RI-84
You might not realize the quality of water that is there, and it is all well and good to
say it is just natural gas, we are going to pipe it here, pipe it there, but that is through
fracking in the state of Michigan. And we hold 20 percent of the world's fresh surface
water, and it is clean because of the wetlands that we are so quickly destroying all
over Michigan, because they are too small or they are not right next to a Great Lakes,
they are not right next to a body of water.
RI-85
Even geologists, and I studied geology, even geologists don't realize you can't see
everywhere that the Great Lakes are connected to the shale pockets and when they
fracture that, when they break up all that rock to release the natural gas. How it is
connected to the Great Lakes? Because it probably is.
RI-86
There is a gigantic methane cloud right now over Southwestern United States. Are
we going to have that here? Just last night I saw on Twitter, there is a methane plume
coming up out of the ocean, off the coast of Washington, the State of Washington,
and that is due to climate change.
RI-87
I live north of the Detroit water line. I don't know if you are aware of it, but that goes
through a muck area, and just a few years back they had a problem with that line and
they tried to fix it and they had a hard time because of unstable soils. So when you
are saying you are going through muck, and if you have a problem it can be very hard
to fix.
20 of 22
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Safety
RR11
Water Quality,
Wetlands
RR2
Geology and
Fracking
RR6
Air Quality,
Climate Change
RR9
Soils
RR7
January 2015

Commenter
Eric Reeve
Gary Kreusal
Gary Kreusal,
Gary Kreusal

RI-88
Currently, at this time -- I may misquote it, but-- there are at least seven pipelines of
different commodities going through St. Clair County in different directions. The
reason I know that is I am an emergency responder. Different diameters. Different
commodities. My thought is that I encourage for those purposes not only from the
standpoint of protecting the land, which I think needs to be looked at seriously, but I
think we need to consolidate all of our pipelines and infrastructure as much as
possible so that they can be easily managed and policed.
RI-89
Worked for Consumer's Energy as a union employee for 37 years. I am here tonight
for my mother-in-law. This pipeline is proposed to go across her property. At first,
she was not treated very courteous at all. It always seems to come up that 'If you
don't agree with what we have to say, we have the power of eminent domain,' which is
a personal problem with myself because the Vector line of which you speak tonight,
they are trying to go across my place, again.
RI-90
My property is on the Belle River. They [Vector] said they would not be on the
property. They were going to directional bore it. They did. It failed. Drilling mud
boiled in the river.
RI-91
I would hate to be in your position to make the decisions that you have to make
because our economy needs this. We need natural gas. Whether it is only for 5
years or 10 years or whatever, we need to be independent on foreign countries. But
on the same token, I am raising a family and now grandkids on my place. I know this
isn't the Vector line, you are saying run existing right-of-ways. I am on an existing
right-of-way. We had a heck of a winter last winter. Unheard of for cold, unheard of
for snow. As I said, I am on the Belle River. I had extensive settling on the pipeline.
[Also noted: eminent domain issues.]
21 of 22
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Alternatives (use
of existing rightsof-way)
RR10
Eminent Domain
RR1
Directional Drill
(failure)
RR2
Soil (Settling),
Eminent Domain
RR1, RR7
January 2015

Commenter
Gary Kreusal
Richard Donahue
Lloyd Lewis

RI-92
One gentleman said, 99.9995 percent safest way. Okay, we learn from our mistakes.
I can't help but feel from seeing all the different sides, whether it be the lawyers,
whether it be the environmentalists, whether you want solar, wind, whatever it is. Our
climate is changing, did it do this 100 years ago? Yeah, maybe so. I don't know all
the answers but I do know one thing. As a property owner I have not been treated
fairly. The law stands behind the people with the money.
RI-93
[Wants to organize to oppose].So before you leave tonight, if you are really
opposed to this pipeline, stop by, give me your phone number and let's get something
organized so that we can counterbalance what we have heard here tonight.
RI-94
I am supporting this line for all the jobs it will bring in to this area. They are temporary,
but our members use temporary jobs day in, day out. They make their livelihood and
living doing temporary jobs.

Resource Report 1
Project Description
Resource Report 2
Resource Report 3
Resource Report 4
Cultural Resources
Resource Report 5
Socioeconomics
Resource Report 6
Resource Report 7
Resource Report 8
Resource Report 9
Resource Report 10
Resource Report 11
22 of 22
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Eminent Domain
RR1,
Organizing
Opposition
--
Jobs
RR5
Soils
Alternatives
January 2015

Scoping Meeting Held in Toronto, Ohio on November 17, 2014
Commenter
Terry Bell
Terry Bell
Eric Wright
Eric Wright
Steven Cohen
Steven Cohen

TO-1
Investments in pipeline infrastructure like Rover are critical to continuing natural gas
development in Southeastern Ohio and bringing needed energy resources to the
rest of the Midwest.
TO-2
The jobs, both temporary and permanent, will greatly benefit the communities along the
pipeline route.
TO-3
The construction industry needs this massive private investment right now. The Rover
project will help thousands of construction workers who have been hard hit during the
recession.
TO-4
In particular, it's necessary to examine the risk of moving this natural gas by rail. Please
include a road-list analysis of moving natural gas by rail in the scope of this
Environmental Impact Statement for the Rover Pipeline.
TO-5
This is a more than 4 billion dollar investment, and in just over a year we're gonna have
over 10,000 construction jobs. I believe about half of them are gonna be right here in
Ohio. Southeast Ohio will share in those billion dollars in wages and in the hundred
million dollars in payments to landowners.
TO-6
The pipeline comes right through my home community. And it's a concern to us
because just two weeks ago in Monroe County we had a pipeline explosion, that's a
pretty scary thing. But I think if we insist on the appropriate balance between economic
growth and energy security with community safety and protecting our environment, we
can continue to appreciate $3.00 a gallon gasoline prices. It can be safe, it can be
clean, it can be a win-win for our community, our state, and the nation.
1 of 5
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Economic
Benefits
RR5
Jobs
RR5
Jobs
RR5
Alternatives
(risk of train
transport)
RR10, RR11
Jobs
RR5
Safety,
Economic
Benefits
RR11, RR5
January 2015

Commenter
Samatha Cotton
Blair Hennessee
Rick Desmond
Raymond Hipsher
Kyle Brown
Donnie Elder
Township Trustee

TO-7
The Rover Pipeline will create as many as 10,000 immediate local construction jobs
and spur an estimated 4.3 billion of investment in state and local economies. Indirectly
the pipeline will increase the need for goods and services all along its length during the
construction phase benefitting small businesses from manufacturers to restaurants,
hotels and hardware stores. Approximately 1 million dollars will be paid to laborers and
contractors working on the project, all from along the project route.
TO-8
Methods of living or standards of living are changing as a result of this. Fields that we
could get to easily, we're not gonna be able to get to at all for a period of time. The
people who farm our property are not gonna be able to farm for a period of time, and this
-- the ground is being disturbed. And I know that an effort will be made to return topsoil
to where it had been, but it never really gets back in that particular place.
TO-9
People are gonna be able to make money, they'll be able to enhance their riches and
enhance their families, but they also have a chance to take money that they make from a
wonderful success of this pipeline and reinvest back in the pipeline type of investments
and benefit from it.
TO-10
Construction of the pipeline will benefit our economy. The 4 billion dollar project will
create 10,000 local construction jobs. The pipeline itself is American made with 76% of
the pipe manufactured here, and all the compressor built here. Once operational the
pipeline will provide more than 150 million in tax revenue yearly for states and counties
along the route.
TO-11
We stand in support of this pipeline first and foremost for safety, to take care of families,
take care of the farmers and take care of the land we go through. We also appreciate
and stand with ET Rover and their commitment to using local skilled trades.
TO-12
I personally am in favor of the pipeline coming through our township as long as our
township roads are repaired if needed from any equipment that may be coming across
and disturbing of the roads.
2 of 5
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Jobs,
Economic
Benefits
RR5
Economic
Impacts
(farming)
RR5, RR7,
RR8
Economic
Benefits
RR5
Jobs,
Economic
Benefits
RR5
Safety, Jobs
RR5, RR11
Construction
Impacts
(road repair)
RR1, RR5
January 2015

Commenter
Donnie Elder
Mike Erkie
Mark Wilson
Jerry Ryan
Jerry Ryan
Phillip Wallace
Pipeliners Local Union
798
Ed Hashbarger
Ed Hashbarger

TO-13
Rover is going to be bringing in a lot of local jobs.
TO-14
Our compressors are currently being used to gather and treat this gas. Rover Pipeline
will use our compressors to transport this gas to where it can be sold on the open
market, bring revenue back into the state.
TO-15
We will function like an ombudsman in which we will often be advocating for the
landowner. Our mission is simple and that is to do what is right for the long-term
productivity of the land.
TO-16
The Rover Pipeline project when complete will help bring America closer to energy
independence from foreign countries and it will put you on the surface scene to be our
allies, but often support and allow terrorist groups to train in their countries. The Rover
pipeline project will help, we can rely on.
TO-17
The Rover Pipeline project will not only boost the local economies during construction,
but for years to come when using a best value or union contractors.
TO-18
We're the welders, and that's what we do, we train our young guys in the industry, you
know, with the latest technology, with that Rover will be using on this job. I gonna
assure everybody here that these, these welds who the X-rays will be state-of-the-art.
TO-19
I'm here for several topics, one, dealing with the hellbender that exist in our creeks and
streams. We had issues the last time when the ATEX Pipeline came through. I don't
feel that the Environmental Impact Study for that and the Indiana bat was done correctly.
TO-20
We had issues with another pipeline that came through that had drill mud that ended up
in the creek. Removed a person's house from Harrison County from their foundation
and flooded their well, drinking well with drilling mud.
3 of 5
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Jobs
RR5
Economic
Benefits
(manufacturing)
RR5
Land
productivity
RR7, RR8
Benefits
(energy
independence)
RR5
Jobs
RR5
Safety, Jobs
RR5, RR11
Hellbender,
Indiana Bat
RR3
Impacts to
surface and
groundwater
RR2
January 2015

Commenter
Ed Hashbarger
Ed Hashbarger
Mike Chadsey
Mike Chadsey
Ed Hill

TO21
The other topic or the other subject is the emergency response for evacuation from plant
for the pipeline. Haven't heard any plans coming out of the county in reference to
protecting its citizens here. We had a well pad incident here in Jefferson County and we
had to evacuate people starting off at a two-mile radius working its way back to a onemile radius.
TO22
If a landowner does not want to give up their rights to their land, especially a Veteran
who shed blood for this country and stood up for this country, they come home and have
something and because they don't want to give it. They lobby the Federal Government
or they lobby the state agencies, state government to take it from 'em, it's wrong.
TO23
The investment in this Rover Pipeline will stimulate private-sector growth which you
heard about this evening and keep and increase jobs in this state, increase tax revenues
for our local government services. It is the opinion of the Ohio Oil & Gas Association
that the Rover Pipeline should be approved.
TO24
The future of our energy self-sufficiency depends upon it, and it is that safe and
regulated fish and pipelines are constructed to continue to build that sufficiency
TO25
We've had a lot of comments from the craftsmen here of all skill sets. You can rest
assured that these people will be particularly concerned because they live in this area
that they do a proper safe, perform the proper safety, not only installation but
maintenance of the product in this pipeline. So with that and the infrastructure
investment of 4.3 billion and a 153 million plus dollars a year in tax revenues, I'd like to
offer, my, my support of the project.
4 of 5
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Safety
RR11
Eminent
Domain
RR5
Jobs,
Economic
Benefits
RR5
Benefits
(energy
independence)
RR5
Safety, Jobs
RR5, RR11
January 2015

Commenter

Resource Report 1
Project Description
Resource Report 2
Resource Report 3
Resource Report 4
Cultural Resources
Resource Report 5
Socioeconomics
Resource Report 6
Resource Report 7
Resource Report 8
Resource Report 9
Resource Report 10
Resource Report 11
5 of 5
Subject
RR Where
Comment is
Addressed1
Soils
Alternatives
January 2015


FERC Scoping Comments
Summary of Comments Received During FERC Scoping Period: November 4 through December 18, 2014
Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
11/3/2014
11/3/2014
Commenter
Donald L. Reece
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Metamora, MI
C371-1
Donald L. Reece
C371-2
Donald L. Reece
C371-3
Donald L. Reece
C371-4
Donald L. Reece
C371-5
Donald L. Reece
C371-6
Rena Fountain, Clerk

Elba Township
Lapeer, MI
C372-1
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
Very few people in Michigan will actually benefit from it. It will not
lower our fuel bills or provide revenue. It will, however, reduce our
property values and possibly increase our insurance premiums.
We were told It will be flowing a colorless and odorless gas that will
not set off any type of alarms should it leak to the surface.
The existing gas line that runs through Michigan that ET Rover and
its parent company Energy Transfer owned could have been
utilized for this new venture, but was abandoned, with your
agencys approval, then later sold to Enbridge Energy. Seems
rather convenient. And at that time they went on record as stating
this region did not warrant a new pipeline. Perhaps you should hold
them to that statement, or make them answer what changed to
warrant one now.
There are already numerous easements throughout Michigan that
hold underground fluid transfer pipes and above ground electrical
power wires. If this pipeline must be approved, why cant they
utilize them? I understand ET Rover has issued a statement saying
this is not an acceptable solution. But no reasoning as to why not.
Perhaps you could help us understand why not?
And please, put yourself in our position for a moment and
understand this will affect the lives of everyone who is near the
pipeline. And the only ones to benefit are the ones who own the
pipeline.
There are viable alternatives if this pipeline must be run. Please
don't allow Rover to dictate the path they find as cheapest.
Because based on the route they have mapped out, it's not even
close to a direct path to Canada. So I'm sure it has a lot to do with
the almighty dollar!
WHEREAS, less than two years ago Energy Transfer (the parent
company ET Rover) claimed there was no need for the existing
amount of natural gas capacity in Michigan (Docket No. PF 14-14000) and sold its north/south transmission line to Enbridge Energy
so that it could be used to transport petroleum.
Benefits, property
values
RR1, RR5
Safety
RR11
Purpose and need
RR1
Alternatives
RR10
Benefits
RR1
Alternatives
RR10
Purpose and need
RR1
1 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Comment
ID
Number

Elba Township
C372-2

Elba Township
C372-3

Elba Township
C372-4
C372-5
10/28/2014

Elba Township
Elba Township
Lois Downs
10/19/2014
Joan Schmid
Joan Schmid
Town, State
C372-6
Metamora, MI
C373-1
Washington, MI
C374-1
C374-2
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
WHEREAS, the proposed route of the ET Rover pipeline does not

supply natural gas to Michigan beyond the .MichCon delivery point
in Livingston County contrary to what is depicted on the map
provided by ET Rover and is merely a "pass through" to another
country which does not necessitate serving the common good of
Michigan residents beyond Livingston County.
WHEREAS, based on the environmental and safety consequences
of a potential rupture of a proposed 42" diameter pipeline at a
minimum psi of 1100 the Potential Impact Radius would be 961
feet and would potentially be a safety hazard to the many residents
living along the proposed pipeline route.
WHEREAS, should this rover pipeline be constructed property
values of the homes of Elba Township will be adversely affected,
public safety costs would increase, with additional training
requirements for Fire, EMS and Police and cause undo hazardous
risk to the residents
WHEREAS, the proposed ET Rover pipeline crosses or parallels
existing utility property, where eminent domain was utilized.
WHEREAS, ET Rover has failed to demonstrate that utilizing the
existing utility property is not feasible.
I feel this would be a huge danger to the crops, environment, and
citizens of our country. In reading about the natural gas explosions
in our conutry since 1994, I see that about 1600 citizens have been
killed or injured in about 11 explosions. I expect I did not find all
such incidents.
As an owner of the property located as listed above, I am denying
permission to E.T. Rover gas pipeline (Enbridge). its
representatives. contractors. sub-contractors, or associates to
egter my land to perform surveys. or for any other purpose. Any
physical entry onto my property will be considered unauthorized
and treated as trespassing. The land has been posted with no
trespassing signs all over it.
If mandated they should parallel the easement established for the
current pipeline and not cross diagonally over the largest parcel
44-011-029-023-00. (70 acres)
Benefits
RR1
Environmental
impacts, safety
RR3, RR11
Property values
RR5
Alternatives,
eminent domain
Purpose and need
RR1, RR10
Agricultural,
environmental
impacts, safety
RR3, RR8,
RR11
Permission to
Survey
RR1
Alternatives
RR10
2 of 247
RR1
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
11/3/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Joan Schmid
C374-3
Joan Schmid
C374-4
Joan Schmid
C374-5
Cheryl Perrine
Dexter, MI
C375-1
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
We have 3 parcels affected by the proposed route. The property is

currently for sale and we are concerned with a major loss of
valuation. Proposed route will destroy the marketability of the
parcel 44-011-029 -035-00 (40 acres) which will lose hundreds of
thousands of commercial value.
With regards to 55 acres of the 70 on parcel number 44-011-029023-00, there will be a loss of income to the owners once the
topsoil is removed, growing crops on the land could be greatly
diminished. Drains have been installed throughout this parcel as
well some streams and a river in the area could be affected.
contamination is a very real concern.
The previous pipeline across the 40 acre parcel created a dam
which inhibited the natural flow of water to a drain which caused
previous tillable land to be a bog.
Eminent Domain- Not A Public Necessity. Please know that we
understand the need for energy, but the proposed pipeline will
have little to no benefit to the citizens of Washtenaw County nor to
the State of Michigan. In fact, per the Marcellus Drilling news
website, the bulk of this project is to provide delivery of raw natural
gas to Canada and other interconnects to the Midwest. ET plans to
seize the property which we have worked so hard to purchase,
maintain and keep, not for the greater good, but to allow a large
corporation to expand its profits! In a town meeting in Uma, an ET
Rover representative stated that only 18% of the gas would remain
in Michigan. When asked where the 18% was going he stated he
did not know. Earlier statements by ET personnel indicated that
there were no current contracts for this gas to be consumed In
Michigan. Another ET representative stated in a presentation that
production from the Marcellus and Utica shale formations is at a
point that supply now exceeds demand. Much of the current
demand and projected growth, according to ET's own press
release by Shelley Corman, is for export, not domestic use.
Property values
RR5
Agricultural soils,
drainage tiles,
waterways
RR2, RR7
Water drainage
concerns
RR2, RR7
Purpose and need
RR1
3 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Cheryl Perrine
11/4/2014
Christine Kaczmar
Comment
ID
Number
C375-2
Metamora, MI
C376-1
Christine Kaczmar
C376-2
Christine Kaczmar
C376-3
Christine Kaczmar
C376-4
Christine Kaczmar
C376-5
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Avoid forested areas where practical 380.15(d)(2). Much of ET

Rover's proposed route will result in deared swaths through what is
currently woodland. Other routes could and should be utilized,
such as the existing Panhandle Eastern Pipeline right-of-way or
rights-of-way along highways, which would result in virtually no
new permanent destruction of woodlands.
I own just over 2 acres of pristine land that include wetlands. I send
this letter to formally object the ET Rover Pipeline construction.
This entire area is environmentally sensitive with horse farms on
each side of my property as well as scenic natural preserves and
sanctuary for wildlife and people.
I chose to purchase my home here for the sole reason of it's
solitude and natural elegance. Such a pipeline would not only
lower the property value of all of our homes, but it would also
jeopardize our safety, wildlife, and health.
I would like to reference Section 380.15 of the Federal Energy
Commission's regulations. It sites any construction and
maintenance of facilities be "undertaken in a way that avoids or
minimizes effects on scenic, historic, wildlife, and recreational
values" and that the desires of landowners "be taken into account
in the planing, locating, clearing, and maintenance" of such
facilities. This pipeline proposal is NOT falling within the guidelines
of FERC's guidelines. Such a pipeline would be damaging and
possibly catastrophically so. Such a blast radius makes me
shudder to even consider.
I am concerned for the extra expense required to properly train our
volunteer medical teams and fire departments. Any explosion of
this pipeline in this designated area would lead to enormous loss of
life, homes, animals, and properties.
I question the actual necessity of such a pipeline. Our area is
currently satisfied with natural gas distribution from DTE Energy
and CMS Energy. There is also evidence that ET, or an affiliate of
ET, recently abandoned a similar pipeline in Michigan because it
was not sufficiently used.
Vegetation
RR3
Wetlands,
environment
impacts, wildlife
RR2, RR3
Property value,
aesthetics
RR5, RR8
Wildlife, recreation,
safety
RR3, RR8,
RR11
Emergency
personnel, safety
RR5, RR11
Purpose and need
RR1
4 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
10/17/2014
10/26/2014
Commenter
Brian Crowley
Town, State
Goodrich, MI
48438
Comment
ID
Number
C377-1
Brian Crowley
Brian Crowley
C377-2
C377-3
Brian Crowley
C377-4
Brian Crowley
C377-5
Brian Crowley
C377-6
Brian Crowley
Brian Crowley
C377-7
C377-8
Brian Crowley
C377-9
Gary and Janet

Chamberlain
Lapeer, MI
C378-1
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
Fifty feet land usage and another fifty while under construction.
The pipeline is going to Canada. Canada has tight restriction on
pipeline projects. However, Canada will gladly receive it at Its
border. All the benefits without the risk. canada country side is not
being ravished for the product. Our state Is being adversely
affected on account providing Canada with gas, they to other
nations. Our country is extracting Its gas supply for Canada to sell.
This is not Public Necessity!
Corporate Greed to benefit a few. Puts the public at risk.
The ET Rover Company had a pipeline in place they sold to a oil
company. Not very good planning!
DTE has a gas pipeline running to Canada already, this should
suffice Canada's greed.
Our property value is at risk. And house Insurance unnecessary
risk.
High pressure gas is a potential bomb that cause disastrous
consequences to all forms a life and property. High pressure gas
can leak, results In fire, flames upward and outward at high heat.
An unnecessary to rivers, creeks, lakes.
We have high tower power lines and a pipeline at the back of our
property all ready, we don't need another pipeline. Once the ET
Rover pipeline is In place, more than one could be added. Why
open the flood gates?
Nevertheless, Et Rover may use 1-69 and US 23, or the high tower
power lines that run through Hadley, Elba, Lapeer Townships as a
different route, then going through and destroying landowners
yards. The cost to our State and land owners In lost value is far
reaching. Then any revenue received from ET Rover.
The pipeline which starts In the Eastern United States and goes to
Canada. There is a more direct route rather than going through our
farms and woods of Michigan, but ET Rover does not want to pay
the fees that the Canadians will charge them for a type of pipe
necessary to meet their needs.
Benefits, Purpose
and need
RR1
Benefits
Purpose and need
RR1
RR1
Existing pipelines
RR1
Property values
RR5
Safety
RR11
Water quality
Cumulative impacts
RR2
RR1
Alternatives
RR10
Alternatives
RR10
5 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
11/4/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Gary and Janet

Chamberlain
C378-2
Gary and Janet

Chamberlain
C378-3
Gary and Janet

Chamberlain
C378-4
Gary and Janet

Chamberlain
C378-5
Toni Golden
Toni Golden
Pinckney, MI
C380-1
C380-2
Toni Golden
C380-3
Toni Golden
C380-4
Toni Golden
C380-5
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
The pipeline that is proposed has no benefit at all to our homes,

townships and county. It is a transfer pipeline that goes directly to
Canada with not a drop of gas staying in Michigan. ET Rover has
continually lied about hiring of our local people. They bring in their
own migrant labor.
This 42 inch pipeline will cause a blast area of 1100 feet if it
explodes. ET Rover does not care about our safety. They will be a
long ways away. They also do not care about our environment, our
hunting, our trees and our fields. There are documented cases of
many explosions from their pipelines, with death of several people
San Bruno, CA, Wayne, Michigan, Allentown, PA, Royal oak,
Michigan and Berrien County, Michigan.
There is a right of way that is already in position with natural gas
pipelines that go through a right of way. ET Rover says they do not
want to follow this already established route. Why? Because it
could hurt their profits if does damage to someone elses lines and
cost them some of their profits.
We have talked to several people who were interested in buying
property in our beautiful community, but have said they will not
under any circumstances buy near a dangerous largee gas line,
therefore causing the value of our property to be greatly
depreciated.
This is not a necessity for Michigan or the United States.
I have a 125 acre farm that is zoned for 1-3 acre parcels. This
pipeline going through my property would totally ruin the chances
of a developer buying it.
They are proposing it go right through the middle of my property
when there is an alternative route which follows the high tension
power lines that are on a different section of my property.
We farm this land and this would put a financial hardship on us.
They would be tearing up hay fields that would take years to grow
again. They would also be going through wetlands and cutting
down hundreds of trees.
I would never be rid of them coming on my property anytime the
want to check this line.
Benefits
RR1
Safety
RR11
Alternatives
RR10
Property values
RR5
Purpose and need

Future plans to sell
RR1
RR5
Alternatives
RR10
Financial impact,
wetlands, vegetation
RR2, RR3,
RR5
Maintenance
impacts
RR1
6 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
10/30/2014
10/29/2014
10/14/2014
Commenter
Bill Johnson, Member
of Congress
Ohio, 8th District
Town, State
Washington,
DC
Comment
ID
Number
C381-1
Bill Johnson, Member

of Congress
Ohio, 8th District
C381-2
Theodore and Priscilla

Saber
Saber
Saber
Saber
Herman and Jean
Marotz
Herman and Jean
Marotz
C383-8
Dawn M. Walker
Lapeer Township Clerk
C383-9
C383-10
C383-11
Metamora, MI
C384-1
C384-2
Lapeer, MI
C385-1
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
Both Ohio and Michigan are in need of new natural gas

infrastructure so its citizens and economy can fully realize ths
benefits of the emerging Utica Shale and the more mature
Marcellus supply basin. The Rover Pipeline Project is proposed run
through ths heart of the Utica and nearby Marcellus shale supply
regions, providing the region with a significant new pathway for
bringing regional gas supplies to market.
In addition to enhancing Ohio's energy infastructure and access to
local natural gas resources, the Rover Pipellne Project would be a
critical economic development project within my congressional
district. Furthermore the project will contribute to employment
opportunities and tax revenues, which are sorely needed in a
region of Appalachia desperately struggling for jobs and vital local
services like public education and infrastructure development.
Safety concerns about an accident.
Purpose and need

(in support of)
RR1
Benefits (tax
revenues,
infrastructure, jobs)
RR1, RR5
Safety
RR11
Safety
RR11
Safety, siting
RR1, RR11
Safety
RR11
Wildlife
RR3
Safety, property
values
RR5, RR11
Purpose and need
RR1
Hunters coming from different areas shooting down from tree

stands.
We are a 1/2 mile off the road, it goes across our driveway and if
there was a accident, no way of getting out.
If an accident happens 11 homes would be effected in this area.
We have wetland on our property along with several kinds of
wildlife that we enjoy watching very much.
We have lived here since 1983 and are told if the pipeline goes
thru we will be unable to sell and could also be blown up if it ever
exploded.
Less than two (2) years ago Energy Transfer (parent company to
ET Rover) sold its north/south transmission line to Enbridge
Energy.
7 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
11/5/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Dawn M. Walker
C385-2
Dawn M. Walker
C385-3
Dawn M. Walker
C385-4
Dawn M. Walker
C385-5
Dawn M. Walker
C385-6
Karl Roehrig
Rochester, MI
C388-1
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
The preliminary survey provided by E.T. Rover Pipeline Company,

LLC shows the proposed pipeline dissecting premium farmland,
pastures, private and corporate land, a private hunting preserve,
wildlife habitat, the South Branch Flint River Watershed, many
lakes, streams, drains, and numerous other bodies of water.
The outlined quarter mile buffer includes many homes thus putting
homeowners in harm's way if there were to be a rupture of the
proposed forty-two (42") inch diameter pipeline.
The Police, Fire and EMT personal currently servicing Lapeer
Township do not have the training that would be required should a
catastrophic event occur within the route of the proposed pipeline
running through Lapeer Township.
Should the proposed E.T. Rover pipeline be constructed, property
values of the homes near the pipeline will be adversely affected
and cause undo hazardous risks to the residents of Lapeer
Township and the residents along the proposed pipeline route.
Lapeer Township Board of Trustees opposes routing the proposed
E.T. Rover pipeline through Lapeer Township and suggests that
Energy Transfer seeks an alternate route within an already existing
utility easement.
I received phone call on Wednesday, October 29th from Mark
Vedral, Sr. Manager of Land Rights at Energy Transfer. Mr. Vedral
informed me that they would not honor my request [for all the
property owners contact information for the proposed path of the
ET Rover Pipeline for Washtenaw County, MI. I would like the
property owners name and address and any additional contact
information that you have.]. He stated that he was not allowed to
give me the information I requested. When I questioned him about
this statement and again brought up the FERC regulation that
states the company needs to give me the information (FERC
regulations 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".) Mr. Vedral stated that he would not provide such
Agriculture, wildlife,
property, watershed,
waterways, drains
RR2, RR3,
RR5, RR7,
RR8
Safety
RR11
Emergency
personnel, safety
RR5, RR11
Property values
RR5
Alternatives
RR10
Pre-filing process
RR1
8 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Karl Roehrig
11/6/2014
C388-2
Goodrich, MI
C391-1
C391-2
Lynne Warner
C391-3
Lynne Warner
Lynne Warner
C391-4
C391-5
11/7/2014
Michael Cipolla
11/7/2014
Terrence Lahr
C393-1
Terrence Lahr
C393-2
Terrence Lahr
C393-3
11/7/2014
Lynne Warner
Lynne Warner
Comment
ID
Number
William Palmer
Dexter, MI
Fowlerville, MI
C392-1
C394-1
Issue/Concern
information to me. This is another blatant violation of FERC
regulation. Energy Transfer continues to manipulate the entire
process for the gain of profit. They are not being transparent with
the stakeholders involved in this project.
This pipeline is NOT for the good of the US citizens or society as
mandated for Eminent Domain. It is for the pure profit of a private
corporation at the expense of the environment, land owner and US
citizens.
Pipeline cuts through a wet lands directly behind our property.
Proposed line cuts across our property at a diagonal making a
portion of it inaccessible to us or unsellable.
Not adequate footage to allow for safe routing between our home
and our next door neighbor.
Line will also cut through next door neighbor's septic field.
Proposed line is scheduled to be built through the middle of
neighbor's new home construction across the street.
I am a concerned resident who would like to follow along with this
docket.
The proposed route they sent me goes through my only right away
access to my property where my drive is. It also goes across my
future building site and septic site which is my only flat spot on top
of the hill that was not disturbed from mining years ago.
I do not want the pipeline across my property but if it has to go
through with eminent domain I would want it to be on the very
bottom (southern edge) of my property so that it will not split the
woods in half between me and the property north of me. I bought
this property because it was wooded and they are talking about
taking out 150 feet wide by the entire length of my property that is
all wooded.
I attached a map showing their planned routes along with the route
where I need it to be so that it is not so intrusive to my property in
blue.
I totally reject this pipeline going in because if there is a problem
with the pipeline there would be a loss of life, property and I don't
9 of 247
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Eminent domain,
benefits
RR1
Wetlands
RR2
Safety, siting
RR1, RR11
Groundwater
Property
RR2
RR5
Opposition
RR1
Future plans to
build, property
access
RR5
Eminent domain,
vegetation
RR1, RR3
Alternatives
RR10
Safety, property,
compensation
RR5, RR11
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
11/8/2014
Commenter
Shirley K. Du Rocher
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Metamora, MI
C395-1
C395-2
C395-3
Issue/Concern
see anything regarding compensation if something should happen.
Roughly two years ago ETP the parent company of ET Rover, one
of its subsidiaries or ET Rover abandoned a pipeline that followed
a similar route. That pipeline was sold to Enbridge and was
converted to carry oil. ET Rover now claims it is vital to their
interests to pursue this new pipeline that will negatively impact the
property values and disrupt the lives of all the property owners
along the 800 mile route of the new pipeline. In short ET Rover and
its owners want to force the people of Michigan and Ohio to pay for
their lack of planning and business sense.
Joey Mahmoud of ET Rover in a public meeting in Holly Township
stated on October 15th, 2014 at up to 18% of the gas entering
Michigan by the proposed pipeline will be available to Michigan
residents; the balance of the gas will be shipped to Canada. There
are two facilities in Michigan that will be offloading gas from the
pipeline. The Northern most facility is near the Northern border of
Livingston County. The pipeline will continue Northward into
Genesee county turning East through Lapeer County then turning
in a Southeast direction in the general direction of Marysville to
transit the international boarder. It must be clearly understood that
the pipeline will not benefit the public north of the Livingston
terminal. ET Rover through FERC is fully expecting property
owners to suffer financially, disrupt their lives, lifestyles and
livelihoods for a pipeline that will not benefit anyone North of
Livingston County with the exception of ET Rover. I should also
mention that is hardly seems to be in the National Interest to ship
gas from the US overseas. Where is the benefit to the residents
who will be impacted by the pipeline in Genesee, Lapeer and the
other northern counties along the route?
We own a small horse farm where we raise and train show horses.
The proposed route (per the 14 October 2014 maps on file with
FERC) will run within 250 feet of my house and barn. It will cut a
swath through my large horse paddock (which will be rendered
useless during construction) and then through my woodlands that
consist of deliberately planted pine trees; trees that planted in the
1970s and are fully mature.
10 of 247
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Purpose and need
RR1
Benefits
RR1
Vegetation, Loss of
business
RR3, RR5
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
C395-4
C395-5
C395-6
C395-7
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
The pipeline path continues eastward towards the property line

through a lowland basin that acts as an overflow for the Pine
Creek. The pipeline easement will come within approximately 50
feet of our pond that is fed by the Pine Creek.
Per the ET Rover literature, they intend to clear a path 100 feet
wide or more for temporary work space which will run
approximately 600 feet in length from the horse paddock to the
property line at the road. This will devastate my privacy and no
amount of restoration will ever replace the woods that once stood
there. In point of fact, we will be paying taxes in perpetuity on land
that we can no longer have trees on and no longer have control of.
In reality this cleared area will now provide access to what would
essentially be a highway for trespassers, hikers, motorcyclists and
hunters to access my land. I find this completely unacceptable.
There is no telling what the effect of the construction traffic,
commotion and heavy machinery noise will be on my expensive
show horses. How will they react with the long term disruptions
affecting their training, their dispositions or even their heath?
Based on the movements of the ET Rover surveyors I suspect they
will want to put a temporary work space next to the barn where
my show horses are kept; which will further impede the operation
of the farm and create further disruptions for the livestock to deal
with; additionally, the fact that there will be an open 8 foot deep
trough that will be a significant danger to any horse getting loose or
any of the wildlife in the area.
This property represents one of the most significant investments of
our lives. We suffered a significant loss of property value through
the great recession of the last decade. Property values have now
rebounded somewhat but not to the level when we purchased the
property. We are now on the verge of retirement; are we now being
told we must suffer a further reduction of property value by having
a pipeline run through it, a pipeline that will be of absolutely no
benefit to me, my neighbors and my community?
Waterways
RR2
Privacy impacts,
vegetation
RR3, RR5
Business impacts,
safety, wildlife
RR3, RR5,
RR11
Property values,
benefits
RR1, RR5
11 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
11/9/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
C395-8
C395-9
C395-10
C395-11
Darrell and Yvonne

Craw
Linden, MI
48451
C396-1
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
According to the US Department of Transportation PHMSA from

1994 through 2013 there have been 745 serious incidents with
national gas distribution system. Serious incidents being defined
as: Serious Incidents are those including a fatality or injury
requiring in-patient hospitalization, but Fire First incidents are
excluded. These incidents resulted in 281 deaths and 1059
injuries (please refer to the USDOT PHMSA website for additional
information).
Given the fact that the planned pipeline is 42 inches in diameter
and will be carrying natural gas at 1100 psi there will be an
additional risk to me, my family, my livestock and my property.
Should there be a rupture the PIR (Potential Impact Radius) will be
a radius in this case of approximately 1000 feet. The homes on all
three properties adjacent to mine intersected by the pipeline are
within that potential blast radius. One only needs to look at the
photos of a pipeline explosion to see the devastation. While the
statistics suggest that chance of such an incident is low (averaging
roughly 37 incidents per year) it is not negligible. Clearly, there are
other routes that do not put people and livestock at risk.
Presently, the Nexus project is before FERC for approval. For the
most part it uses exiting rights of way with minimum impact to
property owners. I ask FERC to move the ET Rover pipeline route
to already established rights of ways whether public or private to
minimize the risk.
Once again I am forced to ask: how will this pipeline benefit me,
my neighbors and community? Is there truly a need for a pipeline
that will supply "up to 18%" of its gas to Michigan? I say no!
We will state the obvious - We do not want this pipeline built by our
house. When it is completed, it will come within 110 feet of our
home and our neighbor's home. We have lived here for almost 35
years and were looking to live out our lives here.
Safety
RR11
Safety
RR11
Alternatives
RR10
Benefits
RR1
Property
RR5
12 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
11/10/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Darrell and Yvonne

Craw
C396-2
Darrell and Yvonne

Craw
C396-3
Darrell and Yvonne

Craw
C396-4
Jeanette Farley
Almont, MI
C397-1
Jeanette Farley
C397-2
Jeanette Farley
C397-3
Jeanette Farley
C397-4
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
The lot they are looking to use would be totally useless. It is about
110 feet wide and approximately 660 feet in length - with the
pipeline running thru the middle the whole length. The 50 foot
easement and the possible 50 foot temporary easement would
come within 50 feet of our home.
The blue spruce that are planted near the busy road, would have to
be removed and could not be replanted - thus we would have to
endure the constant road traffic.
Looking at the proposed pipeline after it leaves our property, it will
go through natural wetlands. Our area is riddled with lakes, ponds
and wetlands. Please consider another route and leave our small
sanctuary alone.
It does not show good forward thinking in terms of U.S. energy
policy. Here is much expense going into the distribution of a
resource that is limited and becoming increasingly dangerous to
extract. Instead of allowing this investment in infrastructure for a
limited energy source, we should be encouraging investment in
development of infrastructure for renewable energy resources.
It would be forced on private land owners, yet is not to the service
of the U.S. public, but for the profit of a private company at least
the part that goes from Shiawassee, MI to Canada. This is not an
appropriate use of Eminent Domain. And if energy independence is
truly our goal, why are we selling away to foreign markets so much
of this precious and limited resource?
The presence of such a pipeline here in Michigan will encourage
more hydraulic fracturing wells in this state, which will increase the
polluting of our environment and risk the poisoning of aquifers. We
can live without natural gas we cannot live without water.
This pipeline has been proposed to take a new easement of land
through an area where a gas pipeline easement already exists. If
this line, despite the above arguments, must go through, it should
at least go on the existing easement and not destroy any more of
personal property than it must.
Property
RR5
Vegetation
RR3
Wetlands,
waterbodies
RR2
Alternatives
RR10
Eminent domain
RR1
Fracking
RR1
Alternatives
RR10
13 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
11/11/2014
Chad W. Rummel
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Oxford, MI
C398-1
Chad W. Rummel
C398-2
Chad W. Rummel
C398-3
Chad W. Rummel
C398-4
Chad W. Rummel
C398-5
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Necessity - ET Rover, less than a year ago, sold off their main
trunkline in southern MI, stating that there was no need. Coming
back less than a year later, shows that they have no long term plan
for their company and/or no understanding of their industry.
Safety - To be blunt, Natural gas explodes. A pipe that size,
running that pressure is a danger to anyone within a reasonable
distance. This is issue is even worse when you take into account
the route planned is going through some of the most populated
areas of Oakland County, Michigan. Putting this line near to any
highly/medium density residential areas is ridiculous
Property values - House values will go down significantly from this
line, especially those that currently have no major pipeline in
proximity. I speak of this from first-hand experience (Enbridge 6B
line)
Bullying - ET Rover has already shown that they have no issue
with pushing/breaking the law for their own benefit. They have
already surveyed peoples properties that they were denied access
to, without going through the proper process of receiving a court
order. They have also pulled in local police officials to use as
armed guards. Giving them the right to eminent domain will not
only allow them to continue this practice it puts the citizens of this
country (the people that the federal government is supposed to
protect) at a severe disadvantage.
Environmental destruction - Having been through one pipeline
project recently showcases the effects, regardless of preparation or
care taken of the damage caused by these projects. This is
exponentially more severe in the areas that the current project is
planned for. The route proposed goes through an area that is one
of the largest watershed and forested areas in country. A water
shed that feeds most of the people and environment in South
eastern Michigan and on into Indiana and Ohio. The environmental
impact will be severe.
Purpose and need
RR1
Safety
RR11
Property values
RR5
Eminent domain
RR1
Environmental
impacts, watershed,
vegetation
RR2, RR3
14 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Chad W. Rummel
C398-6
Chad W. Rummel
C398-7
Chad W. Rummel
C398-8
Chad W. Rummel
C398-9
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Other options - There are significantly better areas to run this line
that (I69 corridor) that would remove most of the impact to citizens
and provide for a safety buffer in most areas. It would also reduce
significantly the amount of trees that would need to be removed
permanently. Keep in mind that once this line goes in the trees,
houses, barns etc can NEVER go back to their original location.
ET Rover has not, not, not fulfilled the prefiling requirement for
informational secessions. Agreed, they have scheduled meetings.
They have not however provided information in any kind of clear
direct manor. They consistently contradict themselves. The route
information is always a top secret. They have never had an
informational secession where citizens could truly ask direct,
pertinent questions and receive direct answers. The view of the
citizens is that ET Rover is intentionally being evasive and
withholding information so that there will be less opposition to the
project.
Citizens before corporations - It appears that ET Rover has NO
time for citizens, does not care about the citizens, and are only
doing the bare minimum. They have made comments that elude to
the fact that the FERC permit is essentially guaranteed, and that
they already have the full legal rights granted under the permit.
None of which is true. All of which should deny them the requested
permit.
Benefit for the common good - Per the 5th amendment, eminent
domain should only be given if it is for the common good. Common
good, is for the good of the citizens. Paltry amounts in taxes, or a
blip in increased hotel and fast food restaurants during the
construction do not count. I would ask that a very explicit and well
described spreadsheet show how many U.S. citizens are going to
benefit permanently from this project. Exactly how much of the
product going through the pipe is staying in the U.S. On the other
hand Increased income for ET Rover, bigger bonuses for the
executive staff and board of directors IS NOT for the common good
and should never be considered a benefit.
Alternatives
RR10
Pre-filing process
RR1
Pre-filing process
RR1
Benefits
RR1
15 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Chad W. Rummel
11/11/2014
Sandra Martin
Comment
ID
Number
C398-10
Holly, MI
C399-1
Sandra Martin
C399-2
Sandra Martin
C399-3
Sandra Martin
C399-4
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Previous, similar events around this country show that once the
oil/gas companies get a range of area that are approved for lines,
they turn them into pipeline superhighways. Their view is that since
one or two pipelines are already there 3,4,5, 6 or more are ok. I
implore you to put a stop to this now. Stop them from destroying
Michigan for their own gains. If this line must truly go through, then
make them work and negotiate with the people for rights to put in
the line. Not give them a battering ram to rampage through peoples
properties
I am filing a complaint about this ET Rover Pipeline coming close
to or through our subdivision of 81 houses. ET Rover originally
showed a map where the pipeline went along side our
neighborhood. That was bad enough! Now at the town hall
meetings, they are showing another possible route of it going right
through the backyards along one side of our subdivision.
They also stated with this map that our entire subdivision is in the
"buffer zone" which puts us all in danger if any natural gas is
ignited or other problems occur. This has been stated by the
experts at the town meetings. How can anyone with any
conscience even propose to put the lives of 81 families in danger?
Our neighborhood is almost completely young families with
children. Who wants the health repercussions of hundreds of
children and adults on their shoulders?
This is not being done in the interest of our citizens, except maybe
those making money off it. It is a very sad statement of societal
morals when profits become more important than the safety and
well being of our citizens. This is not "clean" fuel! This is not in any
way shape or form in the interest of human safety or prosperity.
The only interest this supports is profit for the few!!
We have lived in our home for 12 years and have worked hard to
maintain and improve it. If this pipeline comes through, our
property values will drop, not to mention our health being at risk
with all the construction and eventually existence of this pipeline.
My children and I already have many health issues that this will
only make worse.
Future pipelines
RR1
Siting
RR1
Safety
RR11
Benefits
RR1
Property, safety
RR5, RR11
16 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
11/4/2014
Commenter
Comment
ID
Number
Sandra Martin
C399-5
Sandra Martin
C399-6
Jane M. Stearns - Fical

Officer
Perry Township
Trustees
Officer
Perry Township
Trustees
Officer
Perry Township
Trustees
Officer
Perry Township
Trustees
Officer
Perry Township
Trustees
Town, State
Fostoria, OH
C400-1
C400-2
C400-3
C400-4
C400-5
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
I don't even see how it's legal for them to come through this
property since we are surrounded by protected wetlands! Since
when did it become fine to tear up protected wetlands?!? That was
a big reason we purchased our home, because the land around it
is supposedly protected from development.
They need to find an alternate route that doesn't disrupt the lives
and homes that, according to our Constitution, we as Americans
have the right to without it being taken away by a corporation or the
government. If ET Rover is allowed by the government to just take
over our properties and have "eminent domain", then we are no
longer living in a democracy!
Perry Township is primarily an agriculture community with
productive farmland. The proposed pipeline would be devastating
to underground tile, the fertile top soil that has taken many years
and millions of dollars to create.
The township roads in Perry Township were not built for the
construction traffic and road boring that would take place. The
heavy equipment traffic would be disastrous to our roads.
Wetlands
RR2
Alternatives
RR10
Land use (ag)
RR8
Road impacts
(construction)
RR1, RR5
Purpose and need
RR1
Safety,
environmental
impacts
RR3, RR11
Property values
RR5
The proposed route of the ET Rover pipeline does not supply

natural gas to Ohio and is merely a "pass through" to another
country which does not necessitate serving the common good of
Ohio residents.
Based on the environmental and safety consequences of a
potential rupture of a proposed 42" diameter pipeline at a minimum
psi of 1100 the Potential Impact Radius would be 961 feet and
would potentially be a safety hazard to the many residents living
along the proposed pipeline route.
Should this pipeline be constructed, property values of the homes
in its vicinity would plummet.
17 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
10/23/2014
Commenter
Officer
Perry Township
Trustees
Lapeer County Board of
Commissioners
Town, State
Lapeer, MI
Comment
ID
Number
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
C400-6
Perry Township Board of Trustees oppose routing the proposed ET

Rover pipeline through Perry Township due to lack of necessity
and lack of serving the common good of Ohio residents.
Purpose and need
RR1
C401-1
It has come to the attention of the Lapeer County Board of

Commissioners that the proposed plan demonstrates little or no
intention of utilizing existing easements. Many of the land owners'
effected by the proposed pipeline alrady have a 120' utility
easement containing three natural gas pipes running through their
property. Rover representatives have since stated that they will
only run the pipeline adjacent to an existing utility easement thus
creating an effective overall permanent easement of 170'. At the
same meeting Rover representatives stated they are in
negotiations with ITC holdings LLC to purchase easements along
electrical transmission lines. However they also stated that, absent
an agreement, they would locate the pipeline on residential private
property. It appears that Rover representatives hold persnoal
property rights in low regard.
If the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission finds that this
pipeline is in the best interest of the state and conrty, the Lapeer
County Board of Commissioners repectfully requests that one or
both of the following be incorporated into the plan: 1. ET Rover
Pipeline LLC be required to fully utilize existing utility easements,
by routing their pipeline within boundaries of existing utility
easements. 2. ET Rover Pipeline LLC not be granted the right of
eminent domain on non commercial (residential) properties.
We have built our home in 1974 and have lived here ever since.
We are now retired and on a fixed income. We live by the creek
and are in the proposed right of way and fear losing property value
and maybe out entire home if there is an explosion from the
pipeline.
This will only benefit ET Rover and not us. They should already go
with the right of way they already have in the area, only 1 mile
away!
Existing easements
RR1
Alternatives,
eminent domain
RR1, RR10
Property value,
safety
RR5, RR11
Alternatives
RR10
Lapeer County Board of

Commissioners
C401-2
Teresa A. Losey
C403-8
Teresa A. Losey
C403-9
18 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
11/3/2014
11/1/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Duane Einheiser
C404-1
Duane Einheiser
C404-2
Duane Einheiser
C404-3
Duane Einheiser
C404-4
Duane Einheiser
C404-5
Duane Einheiser
C404-6
Michael and Karen

Unger
Michael and Karen
Unger
Metamora, MI
C405-1
C405-2
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
The proposed alternate route of the ET Rover Pipeline through

Hadley Township would be devastating in many ways to Hadley
and Lapeer County. Hadley Township is home to two State Parks,
Metamora Hadley Recreation area and Ortonville State Park. The
scenic beauty brings thousands of visitors each year and Hadley's
businesses depend on tourists to maintain their livelihood. The
proposed pipeline comes very close to both State parks and as
such would have a major impact on the environmental traits of both
parks.
Hadley is also home to Sutherland's Nature Center. The proposed
pipeline cuts through the Nature Center, which would destroy the
unique and sensitive ecosystem of the entire center.
Hadley Township encompasses the Flint River Watershed. The
pipeline crosses the same creek no less than three times. Digging
will result in runoff to Lakes. A rupture would have devastation
consequences for the entire Flint Watershed.
Hadley is also home to many farmers whose entire livelihood
depends on their land. The pipeline cuts through the middle of
farms, and once field tile and topsoil is disturbed by the installation
of the pipeline, the land will never recover.
As a rural community, Hadley would never be able to absorb the
extra costs due to additional emergency services training that
would be required of fire and EMS personnel to be able to respond
to pipeline caused disasters.
The ET Rover Pipeline does not supply natural gas and provides
no benefits whatsoever to the residents of Hadley nor to the whole
of Lapeer County as we are simply a "pass-through" to another
country, where it is shipped worldwide. The pipeline could just as
easily go through Canada. The pipeline does not assist the
common good for Hadley and Lapeer Counties, it only causes
extreme disruptions to our way of life and our property.
There is no necessity and no benefit to the people here for a
pipeline.
It could be very dangerous if the pipeline leaked or exploded.
Recreation,
aesthetics,
environmental
impacts
RR3, RR8
Conservation area
RR3
Watersheds
RR2
Land use (ag)
RR8
Emergency
personnel, safety
RR5, RR11
Benefits,
alternatives
RR1, RR10
Purpose and need
RR1
Safety
RR11
19 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
11/13/2014
Commenter
Michael and Karen
Unger
Michael and Karen
Unger
Dan Weil
Town, State
Goodrich, MI
Comment
ID
Number
Issue/Concern
C405-3
It will harm all wildlife, farmland and trees.
C405-4
Property value will be zero because no one wants to live near it.
C406-1
I am a farmer and this property is agricultural land that is very close

to houses. While the land is used for agricultural purposes at this
point, it is also an investment for me. Eventually, this property
could be developed to fund my retirement.
There is already one pipeline on the property and a second one
would make it impossible to work around to create a development.
I have worked a lifetime and now ET Rover wants to come through
with its pipeline and ruin my life's work and investment in this
property.
I also do not believe that the pipeline is environmentally safe as it
is being laid close to so many houses. Even the portion that goes
across my land is close to the homes of friends and neighbors.
Why do we need to suffer loss and lack of safety in our homes for
a pipeline that is shipping gas to Canada?
She along with myself are against the gas line being installed on
our property. It is 22 acres of very wooded property. I know that the
gas mmpany is trying to install the line in Agricultural property
which is what our property is zoned. I can understand the gas
company wanting to put the line in ag property as not lo disturb
residential areas.. Ag zone property that is being farmed may it be
animals or crops will be able to still use there property after the line
is installed. The gas line will not hamper them planting crops or
letting their cattle graze on the property where installation has
omrred. But going through this 22 acres of heavily wood land does
not have the ability to replant the trees that the gas line will
destroy. If the work area is 100 feet that is alot of mother nature
being and then not be able to replace with what is lost. Would you
like a swath of 100 feet going through this heavily wood area
leaving a void?
Dan Weil
C406-2
Dan Weil
C406-3
Dan Weil
C406-4
Ruth Dayss
C408-8
20 of 247
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Wildlife, vegetation,
farmland
Property values
RR3, RR8
Land use (ag)
RR8
Existing pipelines
RR1
Environmental
impacts, safety
RR3, RR11
Saftey, benefits
RR1, RR11
Vegetation, land use

(ag)
RR3, RR8
RR5
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Ruth Dayss
11/14/2014
Gary L. Cooley
Comment
ID
Number
C408-9
North Branch,
MI
C409-1
Gary L. Cooley
C409-2
Gary L. Cooley
C409-3
Gary L. Cooley
C409-4
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
The gas company wants the line lo go through a path of least

resistance. Wouldn't that be like as the crow flies. So many turns
and bends. And I though Cananda was east of Manchester
Township and certainly North of W. Virginia. Wouldn't the I 275
corridor be a better route than all of the farm and wood property
they want to disturb.
This pipeline is not needed and it will be devastating to the
environment, and to all the land and homeowners along the
proposed route.
We all know the known effects of this pipeline, environmental
devastation, lowering of property values, disruption of community
resources and services, imminent domain rights and potential
security issues surrounding this pipeline. As with the Keystone
Pipeline this ET Rover Pipeline is not needed for energy
independence, if approved the majority of the gas will be
transported to Sarnia, Ontario, Canada and then shipped overseas
where the gas companies can receive higher prices for their gas.
At the Metamora meeting I asked the top ET Rover company
official about "BLACK ENERGY" and he said he had never heard
of it. Black energy is the strategy that terrorists will use to gain
control of energy grid systems, including oil and gas wells and the
pipeline distribution system. The terrorists will also target our water
treatment plants. Imagine their top official not knowing anything
about "BLACK ENERGY".
My summer home located in Grayling, Michigan, is next door to the
Beaver Creek HDM1 Gas Well and the DTE high pressure gas
pipeline. This gas well and pipeline has had a devastating effect on
my life and property values. I have been trying to sell my house for
the last two years and no one has been interested in buying it after
I disclose the environmental issues associated with the gas well
and pipeline. I do not want other people to experience my
nightmare! Please watch my power point DVD "Cooley summer
home" to understand what I went through. Would you like to live
next door to a gas well or pipeline". Your anticipated answer would
be "NO'. The people of Hadley Township do not either.

(ag), alternatives
RR3, RR8,
RR10
Purpose and need,

environmental
impacts
Environmental
impacts, property
values, eminent
domain, safety
RR1, RR3
21 of 247
RR1, RR3,
RR5, RR11
Safety
RR11
Plans to sell,
property values
RR5
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
11/16/2014
11/17/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Keith R. Bennett
C410-8
Keith R. Bennett
C410-9
Darcy Bluhm
Traverse City,
MI
C411-1
Darcy Bluhm
C411-2
Darcy Bluhm
C411-3
Christopher Abeare
Goodrich, MI
C412-1
Christopher Abeare
C412-2
Christopher Abeare
C412-3
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
The route for the pipeline runs too close to homes. The local
emergency services aren't equipped for problems that may arise.
Please force ET Rover to find a safe route that causes less
damage to wooded properties and less disruption to peoples lives.
I have concerns about the pipelines proposed in Southeastern
Michigan which, with the company's methods of drilling and
extraction and the potential for leakage, all fall far short of the
"clean energy" image the industry promotes.
In addition, the construction of massive pipelines like these cause
significant local environmental impacts as well.
Every aspect of the ET Rover Pipeline, the Nexus Pipeline, and the
Utopia Pipeline need to be carefully examined as the risks and
detrimental effects far outweigh the benefits.
I am adamantly opposed to the pipeline for a number of reasons,
including concerns about the life and safety of my family, my
property value, liability issues, and concerns about the particularly
sensitive and important environmental issues on my property and
surrounding properties.
This area has a high concentration of wetlands and lakes which
would be devastated in the event of a leak. Furthermore, even if
there is no leak, the damage cause by simply putting in the pipeline
would be significant. The proposed route would go through an oldgrowth forest, causing a significant portion of the old-growth forest
to be cut down.
In addition, there is no substantial reason to establish eminent
domain. The so-called benefits of this pipeline are not benefits to
the people of the U.S., but appear to primarily benefit a Canadian
Company. In the year 2014, we should not be considering taking
people's land in order to increase the profits of a company, let
alone a non-U.S. company. I can appreciate their desire for the
pipeline, but there is no reason for my government to take my land
for someone else's use, particularly when it is not in the best
interest of the U.S. taxpayers.
Emergency
personnel, safety
Vegetation
RR5, RR11
Safety
RR11
Environmental
impacts
Benefits
RR3
22 of 247
RR3
RR1
Property values,
safety,
environmental
impacts
RR3, RR5,
RR11
Wetlands,
waterbodies,
vegetation
RR2, RR3
Eminent domain,
purpose and need
RR1
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
11/7/2014
Commenter
Gail M. Kunz
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Lake Orion, MI
C413-1
Gail M. Kunz
C413-2
Gail M. Kunz
C413-3
Gail M. Kunz
C413-4
Gail M. Kunz
C413-5
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
These three parcels are currently for sale and we are dependant
upon their sale to provide us with income security, long term health
care assurance and for our children/ grandchildren's future
educations.
Currently two existing parrallelling pipelines traverse and dissect
our three parcels negatively affecting: The parcellling thereof,
inhibiting their full use/access, the environment and above all their
value.
It is unconscionable to permit a third non-parallelling pipeline to
diagonally further dissect and destroy these properties, their
impending sale and planned use and to require seniors to sacrifice
their property and thousands upon thousands of dollats plus
financial security for a 'private for profit venture' with no benefits to
us or our community. A third non-parallelling pipeline easement
fractures theres properties to the extent that the planned
anticipated sale for residential and/or commercial use will be
impossible and will impose a tremedous financial loss to us senior
women and our families.
It should be noted that the current two existing pipelines fracturing
our properties has resulted in restricting their use, caused
environmental damage to the surface soil and its usage. Further,
the periodic maintenance/repairs, removal of brush and trees has
resulted in the offal being removed fmm the easement and placed
on our private property. The natural ground water flow was
disturbed and in our case, a 20 acre former pasture land was
turned into a bog. Some areas of the pipeline act as a French drain
further disturbing the natural ground water flow.
Again, it's unconscionable for us as seniors to once again be
forced to sacrifice our property and personal futures for a 'no
benefit to us" private for profit venture.
Property values
RR5
Existing pipelines,
property
use/damage
RR1, RR5,
RR8
Property damage,
land use, benefits
RR1, RR5,
RR8
Land use, drainage

impacts
RR2, RR8
Benefits
RR1
23 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
11/17/2014
Commenter
Mark Selby
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Dexter, MI
C414-1
Mark Selby
11/6/2014
11/17/2014
James and Linda

Verbrein
James and Linda
Verbrein
Kathy Dillard
C414-2
Metamora, MI
C415-1
C415-2
Metamora, MI
C416-1
Kathy Dillard
C416-2
Kathy Dillard
C416-3
Kathy Dillard
C416-4
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
The ET Rover pipeline should use the established energy/utilities

corridor defined by several other pipelines and ITC transmission
lines. This established corridor has been defined, disturbed and
impact known. Creating a second corridor has a huge impact on
the environment and would lead to further degradation of land and
resources.
The accumulative effect impacts and threatens land use, public
safety, socioeconomics and more.
We are concerned about the pipeline which will be installed in
Lapeer County. Many farms that have been in families for years
will be destroyed, it will effect habitat, waterways, and roads.
It will not benefit Michigan. The value of homes will be effected.
Alternatives,
Cumulative impacts
RR1, RR10
Land use, safety,

socioeconomics
Property, wildlife,
waterways, roads
RR5, RR8,
RR11
RR1,RR2,
RR3, RR5
Benefits, property
values
Benefits
RR1, RR5
Environmental
impact, property
values, safety
RR3, RR5,
RR11
Economic impacts,
property values
RR5
Environmental
impacts,
waterbodies
RR2, RR3
To my knowledge there has been no information given that shows

any benefit to our county, state or for that matter our country in the
running of this pipeline
We are expected to take in tons of Canadian garbage without
regard to the environmental impact to our state and now are being
asked to bear the burden of possible explosion of a huge pipeline
that will without doubt serve a crushing blow to our property values.
We have in this area of the counntry/state just begun to recover
from the economic blow dealt to us by the econorny-namely the
auto industry-and those of us who were able to hold on to our
homes through those times are now looking at once again being
property owners of homes that will most certainly be worth less
than what we paid for them.
The environmental toll that will be taken with the building of a
pipeline of this magnitude is beyond imagination. Assuming this
natural gas is gotten by means of fracking, I for one don't want any
part of that process. Our great lakes are our most precious natural
resource and to begin moving that process closer and closer to
them is in my opinion a threat to the fresh-water supply of not only
Michigan, but much of the Midwest.
24 of 247
RR1
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
11/18/2014
11/18/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Kathy Dillard
C416-5
Kathy Dillard
C416-6
Martin Patrias
Chelsea, MI
C417-1
Martin Patrias
C417-2
Martin Patrias
C417-3
Michael and Teresa

Preble
Fowlerville, MI
Michael and Teresa

Preble
11/18/2014
Comment
ID
Number
Marguerite Fix
C418-1
C418-2
Lapeer, MI
C420-1
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
No one ever wants anything like this to go through their property,

but at least in most instances, there is some sort of benefit to the
general population of the area, but in this case, I don't see any
benefits, just padding of some company's bank account. To ask us
to put up with a natural gas pipeline on our property when we don't
even have access to natural gas for our own homes, seems a "slap
in the face".
I ask you to please vote against the building of this pipeline. If
Canada wants to purchase our natural gas, let them have the
majority of the pipeline in their own country.
Rover Pipeline personnel have shown up on our door steps armed
with hand guns, demanding that we sign documents that take away
our rights to the property we have purchased and paid taxes on for
years.
When we object the Rover people say they are going to access the
property any way, and they do so. There is no accountability for the
damages they cause.
Now it is being enacted without regard to the rights of the property
owner. This project benefits the gas companies and apparently the
Canadians who will be the recipients of the natural gas, all at the
Michigan landowners expense.
The factual ones regarding eminent domain & the fact that the
existing pipeline was sold a year ago because it was not needed
are the ones I love the most.
I am so disgusted with this pipeline process and the fact that none
of the states that you are planning to tear up will benefit from this.
We are not stupid and will not just stand around while our land is
taken from us so Canada can benefit. Our concerns need to be
taken seriously!
I object to the 42 inch natural gas pipeline that is proposed to run
from Pennsylvania through Ohio and through Michigan to be
shipped to Canada. E.T. Rover had a pipeline and they sold it.
Benefits
RR1
Alternatives
RR10
Force, property
RR1, RR5
Property damage
RR5
Property rights,
benefits
RR1, RR5
Benefits
RR1
Benefits, property
RR1
Purpose and need
RR1
25 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
11/8/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Subject
Wetlands,
waterways, wildlife,
vegetation, farmland
RR2, RR3,
RR8
Safety
RR11
Land use (ag),

economic impacts
RR5, RR8
Farmland, wetlands
RR2, RR8
C422-1
The pipeline will cut into Michigan, through wetlands, farms,

woods, homes and other 'green spaces.' The Flint River
Watershed runs through Lapeer County and its many streams,
rivers, lakes and ponds have been maintained primarily by
volunteers to allow a variety of animals, birds and fish to flourish.
The counties that this pipeline would cut through are not equipped
to handle a breach in a 42 inch gas line. A 14 inch natural gas line
explosion in Appomattox, Virginia destroyed or damaged 100
homes. We have small fire departments, backed by local volunteer
fire fighters. A building fire in Lapeer in 2013 required help from
five fire departments, some travelling a distance. There are so
many wooded areas (aka 'green spaces') with pines and spruce
which are extremely flammable and very few roads to access them
making it difficult to contain a fire.
I recently attended a meeting where people were being told this
pipeline WILL go through their farms, most of which have been in
their families for generations. Mortgage companies have said they
would NOT grant loans on properties if there was a pipeline on
them. What happens when everything your family has worked for is
suddenly worthless?
Garbage trucks from Canada bring tons of trash from Canada into
Michigan every day and now they want to use our farms, wetlands,
backyards and frontyards to run their 42 inch gas pipe and spare
their own environment. We don't need this grief.
We say NO to proposed project. Build refinery in VA or Penn.
Opposition
RR1
C422-2
Cutting too many trees. No replacements proposed (trees).
Vegetation
RR3
C422-3
Cut across M-24.
Road impacts
RR5
C422-4
Continue to repair over the years.
RR1, RR5
C422-5
Cut through ponds - never be the same again.
Maintenance
impacts
Waterbodies
Marguerite Fix
C420-2
Marguerite Fix
C420-3
Marguerite Fix
C420-4
Marguerite Fix
C420-5
Ronald and Elizabeth

Grant
Grant
Grant
Grant
Grant
Metamora, MI
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
26 of 247
RR2
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
11/18/2014
Commenter
Grant
Margaret A. Goodrich
Town, State
Manchester, MI
Comment
ID
Number
Issue/Concern
C422-6
I don't see a long lasting benefit to Michigan.
C423-1
I am writing, as a Manchester Township Michigan property owner,

to express my deep concern about the impact of the proposed
Rover Pipe Line crossing my property and that of many others in
the area. The crossing being discussed would be drilled under the
River Raisin nearby three times in that short distance.
I am dependent on my well as my only water source and I am
distressed that the aquifer supplying this well might be negatively
impacted by the 42 pipe line drilling. I am a 75 year old widow and
have lived on this property for 37 years. My husband and I worked
hard to own this land free and clear.
I am not in a financial position to move, nor do I wish to be forced
to do so.
Men claiming to represent Rover Pipe Line have appeared
unannounced at my door, asking me to sign a form giving
permission to survey my property as part of their proposed project.
They had no identification and did not give me any pertinent
information so declined to sign any consent at that time. Only after
these uninvited visits did I receive any communication from E L
Rover and that threatened legal action if I did not sign the consent.
The letters also listed public meetings to discuss the pipe line
project which had already occurred and were hours away from my
home.
When I attended two public meetings on the Rover Pipeline
Project, organized by Michigan State Representative Gretchen
Driskell, I discovered that my experiences with individuals
representing Rover were mirrored by everyone present. Property
owners whose land will be effected have been treated very
disrespectfully and seemingly deliberately kept in the dark
concerning any real facts related to the Rover Project. All of us
have been threatened and had our wishes related to our property
being surveyed disregarded.
C423-2
C423-3
C423-4
C423-5
27 of 247
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Benefits
RR1
Waterways
RR2
Water impacts,
property
RR2, RR5
Financial impact
RR5
Permission to
Survey
RR1
Permission to
Survey
RR1
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
11/19/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
C423-6
C423-7
C423-8
C423-9
Shirley J. Roller
C424-8
Shirley J. Roller
Shirley J. Roller
C424-9
C424-10
Fred Kamradt
Goodrich, MI
C425-1
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
I have seen 99% agreement that this project in no way constitutes

a public necessity, would violate FERCs own guidelines and is
opposed by all of the land owners who would be effected, most of
whom have lived on their property for many years.
In addition; I strongly object to a potentially dangerous 42 pipeline,
carrying gas obtained from the fracking process, passing through
Ohio and Michigan for the sole purpose of sending this gas to
Canada.
Agricultural land is vitally important to our countrys food supply
and should not be sacrificed to provide profit for a private
company.
As a rural area (class 4 by FERC? Definition) Rover would only be
required to test 10% of the pipe line welds here, instead of 100% of
these welds as their brochure states. This implies to me that, in the
event of an explosive accident, the population of our community
would be considered collateral damage.
I have 110 acres in Washtenaw County, and the thought of it
makes me ill, that "Rover Pipeline" will be on it without permission!
Why, because it will help no one this country because it goes to
Canada!
It will lower my home, and my land.
It will alter our lives, hunting, fishing, a wood business of maple
syrup, hunting, [..] in the woods, harvesting the tree, when they are
ready, riding the 4 wheel.
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.
Purpose and need
RR1
Safety, benefits
RR1, RR11
Land use (ag)
RR8
Safety
RR11
Property, benefits
RR1, RR5
Property values
Vegetation, Loss of
business
RR5
RR3, RR5
Purpose and need,

pre-filing process
RR1
28 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Fred Kamradt
11/19/2014
Fred Kamradt
Comment
ID
Number
C425-2
Goodrich, MI
C426-1
Fred Kamradt
C426-2
Fred Kamradt
C426-3
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
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 prefiling 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?
Hadley Township is home to Metamora/Hadley State Park,
Ortonville State Park and Sutherland. Nature Center. Hadley
Township has heavily wooded areas, farmland and meadows. The
construction of the proposed pipeline would not only be
devastating to the environmental aesthetics of our woodland, farms
and meadows but also puts at risk the preservation and
conservation of two state parks and nature center.
Hadley Township contains the Flint River and Clinton River
watershed and construction of the proposed pipeline would pose a
threat to our very sensitive wetland ecosystems.
ET Rover had successfully petitioned FERC to abandon a 1700mile segment of Natural gas pipeline, using the argument that
there was plenty of natural gas supply in Michigan. This request
was approved over the objections of the Governor of Michigan and
the State Legislators. Curiously enough, Enbridge bought the
abandoned natural gas pipeline and is re-purposing it as another
conveyor for Tar Sands Oil from Alberta. ET Rover now comes,
hat-in-hand, for permission to build another pipeline, arguing that
suddenly there is not enough capacity in Michigan.
Pre-filing process
RR1
Conservation area,
recreation,
construction
impacts, vegetation,
farmland
RR3, RR5,
RR8
Watersheds,
wetlands
RR2
Purpose and need
RR1
29 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Fred Kamradt
11/14/2014
11/20/2014
Margaret Winter
Comment
ID
Number
C426-4
Metamora, MI
C429-1
Subject
The proposed ET Rover Pipeline does not meet the standards to

be considered a Public Necessity; Michigan does not need the
additional natural gas capacity and the proposed pipeline route
does not supply natural gas to Michigan residents beyond the
MichCon delivery point in Livingston County, contrary to claims
made by Energy Transfer, and is merely a pass- through to
another nation, which does not serve the common good of
Michigan residents.
I am opposed to the E.T.Rover pipeline. This pipeline is not
needed. ET Rover sold a natural gas pipeline to Enbrldge last year
saying it was not needed.
Safety issues are a big concern. A 42" unprecedented high
pressure gas line raises huge risks to anyone living near the line if
there were to be an explosion.
Lapeer County is a rural area. This line would impact the
environment and change our County forever.
I am also concerned with my property declining in value. It would
be much harder to sell.
Purpose and need,

benefits
RR1
Purpose and need
RR1
Safety
RR11
Environmental
impacts
Property values
RR3
Please hear our plea so that our future generations can grow up
knowing they are safe and their environment is being protected by
people who care.
We feel that this pipeline is dangerous, will destroy valuable land,
the environment and lower the value of our homes.
Environmental
impact
RR3
Safety, property
damage, property
values
Vegetation, wildlife
RR5, RR1
Purpose and need
RR1
Margaret Winter
C429-2
Margaret Winter
C429-3
Margaret Winter
C429-4
Lynne and David Buhl
C430-4
Wayne and Yvonne

Fent
C433-8
Wayne and Yvonne

Fent
Frank Zaski
C433-9
We have valuable trees and protected wildlife here.
C434-1
The ET Rover pipeline is not needed Michigan and Canada have

plenty of gas reserves and existing gas pipelines. Shippers, the
companies that signed too many drilling leases, are demanding
Rover be built, not the final residential and industrial users.
Franklin, MI
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
30 of 247
RR5
RR3
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Frank Zaski
C434-2
Frank Zaski
C434-3
Frank Zaski
C434-4
Frank Zaski
C434-5
Frank Zaski
C434-6
Frank Zaski
C434-7
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Michigan already has considerable gas pipeline inflow capacity

(9,557 MMcf/d) and outflow capacity (6,587 MMcf/d). With
considerable inflow capacity from Ontario (1,600 MMcf/d) and
outflow capacity to Ontario (4,060 MMcf/d).
Michigan had more underground natural gas storage capacity than
any other state in the nation with over 1 trillion cubic feet of
capacity. This lessens the need for extra pipelines to meet
seasonal demands.
DTE and CMS told a Michigan legislator that they did not request
the Rover pipeline. DTE is planning their own Nexus pipeline which
will serve Michigan and Canada.
Energy Transfer and FERC agreed in November 2013 that no
additional natural gas pipeline capacity was needed in the Midwest
On July 26, 2012, Trunkline Gas Company, a unit of Energy
Transfer, filed with FERC CP12-491 which argued that their
[Natural gas] pipeline from Texas to the Illinois Compressor Station
[near the Michigan border] needed to be abandoned. They stated
there was excess pipeline capacity serving the Midwest region and
that they had to greatly discount their pipeline services. On
November 7, 2013 FERC responded that Trunkline is not
obligated to continue to operate capacity for which there is no
demonstration of market demand.
Michigan has its own large natural gas reserves in the Antrim and
Utica- Collingwood fields. Michigan had more underground natural
gas storage capacity than any other state in the nation with over 1
trillion cubic feet of capacity. This negates the need for extra
pipelines to meet seasonal demands.
Canada has plenty of natural gas and gas pipelines and does not
need Rover. Canada has 573 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of recoverable
natural gas while the US has only 330 Tcf. There is considerable
natural gas drilling potential in Eastern Canada since the Utica
shale field extends into Ontario. Quebec and Nova Scotia also has
deposits.
Purpose and need
RR1
Purpose and need
RR1
Cumulative impacts
RR1
Purpose and need
RR1
Purpose and need
RR1
Purpose and need
RR1
31 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Frank Zaski
C434-8
Frank Zaski
C434-9
Frank Zaski
C434-10
Frank Zaski
C434-11
Frank Zaski
C434-12
Frank Zaski
C434-13
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
There are at least eight existing pipelines crossing between

Canada and Eastern US states. Many of them are already sending
Marcellus /Utica shale gas to Canada and at least six new
pipelines and pipeline expansions planned to supply this gas to
Eastern Canada.
Most industries just cut production rather than create excessive
outlets. Nexus is preferable to Rover since it is less disruptive
Nexus would make more sense since its route will utilize existing
corridors and infrastructure for some of its length and will have less
environmental and local impacts than Rover.
There is no public convenience and necessity for the proposed
ET Rover pipeline. It does not meet FERC requirements of:
meeting unserved public demand, eliminating bottlenecks, access
to new supplies, lower costs to consumers, or advancing clean air
objectives.
Public convenience and necessity should be determined by the
natural gas needs of the final customers who will use the gas and
not by the profit objectives of shippers and pipeline companies.
Just because they are proposed, they dont have to be approved.
An Adverse Impact on Landowners Note the many comments
submitted to FERC (PF14-14) and expressed at public meetings by
landowners concerning restrictions on land use, lower property
values, environmental and property degradation, lower quality of
life and ongoing fear of gas leakage and explosions. 12,147 acres
of Michigan land would be needlessly disrupted. Also note the
many anti-Rover resolutions submitted to FERC by counties and
townships along the proposed Rover route.
An Adverse Impact on Existing Pipelines and their Customers
While competition is good, excess of pipelines serving the same
markets will displace existing flows into Michigan and Dawn
(Canada) from existing pipelines. This will cause cost per unit of
gas transported to increase and lower company revenues and
profits which could result in an increase in transportation rates and
higher costs for residential, commercial and industrial gas users.
Existing pipelines,
cumulative impacts
RR1
Cumulative impacts
RR1
Purpose and need
RR1
Benefits
RR1
Safety, property
RR5, RR11
Benefits, revenues
RR1, RR5
32 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Frank Zaski
Comment
ID
Number
C434-14
11/20/2014
Clark Tibbits
Columbiaville,
MI
C436-1
11/20/2014
Robin Buchanan
Metamora, MI
C437-1
Robin Buchanan
C437-2
Robin Buchanan
C437-3
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Balancing Public Benefits with Residual Impacts There is little if

any public benefit of Rover while there would be residual impacts
on landowners, their neighbors and communities and existing
pipelines. It would also prematurely deplete US strategic reserves
of natural gas, a national security issue.
Bottom line: It appears that ET Rover wants to build the last
section of this pipeline (and tear up Michigan) not to meet some
need in Michigan or Canada, but rather to facilatating exportation
and maximize their profits. FERC's responsibility is ensure that our
natural resources are used for citizen benefit, not to enable
corporations to maximize profits to the detriment of the
environment.
Not only is this detrimental to the property values in our area but
also to the wildlife and natural beauty of our region. The proposed
pipeline is a physical threat to my neighbors and my family as well.
We moved out to Metamora to be in rural America. We wanted the
wide open spaces, fresh air and picturesque setting. I would never
have thought it to be identified as a spot to put a pipeline with all
the negative environmental impacts that one brings with it. We
purchased and enhanced our property, built a house and several
out buildings. Additional property was purchased adjoining our
homestead as an investment in my familys future. Between the
option to build on the property or to sell, it was to be our choice, not
one mandated by a situation that was out of our control. We also
own a historic farmhouse which we renovated that sits on a parcel
which is currently within 100 of the proposed pipeline.
The company who is proposing the pipeline already abandoned
one pipeline and now wants to build another at property owners
expense. They dont seem to care about the environment they are
disturbing or the lives which they are endangering both physically
and mentally, they are only interested in profit. Not only will our
lives be disturbed during the construction of the pipeline but our
property is now hostage for them to trespass on in the future. This
company has no business taking our land away from us only for
them to make a profit and leave us dealing with the remnants of
the property left behind: physically destroyed and devalued.
Benefits
RR1
Benefits, Purpose
and need
RR1
Property values,
safety
RR5, RR11
Aethetics, property
loss
RR5, RR8
Purpose and need,

environmental
impacts
RR1, RR3
33 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Robin Buchanan
11/21/2014
Angela Zahner
Comment
ID
Number
C437-4
Manchester, MI
C438-1
Angela Zahner
C438-2
Angela Zahner
C438-3
Angela Zahner
C438-4
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
I ask FERC to deny them the use of eminent domain to seize

property and make them use a more responsible route (such as
existing right of ways, the I-69 corridor or ITC power lines) instead
of having them go through my neighborhood, natural streams and
forested areas.
Our almost 4 acres is surrounded by woodlands, farms and
wetlands. I love looking out my kitchen window and see the cranes,
deer and all sorts of wildlife that cohabitate with us. This place is
our tranquility.
I send this letter to formally object the ET Rover pipeline
construction project. The current proposed pipeline would run
parallel to our road on the property across from our home. The
construction of this line would leave a swath of destruction behind .
Woodlands wetlands and farm lands would all be affected
negatively.
Not only am I opposed to the destruction of the environment and
natural beauty or the declination of property value but most of all I
am concerned for the safety of my family. We have three young
children (Zachary 4, Madeline 2, and Miriel 5 months) who depend
on my husband and I to protect them from harm. The placement of
the pipeline would put our home very close to the line and within
the blast zone. Living so close to the pipeline where my children
sleep and play leaves me sleepless.
The feeling of dread and powerlessness to protect my blood from a
corporation's greed and a project that provides no benefit to my
community leaves me imploring you to stand up for us. Because
this pipeline provides no energy benefit to my community and only
lines the pocket of a rich corporation I ask that you deny
application of the ET Rover pipeline for this area. The community
strongly opposes this pipeline and I hope you hear our voice.
Alternatives,
waterwatys,
vegetation
RR2, RR3,
RR10
Vegetation,
wetlands, wildlife
RR2, RR3
Road impacts
(construction),
vegetation,
wetlands, farmland
RR1, RR2,
RR3, RR8
Environmental
impacts, safety
RR3, RR11
Benefits
RR1
34 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
11/24/2014
11/1/2014
11/24/2014
Commenter
Comment
ID
Number
Rita M. Simmons
C439-1
Rita M. Simmons
C439-2
Harry & Dorothy

Kujawski
Metamora, MI
C441-1
Harry & Dorothy

Kujawski
C441-2
Harry & Dorothy

Kujawski
C441-3
Harry & Dorothy

Kujawski
C441-4
Greg Whitman
Greg Whitman
Town, State
Metamora, MI
C445-1
C445-2
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Citizens would be better served if this pipeline must be built, by

running it In the easements that are already along the side of
interstates 69 and 23. In doing so the pipeline could be monitored
and in the event of a problem easily accessed. Running it across
farmer's field is not very progressive thinking. There are already
highway's that have land that is available and getting to it is not
complicated.
In addition, states could benefit from the revenue that would be
generated.
The line is not necessary nor beneficial to our area. Actually it
would be devastating to us, our urban community and our way of
life.
The gas line would not beneflt anyone in Lapeer County, in
Michigan, or for that matter anyone in the United States. It is simply
a pass through to "BENEFIT ANOTHER COUNTRY".
The consequences of pipeline accidents have ranged from injury to
death, public evacuations, emission of carcinogins, radioactive and
other toxic chemicals into the air, water and soil. There were 74
separate "gas line accidents" since 2010 alone. U.S.A.Today has
shown the devastating results of ruptures that have occurred.
Hundreds of people have been killed and their homes totally
leveled by explosions.
In November 2013,ET Rover had a 24 inch pipeline but
consequently decided to sell it to Enbridge "because it was no
longer needed'. However, on June 2014, they submitted to FERC
an PREFILING REQUEST for a 42 inch gas pipeline. WHY???
We don't need it and we don't want it! Our land and properties
have been invaded with lies and many deceptions by ET rover.
They got permission to do a survey across the street by telling my
neighbor they were trying to get natural gas thru a small pipeline to
neighbors who had propane.
They failed to mention the pipeline was 42 inches and of absolutely
no benefit to any of our neighbors. This pipeline would only benefit
Canada not the US.
Alternatives
RR10
Benefits
RR1
Purpose and need,

benefits
RR1
Benefits
RR1
Safety, air quality,

water quality, soil
quality
RR2, RR7,
RR6, RR11
Purpose and need
RR1
Permission to
Survey
RR1
Benefits
RR1
35 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
11/20/2014
Commenter
Comment
ID
Number
Greg Whitman
C445-3
Greg Whitman
C445-4
Greg Whitman
C445-5
Robert J. Farley
Robert J. Farley
Town, State
Almont, MI
C446-1
C446-2
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
They also told us at meetings that it would create thousands of

jobs for Michiganders-another Lie! The surveyors and so called
archeologists were all from out of state based on the photos I have
of their license plates and personal conversations with them.
We live between a Federally protected wetlands and a forested
area. The wetlands has many migratory birds travel there and
cannot be disturbed. The forest to our north is also inhabited by
migratory birds-cranes (sandhill) Canadian geese and many other
species. Every spring and fall we have about 100-125 Canadian
geese come to roostin our front pasture. You cannot hunt nor hurt
Canadian geese who are also federally protected.
There are existing corridors that could be used instead of the
proposed one Itc or Nexus pipeline corridor but this pipeline benefit
Canada only. In the event this rover pieline goes thru our
properties we will take down our American flags and put up
Canadian flags.
The proposed pipeline will transport unrefined natural gas through
several upper Midwest states to a processing facility in Ontario,
Canada. The environmental consequences of hydrofracking are
unknown, but concerns have been raised that the quantity oftoxic
chemicals injected deep into the ground, and the use of massive
quantities of fresh water needed to perform hydrofracking, have the
potential to significantly damage the fresh water aquifers needed
for agricuiturai and domestic consumption. I am opposed to
continued hydrofracking operations until such time that unbiased
scientific study confirms the complete safety of these practices.
Furthermore, according to a New York Times article published
January 28, 2012, the estimated quantity of natural gas available
for extraction in the Marceilus region has been greatly reduced as
reported by the US Energy Information Administration. In January
of 2012, the estimates available indicated that a 6 year supply of
natural gas was available from the Marcellus sources. Considering
the proposed pipeline is not scheduled for completion until 2017 it
would appear that the resources planned for this pipeline may be
nearly exhausted before the line is in service.
Potential jobs
RR5
Wildlife, wetlands,
vegetation
RR3, RR3
Alternatives
RR10
Environmental
impacts (fracking),
safety
RR3, RR10
Purpose and need
RR1
36 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Robert J. Farley
C446-3
Robert J. Farley
C446-4
Robert J. Farley
C446-5
Robert J. Farley
C446-6
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
The existence of the proposed pipeline would encourage the

spread of hydrofracking operations outside of the Marcellus region
when those supplies are exhausted, or before. Extending such
reckless operations into the environmentally unique and priceless
Great Lakes region would be short-sighted and foolhardy.
Continuing to seize private land, imperil natural environments and
ecosystems, and invest vast financial resources to perpetuate
dependency on a finite and environmentally destructive energy
source does not appear to be in the interests of the citizens or the
nation.
The proposed routing of the Rover Pipeline will disrupt forested
land with mature stands of trees throughout much of the currently
planned route. The stated need for a 100 foot wide construction
easement will destroy thousands of acres of forest and other
vegetation. In areas of mature forests, the trees destroyed cannot
be replaced, and will take generations to regrow similar forests.
The permanent easement will prevent reforestation on the land
thus disrupted. On my own property the originally proposed
pipeline route will destroy scores of mature white oak and maple
trees, many in excess of 36" caliper and 80 feet in height. Michigan
State University campus construction standards place a value of
$30,000 - $40,000 each for trees of this size.
Individual landowners will not be compensated fairly for this loss of
property, nor will the citizens at large be compensated for the
degradation of the natural environment resulting from this
destruction.
Future pipelines
RR1
Benefits, eminent
domain
RR1
Vegetation
RR3
Compensation
RR5
37 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Robert J. Farley
C446-7
Robert J. Farley
C446-8
Robert J. Farley
C446-9
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
On my own property the proposed line will disturb wetland,

encroach on the unique Linwood Much agricultural soils and lie
within the drainage area and flood plain of Belle River. In Almont
Township the residences located in agricultural property
immediately south of Belle River are consider "well sensitive"
properties. My own well was difficult to establish and required a
significant investment in treatment equipment to produce an
adequate domestic water supply. Clean water aquifers are difficult
to locate and tap due to the heavy clay soils, extending,
uninterrupted to bedrock levels. Wells extending into bedrock are
obtainable but often produce sediment-contaminated water and/or
salt water brine. The type of heavy equipment and soil disturbance
necessary to construct the proposed line will potentially damage
established private wells rendering them useless.
Experience with existing pipeline construction and easements has
revealed that soil productivity on agricultural land has been
reduced for decades. The compaction of soils, disturbance of
topsoil and unnatural responses to freeze-thaw cycles directly over
the buried pipes all appear to negatively impact the agricultural
productivity of the land.
The justifying logic supporting the concept of eminent domain
assumes that national, public need can supersede private property
rights. The proposed Pipeline will transport unrefined natural gas to
Canada. It is difficult to identify any benefit from this project to the
affected iandowners and the citizens of the United States
considering the gas in the line between Shiawassee County
Michigan and Ontario, Canada will not be distributed for use
anywhere in the US.
Water quality, soil

quailty
RR2, RR7
Soil quality
(compaction, ag
soils)
RR1, RR7
Eminent domain
RR1
38 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Robert J. Farley
C446-10
Robert J. Farley
C446-11
Robert J. Farley
C446-12
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Furthermore, I have repeatedly asked ET Rover why the proposed

construction would not occur entirely within the existing
TransCanada gas pipeline easement that diagonally crosses
Lapeer County and extends to the same location in Canada as the
proposed new line. I have been told that TransCanada "will not
permit, another pipeline within their easement. I fail to understand
why the power of eminent domain would apply to my private
property, but would not be used to compel TransCanada to accept
lines within their easement, especially considering the easement
does not confer ownership of the same private land.
In my own case, my property has been enrolled for more than 40
years in the State of Michigan Farmlands and Open Spaces
Preservation Act. Granting a private, for profit corporation the legal
power to use my property for commercial/industrial uses contrary
to my wishes, is entirely inconsistent with the intent of the
Preservation program and would squander the investment the
State of Michigan and the taxpayers have made in protecting these
properties.
The originally proposed route of the Rover Pipeline through my
property will bisect an open meadow that was the location ofthe
Belle Arbor settlement of the 18401s. This original settlement was
founded as a utopian community near the banks of Belle River by
Reverend Shaw. Many of the original settlers are buried in nearby
Webster Cemetery. I have established a landscape art project on
the site of the Belle Arbor community using new landscape planting
in conjunction with mature trees that appear to have been planted
by the original settlers. In the early 1850's my great-greatGrandfather purchased this property after the failure and
abandonment of the original Belle Arbor settlement. The land has
been continuously owned by members of the same family for more
than 160 years. The proposed construction will disrupt the integrity
of this registered Centennial Farm and will potentially destroy the
cultural significance of the Belle Arbor site that is yet to be fully
examined and documented, as well as destroying my landscape
art installation.
Alternatives
RR10
Conservation land
(open space)
RR3
Cultural impacts
RR4
39 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Robert J. Farley
C446-13
Robert J. Farley
C446-14
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
The extremely high pressure, and large size of the proposed line
create safety concerns for many residents living near such
installations. Ironically, there were multiple natural gas line leaks
and failures that occurred at the same time that ET Rover was
surveying property in southeast Michigan. One such leak,
explosion and fire occurred in Prudhomme, Saskatchewan,
Canada on 10/11/2014 which burned out of control for almost a
week. Residents had to be evacuated from their homes. In 9/2014,
a natural gas pipeline leak in Berrien County, Michigan resulted in
the evacuation of 500 residents, contamination of agricultural
crops, establishment of road blocks, massive disruption of
community services, governmental expense and endangerment of
private citizens' life and property. Michigan residents and
government are still dealing with the consequences of the Enbridge
Pipeline leak in the Kalamazoo River in 2010. A simple search of
the internet reveals an extensive list of pipeline accidents in the US
just within the last 15 years, emphasizing the unpredictable and
erratic safety record of all energy pipelines.
One of many vague, dubious assertions made by ET Rover in
pianning this project involves the benefit to local economies. ET
Rover has stated that local jobs would be created by this project.
Having seen firsthand the economic effects of an existing pipeline
corridor on my property, I can attest that no local employment has
resulted in the decades that these lines have been in existence. ft
is interesting to note that survey operations undertaken by ET
Rover in southeast Michigan have utilized out-of-state survey
companies and workers. A crew of more than 30 individuals
surveyed my property on October 18, 2014. The crew arrived in
more than 12 vehicles, not one of which was licensed in Michigan,
and not one or "the workers was a Michigan resident.
Safety
RR11
Benefits (economic)
RR1, RR5
40 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Robert J. Farley
11/25/2014
Robert Kaplan
C446-15
Metamora, MI
Robert Kaplan
11/24/2014
John G. Bulick
John G. Bulick
Comment
ID
Number
C447-1
C447-2
Dexter, MI
C448-1
C448-2
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
I would strongly urge consideration of less disruptive alternatives

than that represented by the Rover Pipeline Project. At the very
least, new pipeline construction should be limited wherever
possible to be located entirely within existing utility easements.
This use of existing easements would minimize the impact on
private property and ecosystems as the land within these
easements has already been compromised by existing utility
construction. Consideration should also be given to modifying
existing practices to allow construction of such pipelines within
interstate freeway ROWs. These freeway ROWs are already
owned by the citizens and use of land within these right-of-ways
would eliminate further encroachment on the property of private
citizens. I would also urge the FERC to give due consideration to
competing pipeline project proposals that would utilize portions of
existing lines to serve the same Marcellus region and would
thereby greatly reduce the amount of new construction necessary.
The use of existing infrastructure would obviously result in less
construction-related disruption of private land and environmental
damage
Pine Creek Road is a dead end dirt road approximately 1.25 miles
long. The plan is to install a natural gas pipeline (ET Rover)
approx. 2/3 of the way down the road crossing Pine Creek Road.
This pipeline affects almost every home on this road. Pine Creek
road is a very nice untouched area. By installing the pipeline I
myself would not want to live there anymore. I live on this road
because it is rural and untouched.
At the end of the road is forest (land) between the end of Pine
Creek and Crampton Road. Could the pipeline come through there.
I feel that it would impact less homes.
Another natural gas line over the areas being discussed are unnecessary and duplicate actions already taken by other pipeline
suppliers. The primary gain is for E.T Rover profits.
Canada, the apparent recipient of this Natural Gas Flow, has not
requested this action. The U.S. is expected to benefit by only about
18%
Alternatives
RR10
Road impacts,
aesthetics
RR5, RR8
Alternatives
RR10
Purpose and need
RR1
Benefits
RR1
41 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
11/24/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
John G. Bulick
C448-3
John G. Bulick
C448-4
John G. Bulick
C448-5
John and Kelly Belknap
C449-1
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
The amount of Natural Gas reserves in the originating location can

be serviced by existing or pending lines. These reserves are
projected to be very short term in value (about 7 to 10 years) and
do not solve the problem of limiting our dependence on Foreign Oil
over the long haul.
The proposed path of the pipeline through Washtenaw County,
Michigan (my affected area) shows little concern for proximity of
the line to existing housing. The proposal map I saw along North
Lima Center Rd. shows a very close proximity to housing
particularly at the corner of North Lima Center Rd. and
Dexter/Chelsea Rd. virtually cutting through the Northwest corner
of the homeowners backyard. My understanding is that the blast
radius resulting from an accidental explosion would be about 1200
feet (well within the housing area shown on the proposed maps).
There is an Electrical Power Substation at the corner of North Lima
Center Rd. and Dexter/Chelsea Rd. I hate to think of the
consequences of such an explosion on this precarious situation
that would exist.
Request for Route Variation by Landowner: Pipeline path to be
bored as drawn or moved to run along the western side of our
property Parcel MI-WA-042.000. ET Rovers proposed route will
run diagonally through the wooded and wetland portions of our
property. We bought this parcel and built our home here due to this
mix of scrubby woods, volunteer apple trees, mature mast-bearing
hardwoods and water. We knew that if we couldnt prevent the
construction, we at least needed to influence the track of the
pipeline to salvage as much of our woods and wetlands as
possibly.
Purpose and need
RR1
Siting, safety
RR1, RR11
Siting, safety
RR1, RR11
Alternatives
RR10
42 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
11/23/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
C449-2
C449-3
Gary and Aura

Detheridge
Hadley Twp, MI
C450-1
Gary and Aura

Detheridge
C450-2
Gary and Aura

Detheridge
C450-3
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Option-Utilize the existing line but use Boring methods as

referenced by the Rover representatives on 11/20/2014 as well as
sited in Rovers Resource Report 1, General Project Description,
page 1-28 where they state that they will bore under roads and
thatadjacent waterbodies and wetlands will typically be included
within the length of the bore.Our property, as displayed on map
the presented by Rover, has two listed water bodies being crossed
as well as two areas of sensitive surface waters being crossed.
This information is also included in Resource Report 2, Appendix
2A pages 27 & 34.
Option - The line as currently drawn, continue to extend north from
where it crosses Bemis Rd. (listed as being crossed with the
Boring method in Resource Report 1- General Description,
Appendix 1-A p.88) continuing to utilize the HDD/Boring method
and then turn to enter our property north of the water bodies and
sensitive surface water areas. We would prefer at this point that
the Boring method be continued until it clears the water bodies and
sensitive surface water areas listed at milepost 64.77. This keeps
the alignment with the rest of the currently drawn pipeline.
Let us start by stating that we are aware the U.S. is in need of new
natural gas infrastructure. With that said, we are questioning the
necessity of the Rover Pipeline project through the State of
Michigan and with it, their intended use of eminent domain.
This proposed pipeline north and east of Livingston County, MI is
strictly for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of a
private party (Energy Transfer) and will not be benefiting the
general public of the five counties that it will pass through on its
way to Canada.
Energy Transfer LLC, the parent company of Rover Pipeline LLC
(Rover) abandoned by sale to a competitor its 30 Trunkline
pipeline serving this area. (Docket # CP12-491)
Alternatives
RR10
Alternatives
RR10
Purpose and need,

eminent domain
RR1
Benefits
RR1
Purpose and need
RR1
43 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
11/24/2014
Commenter
Comment
ID
Number
Gary and Aura

Detheridge
C450-4
Gary and Aura

Detheridge
C450-5
Gary and Aura

Detheridge
C450-6
Maureen & Ron

Shoemaker
Maureen & Ron

Shoemaker
Town, State
Hadley Twp, MI
C451-1
C451-2
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
Our question is, how can Energy Transfer go from no requests for
long term service plus two shippers wanting to turn back capacity,
to having a 100% fully subscribed pipeline that is 30% larger than
what was abandoned. Conveniently, Energy transfer is now 50%
partners on the line they abandoned by sale to a competitor.
Southern Ontario is the end destination for the Rover Pipeline. If
the United States is importing such a large quantity of natural gas
from Canada and the Canadians are importing less from the U.S.,
there is clearly no necessity for the Rover Pipeline. We should be
keeping our natural resources here in the U.S. where they are
needed.
There are currently 3 pipelines in MI already exporting natural gas
to Canada. The proposed Nexus pipeline would be bringing gas
from the same areas of PA and WV to Canada through the already
existing Vector pipeline. The Nexus pipeline would have a
dramatically smaller negative environmental and socioeconomic
impact on the local communities.
The health of our creeks have increased over the years due to the
diligence of our volunteers in keeping our creeks and rivers free of
contaminates and garbage. We work very hard at this. It would tear
me up to think that our efforts would be in vain if the ET Rover
pipeline is allowed to destroy our watershed by placing their pipes
through, under and across our creeks.
Lapeer County is ranked #9 in Michigan for number of farms. Total
market value of agriculture production is over $69,000,000. 42% of
Lapeer County is farmland with 176,373 acres. Since the pipeline
is set to run through half of the County, as you can envision, the
monetary impact to our local farmers will be huge. Lapeer County
is #6 in direct-to-consumer sales with over $2,000,000 my own
hay purchase from my farmer neighbor puts me directly at risk for
quality hay and the ability to feed my horses.
Lack of
shippers/buyers
RR1, RR5
Benefits
RR1
Cumulative impacts,
socioeconomic
impacts
RR1, RR5
Water quality,
watersheds
RR2
Farmland, financial
impacts
RR5, RR8
44 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
11/25/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Maureen & Ron

Shoemaker
C451-3
Maureen & Ron

Shoemaker
C451-4
Lorraine Rauren
Boyne City, MI
C453-1
Lorraine Rauren
C453-2
Lorraine Rauren
C453-3
Lorraine Rauren
Lorraine Rauren
C453-4
C453-5
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Lapeer County is #4 in Michigan of farms using organic production

methods with 1,011 acres. Having a pipeline so close to organic
farming puts this entire segment of business at risk with potential
contaminates would you to want to buy organic food from soil
that has the possibility of containing pollutants?
Forage/pasture/non-crop farmland encompasses 25,668 acres.
Lapeer County has over 2,200 horses and ponies, is #5 in the
State and realized $958,000 in revenue from these animals.
Lapeer is #2 in poultry and egg production, is #4 in sheep and goat
operations, and is #5 in overall number of animal operations in
Michigan. The disruption of the daily routine due to noise and
debris during and after construction will put these animals on edge
and will affect the ability of them to produce efficiently.
This proposed pipeline would be the third gas pipeline, requiring
100foot swath to be cleared from the farmland of my daughter and
family, endangering produce, fruit trees, and the Belle River
Watershed ecosystem.
My family had a camping vacation ruined in July of 2019 at Warren
Dunes in Barrien County Michigan by the gas line explosion that
flooded the Kalamazoo River with toxic waste that contaminated
the beaches of Lake Michigan. The Great Lakes are an
unreplacable reserve of fresh water. Please don't allow frecked oil
ruin Michigan waters.
Thank you for your strong support in stopping this project that
brings no full time jobs or other economic assistance to Michigan
and will cost in training emergency responders, etc, as well as a
property devaluation of the areas affected by this gas line.
This gas is headed to another country.
It's not made here yet, but having the pipeline will be a foot in the
door to start fracking in Michigan. Fracking is dirty and dangerous.
By the way, there is a minor fault line in the thumb area. - not
suitable for fracking!
Loss of business
RR5
Financial impact,
vegetation
RR3, RR5
Existing pipelines,
watersheds,
vegetation
RR1, RR2,
RR3
Safety, water quality
RR2, RR11
Jobs, property value
RR5
Benefits
Fracking
RR1
RR1
45 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
10/31/2014
Pamela De Angela
Metamora, MI
C454-1
11/17/2014
Pamela De Angela
C454-2
Pamela De Angela
C454-3
Dan and Sue Broecker
Lapeer, MI
Dan and Sue Broecker
11/25/2014
Frank Zaski
C456-1
C456-2
Franklin, MI
C457-1
Frank Zaski
C457-2
Frank Zaski
C457-3
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
I strongly oppose the E.T. Rover Pioeline coming through Lapeer

County. I am a senor citizen whose husband died eight years ago.
I've managed on a fixed income to keep my home on two acres,
which I plan to leave my son.
I've lived through cancer, a heart attack and now you tell me you'e
putting in a 42 inch highly pressured explosive pipeline for Canada.
and i aet a bomb ready to exolode for whatever reason.
You take away my security, peace of mind, property value, etc. If
all else fails to convince me, you'l use "Eminent Domain" so it's a
foregone conclusion there is nothing I can do? Shame on you!
This pipeline would provide no access to Lapeer County folks. It
would create safety risks for people living nearby or in its path. A
42" pipeline is unprecedented. The safety of our citizens would be
compromised should there be an explosion.
We understand that ET Rover sold a gas pipeline in the last year to
Enbridge saying it was not needed. We do not need it in Lapeer
County.
Far more real jobs and economic activity can be created by
expanding Michigan renewable energy and energy efficiency
efforts than by laying a pipeline that will carry fracked gas. It was
stated at the meeting that Rover could create 3,000 temporary jobs
in Michigan. Note, this token amount of jobs would be created
purely to support of more fracking, one of the most polluting activity
in the US.
Thousands of permanent jobs would be created by doing the right
thing and expanding our renewable energy and energy efficiency
mandates. According a Michigan Conservative Energy Forum
study, just continuing the Michigan Energy Optimization (energy
efficiency) program and requiring 20% renewable energy by 2025
would add 100,000 JOBS and $10 BILLION economic activity to
Michigan. This would also increase tax revenues.
Natural gas usage in Michigan has actually DECLINED over the
past 40 years according to US Energy Information Administration.
Financial impacts
RR5
Safety
RR11
Eminent domain
RR1
Benefits, safety
RR1, RR11
Purpose and need
RR1
Economic impacts,
fracking
RR1, RR5
Jobs
RR5
Purpose and need
RR1
46 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
11/26/2014
Commenter
Comment
ID
Number
Frank Zaski
C457-4
Frank Zaski
C457-5
Frank Zaski
C457-6
Michael J. Gilleran
Michael J. Gilleran
Town, State
China Twp, MI
C458-1
C458-2
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Even with additional coal plant retirements, higher energy

efficiency and renewable energy requirements in Michigan will
negate the need for more natural gas needed for electric
generation, building and water heating.
Local tax receipts from Rover may be entirely offset by disfiguring
12,000 acres of (Pure?) Michigan land and probably lowering tax
revenues because of lower property values. There are conflicting
studies on lower property values and pipelines. However it needs
to be pointed out that landowners in Texas are WINNING millions
in law suits because gas pipeline easements often cause
significant damages to property beyond the easement area.
The Rover pipeline decision is not only about shipper and pipeline
company profits and a few tax receipts and jobs. The environment,
peoples rights, health and quality of life should take precedence,
as well as common sense alternatives to this pipeline.
As of today, this new natural gas pipeline is proposed to cross my
property (parcel # 13-004-4001-400). Unfortunately, This would be
the third pipeline extending through my parcel, so I am obviously
disappointed and concerned about the ramifications.
I have since discovered many things that make me very
uncomfortable and down-right disturbed. If it were not for my own
perserverance, I wouldnt know what I have come to learn, as
nobody from ET Rover has disclosed their real intentions. I
discovered the true route will potentially pass through the entire
depth of my property and will likely entail the harvest of a sizable
portion of my woods.
Purpose and need
RR1
Property values
RR5
Environment
RR3
Existing pipelines
RR1
Vegetation
RR3
47 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Michael J. Gilleran
C458-3
Michael J. Gilleran
C458-4
Michael J. Gilleran
C458-5
Michael J. Gilleran
C458-6
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
The maps provided to our local library are supposed show the
desired route of ET Rover but they are not accurate and somewhat
misleading. The maps on file do not show the route as going
through my property. I discovered this on my own when speaking
with an ET Rover representative at recent open house they had
organized in Metamora, Michigan. After some coaxing, he showed
me the real proposed route on his laptop, which proved that the
maps shared with the public were not correct. The pipeline is in
fact likely to pass through over 1000 feet of my property and will
not parallel the existing two (36 inch) lines as was originally
explained to me.
Indications are the proposed new 42 inch gas line will be within
150 feet of my existing home and only 50 feet of my detached
workshop. As I see it, the easement will consume about 3 acres on
the North portion of my parcel and it will hinder my ability to build
our next home or any other structures for sure. Essentially, it will
render the Northern portion of my lot useless and will be
uncomfortably close to my existing home, which bothers me.
The location of the proposed gas line will destroy a substantial
portion of the forest and wetlands on my property. Obviously this
troubles me since there is so much vacant cleared land elsewhere
in our township.
The same woodlands are home to white tail deer, pheasants,
grouse, and various other species. Im quite sure the 22 wild
turkeys weve had roaming our property are likely to disappear.
Obviously, the installation of this new gas line will really disturb the
local wildlife habitat which my family and I have come to enjoy.
Property
RR5
Property
RR5
Wetlands,
Vegetation
RR2, RR3
RR3
48 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Michael J. Gilleran
C458-7
Michael J. Gilleran
C458-8
Michael J. Gilleran
C458-9
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
I already have two 36 inch gas lines passing through my property.

Given the thousands of undeveloped acres in our vicinity, it seems
unreasonable and unjust that I have to deal with such an
infringement again. Its surely not fair since there are numerous
vacant parcels in our area without easement infringements;
shouldnt these be considered first in lieu of causing inconvenience
to those whom have already showed good will and allowed pipeline
installations in the past. unreasonable and unjust that I have to
deal with such an infringement again. Its surely not fair since there
are numerous vacant parcels in our area without easement
infringements; shouldnt these be considered first in lieu of causing
inconvenience to those whom have already showed good will and
allowed pipeline installations in the past.
The diminution of the value to my existing residence is also
concerning. I personally built our home and we have lived here for
almost 25 years. Recently I paid off our mortgage, so from my
perspective negotiating a monetary settlement with ET Rover in
exchange for easement rights, is not really going to make me feel
more comfortable. We have an emotional attachment to our home,
property, and neighborhood. This is our future nest egg and I
intend to protect our interest respectively.
The proposed pipeline route appears to follow a similar path as the
existing two pipelines that were installed in 1966 and 1996, and
currently managed by Great lakes Gas Transmission. I believe this
is because there is financial savings for ET Rover in doing so. It is
quite apparent that economics is driving the decisions for the new
pipeline route more so than their concern for the good will of the
public. They probably believe they will have the least amount of
resistance when negotiating with land owners. Simultaneously,
they fail to realize that this escalates the safety risk of those
families whom already have lines installed on their property and
infringes on the rights and privileges of these landowners whom
have already made sacrifices.
Alternatives, existing
pipelines
RR1, RR10
Property values
RR5
Existing pipelines,
safety
RR1, RR11
49 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
11/28/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Michael J. Gilleran
C458-10
Michael J. Gilleran
C458-11
Michael J. Gilleran
C458-12
Tom Cichonski
Dexter, MI
C459-1
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
For example, I personally know one landowner whom has three

parcels, several miles apart from one another, and this proposed
ET Rover pipeline will potentially cross all three. One of the parcels
already has four pipelines on it, so is this fair to him? Its a shame
that the same property owners are consistently preyed upon.
Another example of senseless planning pertains to my neighbor
adjacent to the North of my property. She is an elderly widow
whom is handicapped. She already has two 36 inch natural gas
pipelines in very close proximity to the North side of her home.
With the approval of the ET Rover project and the desired pipeline
route through my property, her home will virtually be surrounded
with pipeline. Given her personal circumstances, there is no
justification that she be infringed upon any more than she already
has, not to mention the likelihood that her real estate value will
likely be compromised substantially. Its a shame that she has this
to contend with this when her home and property are primary
assets she is depending on.
It is my understanding that pipeline easements often stipulate the
right for and additional installation within the same easement. This
is very concerning, as once an easement agreement is initiated,
there is no recourse in preventing the next installation. In my case,
this would mean a fourth line installation which would likely need to
be even closer to my home. Again, another example of unfairness
and excessive infringement.
My home is within a few minutes walk of the proposed route in
Lima Township, Washtenaw County, Michigan. I have many
economic, environmental, and safety concerns regarding the
proposed pipeline. These concerns are magnified by the fact that
my community and southeast Michigan more generally stand to
gain almost nothing from the project, which, as you know, will
primarily serve to transport gas from Virginia to Canada.
Existing pipelines
RR1
Property values,
existing pipelines,
property
RR1, RR5
Maintenance
impacts
RR1, RR5
Safety, benefits
RR1, RR11
50 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Tom Cichonski
C459-2
Tom Cichonski
C459-3
Tom Cichonski
C459-4
Tom Cichonski
C459-5
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
The tiny number of very temporary jobs created by the project and
the very small tax revenues it will generate pale in comparison to
the very long-term loss of land and other natural resources. Many
of those directly affected by the pipeline in my community are
family farmers who stand to lose full rights to a considerable
portion of their land. The right-of-way could strongly diminish the
market value of their land for many years. Although the route does
not cross my property, Im also concerned about the pipelines
effect on the value of my home.
The pipeline would scar the land of rural southeast Michigan. Its
construction would undoubtedly damage and perhaps permanently
destroy hundreds if not thousands of acres of natural areas,
including water ways and woods. The enjoyment of these areas by
land owners and other citizens, not to mention wildlife, will be
compromised. Environmental impact studies should not be needed
to establish the right-of-ways adverse effects to the environment.
They are obvious.
I am also greatly bothered by the prospect of many weeks of heavy
construction within hundreds of feet of home and property. Two
winters ago another pipeline was laid across my gravel road one
mile east of the proposed Rover line. The heavy truck traffic made
sections of the road unsafe and almost impassable to me and
other motorists for months. It no doubt also strained the small
bridge over a creek less than 200 feet from the proposed Rover
pipeline. Road, bridge and other costs of the pipeline, both short
and long term, must figure into the value of this project to current
and future residents and taxpayers. Over time these costs could
well exceed the pipelines revenue.
My property may well indeed be within the blast zone of this
pipeline. Obviously, Im concerned for my personal safety and that
of my neighbors in the event of a catastrophic failure, however
small the chance.
Jobs, property value
RR5
Waterways,
vegetation
RR2, RR3
Construction
impacts, road
impacts
RR1, RR5
Safety
RR11
51 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/1/2014
11/13/2014
Commenter
Dawn Glanville
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Metamora, MI
C460-1
Dawn Glanville
C460-2
Dawn Glanville
C460-3
Dawn Glanville
C460-4
Kelly A. Connie - Fiscal

Officer
Washinton Township
Trustees
Officer
Washinton Township
Washinton, OH
C461-1
C461-2
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
This project raises serious safety concerns a high pressure

pipeline, having the potential to leak, explode, where there are
people, wild animals, livestock, and agricultural areas that would
be affected. The water quality would be impacted. We have the
Flint River Watershed encompassing a very large area, as well as
other local lakes, streams, and smaller water supplies that our
ecosystem depends on. These should be avoided. The wetlands
are habitat areas for the varied wildlife that make up our area, and
they should not be disturbed.
We will be, and other living creatures will be, negatively impacted if
this project happens. The pipeline will also have a negative impact
on food gmwn here, because of bad soil quality, contaminants
leaching into the land, and heaven forbid acres of unusable land if
an explosion should occur.
Once one pipeline is established, others will follow. The noise that
will be produced if a pipeline comes through would be disturbing
with the machinery used to dig the pipeline, and the assembly
process that would follow. The pipeline would also require
maintenance and repairs, constant invasion of our lands with unwanted workers on our and neighboring properties more
machines, more disturbing noise, more environmental impact each
time they come through very unsettling. This really does impact
our health, welfare, and the things living on the affected land.
Please see that we continue to have a safe environment here in
Lapeer County, Michigan. This pipeline is unnecessary, and will
create hardship for landowners and the environment. The pipeline
is not a public necessity, we are told our natural gas needs, both
current and future, in this area are already provided for.
WHEREAS, Washington Township is primarily an agriculture
community with productive farmland. The proposed pipeline would
be devastating to underground tile, the fertile top soil that has
taken many years and millions of dollars to create.
WHEREAS, the township roads in Washington Township were not
built for the construction traffic and road boring that would take
place. The heavy equipment traffic would be disastrous to our
Safety, wetlands,
watersheds,
vegetation
RR2, RR3,
RR11
Wildlife, land use
RR3, RR8
Future pipelines,
environmental
impacts
RR1, RR3
Environmental
impacts, purpose
and need
RR1, RR3
Land use (ag), soil

quality
RR7, RR8
Road impacts
RR1, RR5
52 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Trustees
Officer
Washinton Township
Trustees
Officer
Washinton Township
Trustees
Officer
Washinton Township
Trustees
C461-3
C461-4
C461-5
11/30/2014

Officer
Washinton Township
Trustees
Officer
Washinton Township
Trustees
Kay Kutzley
Morenci, MI
C462-1
11/30/2014
Terry Richards
Pinckney, MI
C463-1
Terry Richards
Comment
ID
Number
C461-6
C461-7
C463-2
Issue/Concern
roads.
WHEREAS, the pipeline construction would be an additional
burden on the Washington Township Fire Department.
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Emergency
personnel
RR5, RR11

supply natural gas to Ohio and is merely a "pass through" to
another country which does not necessitate serving the common
good of Ohio residents.
WHEREAS, based on the environmental and safety consequences
minimum psi of 1100the Potential impact Radius would be 961 feet
and would potentially be a safety hazard to the many residents
living along the proposed pipeline route;
WHEREAS, should this pipeline be constructed, property values of
the homes in its vicinity would plummet;
Purpose and need,

benefits
RR1
Environmental
impacts, safety
RR3, RR11
Property values
RR5
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, Washington Township

Board of Trustees oppose routing the proposed ET Rover pipeline
through Washington Township due to lack of necessity and lack of
serving the common good of Ohio residents.
Our zoning is residential. Our property is approximately 1/2 mile
out of the city limits. Safety is a concern. Evacuation of the city, if
necessary, would be problematic if not impossible. Safety is a
concern.
I cannot support a high pressure natural gas line that's going
through the one of the most visited state parks in southeast
Michigan, as well as several protected wetlands in the area, just so
a natural gas pipeline company can make a few bucks for
themselves.
I also find it very disturbing that the pipeline company is registered
as an "LLC", or "limited liability corporation". If there's an "issue"
with the pipeline, does this company have "limited liability" when it
comes to being sued for damages ("gosh, we're sorry for the
Purpose and need
RR1
Land use, safety
RR8, RR11
Recreation
RR8
Reliability
RR11
53 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Terry Richards
11/30/2014
11/30/2014
Charles L. Sholl
Comment
ID
Number
C463-3
Fayette, OH
C464-1
Charles L. Sholl
C464-2
Charles L. Sholl
C464-3
Kenneth Hartwig
Hadley Twp, MI
C465-1
Kenneth Hartwig
C465-2
Kenneth Hartwig
C465-3
Issue/Concern
explosion, but we're an LLC and not responsible")?
We will be taking a water sample from our well and submitting it for
analysis to an independent testing agency to use as a baseline
before any work starts in this area. We will continue to monitor our
water on a regular basis to make sure our water quality remains
consistent, and have an independent record (not biased by the
State of Michigan or by ET Rover Pipeline LLC).
It is our feeling that the proposed pipeline in no way will improve
the area of our local and fellow conservation minded neighbors.
It is also my understanding that the pipeline will not supply any
product to any area North of Defiance, Ohio and that it's purpose is
to supply gas to International customers.
My wife and I are totally against such a proposal to lay miles of
pipeline through farm land and land used for wildlife conservation.
We feel the dangerous nature of the pipeline is not in any way a
benefit to our community and the land it must run through. It is time
to stop squandering our Earth's natural resources and creating
dangerous new hazards.
Most of the gas is going to Canada for export. Two competitive
companies are planning new pipelines to Canada with routes
through Michigan. Considering the many impacts to community
and landowners how is it necessary for two pipelines?
Over 60% of the proposed new NEXUS pipeline route follows
existing right-of-ways including electrical high power lines in Ohio
and Michigan, substantially limiting environmental impacts and
effects to landowners (reference eWashtenaw County website).
Nexus Gas Transmission pipeline intend to widen existing electric
right-of-ways, when possible, by 50 feet.
An alternate route from approximately MP108 in Livingston County
to MP183 in St. Clair County on Oakland Alternative map dated
August 2014 can utilize 85% route along existing powerlines to
substantially limit environmental impact and effects to landowners.
I have overlayed this alternate route on the Oakland Alternative
map in a pdf format but unable to attach it in these comments.
54 of 247
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Water quality
RR2
Benefits
RR1
Benefits
RR1
Land use (ag),

wildlife
RR3, RR8
Benefits, Purpose
and need
RR1
easments
RR1, RR10
Alternatives
RR10
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
11/30/2014
11/30/2014
Commenter
JD Stillwater
Comment
ID
Number
Bowerston, OH
C466-1
JD Stillwater
C466-2
JD Stillwater
C466-3
JD Stillwater
C466-4
Larry H. Helmick
Larry H. Helmick
Town, State
Sisterville, WV
C467-1
C467-2
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
The current plan (11/30/2014) includes a diversion from the

Rovers overall path and instead bending south through our
wetland, two springs that supply the only water to two households,
and our extensive tree inventory, before curving back north to
resume its westward run. The shorter northern route would take it
through meadows and our neighbors aquaculture pond, which he
frequently drains and scrapes.
My little property has been managed as a nature preserve and tree
farm since 1991, and besides the permanent disruption that the ET
Rover would cause, the spring that supplies my house, and
another that supplies my mothers house, are part of a perched
aquifer system which would be destroyed by any perforation of the
clay layer that supports them.
Shifting the pipeline right-of-way so as to avoid the cattail swamp
and the springs would place our houses within the ROW. There is
no path through my property or the adjacent ones that would not
cause serious permanent disruption of our water supply, our
houses, or the natural cattail swamp that lies between them.
The only sensible path is to the north, which happens to already
include the still-under-construction UEO pipeline across our
neighbors property. I understand that FERCs policies generally try
to route pipelines rights-of-way alongside existing pipelines, so it is
a mystery to me why in this case ET Partners chose to divert the
Rovers path AWAY from the existing ROW to take a longer course
through our sensitive little tree farm and nature preserve.
I currently own two lots that the pipeline is proposed to cross
above, W5ES-TY-133 and W5ES-TY-131. There are houses on
both of these lots. Since the pipeline will not directly cross these
lots i can only state my concern for the environmental affect that
could be caused to my residences from disturbing the layers of
rock above my home.
Also the safty factor of a possible of an accident occuring with the
pipeline. What would be the safe distance from a residence incase
of a leak or explosion of a line that size?
Wetlands,
alternatives
RR2, RR10
Aquifers
RR2, RR6
Vegetation
RR3
Simultaneous
projects, alternatives
RR1, RR10
Property, geological
impacts
RR5, RR6
Safety
RR11
55 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/1/2014
12/2/2014
12/1/2014
Commenter
Jerry L. Warner
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Goodrich, MI
C468-1
Jerry L. Warner
C468-2
Jerry L. Warner
C468-3
Roger, Florence and

Brent Ruhmann
Roger M. Hummel
Metamora, MI
C469-1
Metamora, MI
C471-1
Roger M. Hummel
C471-2
Roger M. Hummel
C471-3
Roger M. Hummel
C471-4
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Pipeline cuts through a wet lands directly behind our property.

When they tried to put in a drive the DEQ made them take it out
and restore the land.
Proposed line cuts across our property at a diagonal making a
portion of it inaccessible to us or unsellable.
Not adequate footage to allow for safe routing between our home
and our next door neighbor. If the statement was made by your
representative that the pipeline would not go down the I69 corridor
for safety reasons, what makes it safer to go 100 feet from my
home.
Our entire family is against this Rover pipeline project due to
environmental concerns.
This project will be extremely harmful to this area and the local
economy.
This is a quiet rural community with many acres of productive farm
land and many acres of beautiful private and public forests. There
are two state parks, a nature preserve and a large flowing creek.
The proposed route crosses this creek three times. This would all
be severely threatened if this project is allowed to happen.
Not only would the local ecology be at risk, this pipeline is huge,
42 in diameter, highly pressurized and runs very close to some of
my neighbors. I have seen the explosion and inferno in Virginia
which was terribly destructive. That pipeline was much smaller
than the one proposed here.
To allow this out of state gas company to bulldoze this project
through our county (and state for that matter), with little regard for
the safety of the people -or their property seems irresponsible and
an infringement on peoples rights. This is just a convenient and
less expensive way to transport their product to Canada and will
benefit no one but the gas company. This pipeline is not a public
necessity!
Wetlands
RR2
Property, future
plans to sell
Safety, alternatives
RR5
56 of 247
RR10, RR11
Environmental
impacts
Economic impacts
RR3
RR5
Land use (ag)
RR8
Ecological impacts
RR3
Safety, property,
purpose and need
RR1, RR5,
RR11
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
12/2/2014
Thomas
Mount Morris,
MI
C472-1
12/2/2014
Henry Roth
Wheeling, WV
C473-1
Henry Roth
C473-2
12/4/2014
Mary Maine
Lancaster, CA
C474-1
11/21/2014
Dale and Anita Lou
Archbold, OH
C475-1
11/24/2014
Lori Gabbert
Tecumseg, MI
C476-1
Lori Gabbert
Lori Gabbert
Comment
ID
Number
C476-2
C476-3
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Building the E T Rover pipe line now will delay North America from
moving to a renewable post carbon energy economy. Canada will
be using natural gas in ways that renewable energy could be used
such as producing electricity. North America is as a choice point
where we should optimizing all energy sources.
Judging by the amount of comments expressing a negative
response to the Rover Pipeline the majority of landowners are
opposed to the project. I myself have a pristine section of
hardwoods that I have carefully managed for 30 years that would
be destroyed if the current pipeline route is approved. Is it fair for
the federal government to disrupt the lives of so many landowners
when the pipeline is leaving the United States border? It is obvious
that the gas will go to a liquidation facility where it will bring a much
higher spot price overseas.
According to Executive Order #13406 eminent domain may not be
used for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private
parties and this is exactly what is happening. The gas isnt even
being used at the point of origin where it is produced. I ask that you
respect the wishes of the hardworking US citizens that this would
impact instead of letting out of state investors hide under the cloak
of the government to increase their wealth.
I am against this. CA has done many environmental things that
have not been too sounds and that is why I want to return to
Michigan.
We have recently invested in the tiling of the farm and out concern
is how, and if, the laying of the pipeline will have any affect on the
flow of the tile.
Our neighbors fence runs down the south and east side of out
property.
Taylor Drain/creek runs through our property.
We have access paths cut for golf cart access. I can harvest my
fruit. Tractor access to collect wood and overall access paths to
enjoy property.
Purpose and need
RR1
Vegetation, benefits
RR1, RR3
Eminent domain
RR1
Environmental
impacts
RR3
Drainage tiles
RR2
Property damage
RR5
Waterways
Property access
RR2
RR1, RR5
57 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
11/20/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Lori Gabbert
C476-4
Lori Gabbert
C476-5
Charles L. Kreitl
Green Acres Farm
Goodrich, MI
C477-1
Charles L. Kreitl
Green Acres Farm
C477-2
Charles L. Kreitl
Green Acres Farm
C477-3
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
We live off our property. It provides a lot of our food. The property
is hunted for meat for our " ". We need to replenish it every year.
The same with the fruit. It would be a great financial impacts to
lose our harvest from our back yard. Not to mention the nutritional
value as we are organic. Losing the tranquility and seclusion of out
'Eden' is not somthing we are taking easily.
The proposed area is out berry field - raspberries, boysenberries
and wild grapes. All of which are used fot our yearly sustanance.
There are many large trees that are the highlight of the property,
the home to an abundance of critters. I have a group of larger
sassafras trees that are within the right-of-way. Not counting the
sassafras, our trees are our managed fuel source for the winters,
and out haven and escape from the world.
The proposed ET Rover natural gas pipeline is not needed.
Michigan and Canada have plenty of gas reserves and existing gas
pipelines. There are far too many pipelines planned to drain the
Marcellus/Utica shale gas fields. Plus, Rover would have an
adverse impact on Michigan landowners and the environment.
Michigan has plenty of natural gas and gas pipelines and does not
need Rover. There are many natural gas pipelines serving
Michigan coming from the Gulf, Western Canada and other
locations. There are already at least six existing gas pipelines
between Michigan and Ontario. They include: Great lakes
Transmission, Vector, ANR, Panhandle, CMS and DTE. DTE and
CMS, the two major Michigan gas utilities, told a Michigan
legislator that they did not request the Rover pipeline. DTE is
planning their own Nexus pipeline which will serve Michigan and
Canada.
Michigan has its own large natural gas reserves in the Antrim and
Utica-Collingwood fields.
Property, economic
impact
RR1, RR5
Land use (ag)

impacts, vegetation
RR3, RR8
Purpose and need,

environmental
impacts
RR1, RR3
Existing pipelines
RR1
Purpose and need
RR1
58 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Charles L. Kreitl
Green Acres Farm
C477-4
Charles L. Kreitl
Green Acres Farm
C477-5
Charles L. Kreitl
Green Acres Farm
C477-6
Charles L. Kreitl
Green Acres Farm
C477-7
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Canada has plenty of natural gas and gas pipelines and does not
need Rover The US EIA estimated in 2013 that there were 573
trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of recoverable natural gas in Canada while
the US has only 330 Tcf. There is considerable natural gas drilling
potential in Eastern Canada since the Utica shale field extends into
Ontario. Quebec also has deposits. Nova Scotia's onshore tracking
potential is estimated to be 3.4 trillion cubic feet of technically
recoverable natural gas.
Canada and Eastern US states. Many of them are already sending
Marcellus/Utica shale gas to Canada. In addition to Rover, there
are at least five new pipelines and pipeline expansions planned to
supply Marcellus/Utica gas to Eastern Canada including: Northern
Access (.5 Mcfd), West Side Expansion (2), Nexus (2.0), South-toNorth Project (.3) and Atlantic Bridge Project (.5).
Natural gas is a minor fuel for electric generation in Eastern
Canada (Ontario and Quebec) where hydro and nuclear account
for over 90% of generation and wind is a growing percentage of the
total.
Too many gas pipelines are planned for Marcellus/Utica, 57 so far
Rover would source gas from tracking wells in the Marcellus/Utica
region (PA, OH, and WV). FERC is reviewing proposals for 57 new
pipelines and pipeline expansions sourcing gas from this area.
Several pipeline proiects are underway. These pipelines will flow in
all directions from the Marcellus/Utica region, including five
destined for Canada and some to LNG export facilities. It all are
approved and worked at full capacity, they could transport 48 Bcf/d
or 17 Tcf of gas per year. The estimated gas reserves in this region
is 122 Tcf of gas. (Marcellus 84 Tcf, Utica 38 Tcf). Just these new
pipelines could deplete the entire reserves of Marcellus/Utica in
only 7 years.
Purpose and need
RR1
Purpose and need
RR1
Purpose and need
RR1
Purpose and need,

simultaneous
pipeline projects
RR1
59 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
11/27/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Charles L. Kreitl
Green Acres Farm
C477-8
Charles L. Kreitl
Green Acres Farm
C477-9
Charles L. Kreitl
Green Acres Farm
C477-10
Charles L. Kreitl
Green Acres Farm
C477-11
Thomas Wassmer
Adrian, MI
C478-1
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
The US may have only a 14 year supply of natural gas reserves.

The claim of a 100-year supply of natural gas came from the gas
industry. Bloomberg found the average reported estimate of gas
driller's resource potential was 6.6 times higher than the proved
reserves reported to the SEC. British Petroleum reports the US has
only 13.6 years supply of natural gas and only a 54.8 years supply
in the entire world. A conservative Forbes magazine article reports
"America's shale gas resources and reserves have been grossly
exaggerated and today's level of shale gas production is
unsustainable." Total US shale gas resources stood at 481 T cf, or
less than a 19-year supply of natural gas based on 2013 rates of
production." [And closer to 14 vears at the 2014 production rate.]
Water. citizens. geology and economic! will limit shale gas potential
There will not be enough water to frack all potential shale in the
US. Nearly half (47%) of oil and gas wells recently hydraulically
fractured in the U.S. are in regions with high or extremely high
water stress.
Note the many Rover comments submitted to FERC (PF14-14000) and expressed at public meetings by landowners concerning
restrictions on land use, lower property values, environmental and
property degradation, lower quality of life and ongoing fear of gas
leakage and explosions. Rover would tear up 12,147 acres of land
including wetlands and forests.
While competition is good, excess of pipelines serving the same
markets will displace existing into Michigan and Dawn (Canada)
from existing pipelines. This will cause costs per unit of gas
transported to increase and lower company revenues and profits
which could result in an increase jn transportation rates and higher
prices for residential, commercial and industrial gas users.
The natural gas to be transmitted is produced by hydraulic
fracturing (fracking), which is a highly insecure, inefficient, and
polluting technology that should not be further promoted, which it
would, if this transmission and distribution line is build.
Purpose and need
RR1
Water use, fracking
RR1, RR2
Property, safety,
RR2, RR3,
RR5, RR11
Purpose and need,

economic impacts
RR1, RR5
Fracking
RR1
60 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/1/2014
12/1/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Thomas Wassmer
C478-2
Thomas Wassmer
C478-3
Thomas Wassmer
C478-4
Bryan and Tammy

Merkel
Atlas Twp, MI
C479-1
Bryan and Tammy

Merkel
C479-2
Bryan and Tammy

Merkel
C479-3
Rodney & Carrie

Humble
Pinckney, MI
C480-1
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
The transmission of natural gas in pipelines leads to substantial

leakage of the potent greenhouse gas methane, which has a
climate altering potential that is estimated to be 28-84 times higher
than that of carbon dioxide.
Serious incidents in the transmission of natural gas in pipelines are
less common but if they occur they are often more serious
(explosions) and often cause fatalities.
Fossil fuels caused and continue to cause global climate change.
Renewable energy sources are the only means to cut greenhouse
gases substantially and the technology is available to switch to
100% renewable energy right now. Every new investment into
fossil fuels is unnecessary and unethical and should therefore be
avoided.
We temporarily paused with the realization that the ET Rover
pipeline is proposed to go down the center of my vacant land from
front to back, which, after all easement restrictions, would render
the property virtually unbuildable.
I attended the meeting on October 15 at Holly High School. ET
Rover Rep, Joey Mahmoud said, ET Rover doesnt want to put the
pipeline near house. We try to stay at least 200 feet from houses.
With your current route, ET Rover will be required to tear down my
newly built house. If they try to go around my house, they will be
require to tear down my new barn and will be significantly closer
than 200 feet to both mine and my neighbors home, eliminate the
row of trees on the property line and depending on final placement
of the house may not have enough for the 50 feet easement for
pipeline construction.
As you can see there are not many houses around my new home. I
hope you can find an alternate route that is less populated and if
your plan is to tear my home down or to stay on my property.
Our main reason for purchasing this parcel was the fact that
because it backs up to state land & the Lakeland Trails we felt that
it was protected from future development. It is also fully wooded
between the house, the Lakeland Trail & the state land affording us
the privacy we desired as well as habitat for wildlife.
Air quality
RR9
Safety
RR11
Purpose and need
RR1
Future plans to build
RR5
Siting, property
RR1, RR5
Alternatives
RR10
RR3
61 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Rodney & Carrie

Humble
C480-2
Rodney & Carrie

Humble
C480-3
Rodney & Carrie

Humble
C480-4
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Should Rover pipeline be granted access to construct the

proposed natural gas pipeline on our property we are gravely
concerned with our safety should a gas leak occur. Our
understanding of the pipeline proposed is that only 10%of the
welds will be inspected, that this size pipeline has maintenance
issues and that the blast zone is approximately 1100feet. We are
also concerned with our property value as well as our ability to find
a buyer should we choose to sell.
The area Rover proposes to construct the pipeline would remove
fully mature trees that may not be replaceable, such as 30 foot tall
Tamarack pines; it would be installed just feet from Honey Creek at
the back of our property through wetlands; it would also disturb the
wildlife, particularly the pheasant population which had been
almost non-existent for many years and is now starting to repopulate the area. Our understanding is that Rover has no
intention of replacing any of the trees being removed. While we
understand that trees would not be permitted in the easement area
we feel that an attempt should be made outside of the easement to
restore the land as much as possible to its previous beauty; even if
we were to try to replace the trees we would be deceased before
they ever reach the maturity they are at today, although they
should still be replaced for future generations.
We question the reason they want to cross our property at all when
the ITC power lines which are just beyond our property have
existing right of ways which have already been cleared. There
exists on our property a right of way easement to the ITC power
lines, should we have a second right of way easement, we feel this
further devalues our property. We also question why the pipeline
can't be run through the state land rather than private property. If it
is for the common good of all (which it does not seem to be) then it
should be constructed on common land.
Safety
RR11
Vegetation
RR3
Alternatives
RR10
62 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/1/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Rodney & Carrie

Humble
C480-5
Rodney & Carrie

Humble
C480-6
Dane R. Kibbe
Port Huron, MI
Dane R. Kibbe
12/1/2014
John F. Moran
John F. Moran
Comment
ID
Number
C481-1
C481-2
East China, MI
C482-1
C482-2
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Our understanding is that Michigan will not benefit much from the
installation of this pipeline as most of this gas will be delivered to
Canada. If the gas is only being stored in Canada as reported,
what is the reason behind this? Is it to avoid some type of taxes
here in the states?
Maybe if Rover would consider giving free natural gas to all the
property owners affected we might be more willing to accept this
intrusion. The payouts they will give will be gone soon enough but
the ramifications of this pipeline will remain long after we are gone.
We seem to have enough natural gas around this area, judging
by the fact that I am enjoying Florida weather all year long inside
my home, even when the temperatures outside are way below
zero, like they allegedly were on many occasions last winter,
according to the TV.
Although what happens elsewhere might be different, I hope that,
in the long run, you, and the invading gas bags, are able to figure
out that the federal government does not have the authority to
impose Eminent Domain and/or Sovereign Immunity in St. Clair
County.
Proposed St. Clair River crossing at terminus of U.S. portion of
Rover project now shows the purchase of a 75 foot wide residential
lot (zoned R-1) in a highly desirable residential platted subdivision.
(a) residents on either size of proposed pipeline are less than 50
feet from the centerline of proposed 42 inch pipeline. (b) lower
property values for residents in the immediate developed
waterfront properties. (c) Possible damage or destruction of a
residence listed in the Historical Registry. This property lies within
500 feet of the proposed river crossing in the same plat.
Proposed river crossing is directly under a new fish habitat
spawning reef under construction in the St. Clair River. (a) Project
is a joint venture with federal funding (U.S. Fish and Wildlife)
University of Michigan, Michigan DNR and others. Cost exceeds a
million dollars. (b) reef is designed to provide a spawning area for
sturgeon (a threatened and endangered species), whitefish, (a fish
not presently spawning in the river) and walleye, a highly desirable
Benefits
RR1
Benefits
RR1
Purpose and need
RR1
Eminent domain
RR1
Property values,
siting
RR1, RR5
Wildlife
RR3
63 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/2/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
John F. Moran
C482-3
John F. Moran
C482-4
John F. Moran
C482-5
Kevin Ziegler - Fiscal

Officer
Bloom Township
Trustees
Officer
Bloom Township
Trustees
Officer
Bloom Township
Trustees
Officer
Bloom Township
Trustees
Bloom Twp, OH
C484-1
C484-2
C484-3
C484-4
Issue/Concern
and economically important species.
The construction, maintenance and long term safety issues dealing
with a 42 inch pipeline in a residential area between two existing
homes has not been addressed by Rover personnel. 2) The
procedures, as proposed, present a clear and present danger to an
entire residential neighborhood.
A rather blatant attempt to use the most expedient and easiest
river crossing route while avoiding other more accommodating,
existing sites that may involve difficult negotiations with
competitors or private utility entities.
An attempt by Rover personnel to secure a new, less expensive
river crossing site on private property, under the guise of "eminent
domain". This tactic would alleviate Rover having to negotiate with
other pipeline competitors and public utilities who own available
right of ways and easements within a half a mile (north and south)
of the presently proposed private property. There ARE other
available river crossing routes not associated with private property.
WHEREAS, Bloom Township is primarily an agriculture community
with productive farmland. The proposed pipeline would be
devastating to underground tile, the fertile top soil that has taken
many years and millions of dollars to create.
WHEREAS, the township roads in Bloom Township were not built
for the construction traffic and road boring that would take place.
The heavy equipment traffic would be disastrous to our roads.
supply natural gas to Ohio and is merely a "pass through" to
another country which does not necessitate serving the common
good of Ohio residents.
WHEREAS, Based on the environmental and safety consequences
minimum psi of 1100 the Potential Impact Radius would be 961
feet and would potentially be a safety hazard to the mimy residents
living along the proposed pipeline route.
64 of 247
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Safety
RR11
Alternatives
RR10
Eminent domain,
alternatives
RR1, RR10
Land use (ag)
RR8
Road impacts
RR1, RR5
Benefits
RR1
Safety
RR11
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
11/2/2014
Commenter
Officer
Bloom Township
Trustees
Officer
Bloom Township
Trustees
Jesus and Sharyn
Robles
Jesus and Sharyn

Robles
Town, State
Lapeer, MI
Comment
ID
Number
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
C484-5
WHEREAS, should this pipeline be constructed, property values of

the homes in its vicinity would plummet.
Property values
RR5
C484-6
Bloom Township Board of Trustees oppose routing the proposed

ET Rover pipeline through Bloom Township due to lack of
necessity and lack of serving the common good of Ohio residents.
Purpose and need,

benefits
RR1
C485-1
Our future plans to build on our undeveloped property, near our

pond, will be eliminated because of the plans of a multi-million
dollar energy company. This does not feel like freedom to us. Our
twenty acres include a large spring fed pond, and fields that we
lease to a local farmer. The area to the west of us is a beautiful
wooded buffer to the noise and traffic of M-24, a major
thoroughfare, three quarters of a mile to the west.
We are concerned about the disruption of wildlife on our property.
Our pond is a watering hole for many of the areas animals. Ducks
and geese arrive each spring. We frequently see blue heron, and
have spotted pileated woodpeckers and an eagle. The pond has
been home to muskrats, snapping and box turtles, as well as
several species of fish and frogs. The proposed temporary
workspace for the pipeline includes a significant area of our pond.
In studying the most current route plan, the actual pipe will be just
50 from the edge of the water. This will most certainly affect the
ecosystem of this area. A pair of Sandhill cranes has been
returning to our field for five or six years. We have been able to
watch them raise several broods of young birds. Other inhabitants
of our property include white tailed deer, turkey, fox, ground hogs,
coyotes, bluebirds, Monarch butterflies and raccoons. The pipeline
will be detrimental to the natural balance of our area.
Future plans to
build, waterbodies,
vegetation
RR1, RR2,
RR3
Wildlife, ecosystem
impacts
RR3
C485-2
65 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Jesus and Sharyn

Robles
C485-3
Jesus and Sharyn

Robles
C485-4
Jesus and Sharyn

Robles
C485-5
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
About one half of our property is currently being leased as

farmland. On its website, Rover states that 70% of the main
transmission line is to be located under agricultural lands. This is
reason enough to look closely at the effects of that 42 gas
transmission line on the productivity of farm lands. If the pipeline is
built and restoration is not done properly, future crop production
will suffer. As landowners, we must consider the worst case
scenarios concerning our property.
Compaction can affect the soil for years. Heavily compacted areas
take years and years of deep tillage to re work the soil into its
natural state and very often the natural soil structure is never
reclaimed. Soil mixing can cause lower crop productivity by
damaging the existing soil biology. Noxious weeds can be
introduced to the area by moving in dirt from other areas. Pipelines
can increase the soil temperature, drying out the soil and affecting
productivity.
Eric Mann, Certified Crop Advisor, and a local citizen, wrote this to
us: Agricultural production land is the livelihood for farmers and
producers across our nation. With the growing population across
the world it is important that we keep every possible acre in
agriculture production, and that The dangers of the pipeline have
already caused enough concern, but the depletion of our
agricultural land should raise a significant amount of concern to the
people that this will affect. All of these things affect not only us, but
the friend who farms our land.
Land use (ag)
RR8
Soil quality
(compaction, ag
soils)
RR7, RR8
Land use (ag)
RR8
66 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
10/5/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Jesus and Sharyn

Robles
C485-6
Jesus and Sharyn

Robles
C485-7
Pat Sawyer
Lapeer, MI
C486-1
Pat Sawyer
C486-2
Pat Sawyer
C486-3
Pat Sawyer
C486-4
Amy Potter
C487-8
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
This project is not a public necessity. In November, 2013, Energy

Transfer Partners, LLC requested permission from FERC to sell a
trunk line pipeline, located in Michigan, to Enbridge, citing that
Michigan had enough natural gas capacity. FERC agreed and that
line is being converted to an oil pipeline. Seven months later
Energy Transfer started the pre filing phase for an even larger gas
line and proposed to run it alongside of the abandoned line.
Obviously, Energy Transfer had this in mind from the start. Why
was it not a public necessity in November of 2013, but seven
months later, it was? Rover wants to have it both ways. There is no
direct benefit to the citizens of Lapeer County. All of the gas that
might flow under our land will be directed to Canada. This is
especially disconcerting since it is impossible, at this time, to have
our own homes connected to natural gas lines!
We know, based on our research that these companies are rarely
turned down. Rovers 42 natural gas transmission line is just
simply TOO COSTLY to all but the energy company. It takes away
one of the most treasured RIGHTS that our founding fathers fought
so hard for- THE RIGHT TO OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY.
The ET Rover pipeline proposed is not needed, not beneficial, and
presents an unwarranted risk to the public safety and the
environment.
The pipeline's capacity would far exceed demand. It is justified by
ET by stating its construction is inteded for "future markets". Public
interest is not served by allowing a few individuals to exploit
resources for their own benefit.
The rupture of such a massive pipeline conducting a very high
volume of highly pressurized gas would be disatrous.
Family owned and historical farms, state recreation parks and vital
watershed areas would all be adversely affected by the proposed
route.
This pipeline project would destroy at least 100ft wide path through
our property.
Purpose and need
RR1
Eminent domain,
property
RR1, RR5
Purpose and need,

benefits, safety
RR1, RR11
Purpose and need,

benefits
RR1
Safety
RR11
Farmland,
recreation,
watersheds
Property
RR2, RR8
67 of 247
RR5
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/1/2014
Commenter
Jeff Berndt
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Waterford, MI
C488-1
Jeff Berndt
C488-2
Jeff Berndt
C488-3
Jeff Berndt
C488-4
Jeff Berndt
C488-5
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
The ET Rover pipeline would move raw natural gas through

Michigan to be refined, sold, and used in Canada. The people of
Michigan, whose property would be seized, whose property values
will decline, whose lives and livelihoods will be disrupted by the
construction, and who will be bearing the greatest risk to health
and well-being should the pipeline leak or (heaven forbid) explode,
will benefit not at all from the pipeline.
We are assured that the pipeline will be three feet below the
surface of the topsoil, so the pipeline won't interfere with plowing or
harvesting. Fair enough, but the construction of the pipeline will no
doubt destroy existing drainage tiling and prevent any replacement
tiling from being installed.
Further, the pipeline's proposed path cuts through wetlands
habitat for the Blanding's turtle, which is "Protected by Michigan
law as a special concern species," according to the Michigan DNR.
There has been no mention of any effort on ET Rover's part to
offset the disruption of the local water table or destruction of habitat
that pipeline construction will certainly cause, and there has been
no mention of any benefit to the people affected. Yes, Rover, LLC
has said that they will reimburse property owners for damaged
drainage tiling, but property owners will still be prohibited from
installing new tiling on top of the pipeline, which will disrupt the
fields drainage.
This pipeline will benefit private interests only, and not even private
interests in Michigan. Rover, LLC and its parent company are
based in Texas, and these Texans have shown no regard for the
rights of Michigan property owners.
Property values,
safety, benefits
RR1, RR5,
RR11
Soil quality,
drainage tiles
RR2, RR7
Wetlands, wildlife
RR2, RR3
Water impacts,
drainage tiles
RR2, RR7
Benefits, property
rights
RR1, RR5
68 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Jeff Berndt
12/2/2014
Ann M. Becktel Manchester Township

Clerk
Comment
ID
Number
C488-6
Manchester
Twp, MI
C490-1

Clerk
C490-2

Clerk
C490-3
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
Representatives of Rover, LLC have even threatened that if local

property owners refused to sell land to the company, the company
would use eminent domain to force a sale at terms less favorable
to the landowners. l would point out that eminent domain is to be
used when land is needed for public use, not for private gain. I
would further point out that under Michigan's Constitution, "'Public
use' does not include the taking of private property for transfer to a
private entity for the purpose of economic development or
enhancement of tax revenues." Since in this case the land in
question would be taken for transfer to a private entity, and there
would be no benefit whatsoever to the public at large, it seems that
the use of eminent domain would be illegal. Illegal or not, it would
certainly be unjust.
WHEREAS, less than two years ago Energy Transfer (the parent
company of ET Rover) claimed there was no need for the existing
amount of natural gas capacity in Michigan (Docket No. CP12-491000) and entered into an agreement with Enbridge to convert its
pipeline so that it could be used to transport petroleum;
supply natural gas to Michigan be ond the MichCon delivery point
in Livingston, seems to be contrary to what is depicted on the map
provided by ET Rover and is merely a "pass through" to another
county which does not serve the common good of Manchester
Township residents.
WHEREAS, based on the envirIoiunental and safety
consequences of a potential rupture of a proposed 42" diameter
pipeline at a minimum psi of 1100, the Potential Impact Radius
would be 961 feet and that could create a significant safety haz'ard
to the many residents living along the proposed pipeline route;
Eminent domain,
benefits
RR1
Purpose and need
RR1
Benefits
RR1
Safety,
environmental
impacts
RR3, RR11
69 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/2/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number

Clerk
C490-4

Clerk
Clerk
C490-5

Clerk
C490-7
Hadley Township
Chamber of Commerce
C490-6
Hadley, MI
C491-1
Hadley Township
Chamber of Commerce
C491-2
Hadley Township
Chamber of Commerce
C491-3
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
WHEREAS, ET Rover has stated in its Pre Filing, as an affirmative

statement, that it would follow the existing Enbridge Line 6 B
corridor for its proposed route and which does not use the existing
easement but requires an additional 50'asement and 100'ft
temporary workspace. Considering the changes in the population
and characteristics of Manchester Township over the years, it is
not reasonable or just for Manchester Township to be established
as a pipeline corridor;
WHEREAS, the proposed path of the pipeline through Manchester
Township would negatively impact the environment and property
values in Manchester Township;
WHEREAS, residents and representatives of Manchester
Township have been thwarted in efforts to obtain information about
the proposed pipeline, its route and other information about the
pipeline;
WHEREAS, representatives of the pipeline are not being
cooperative or courteous in making information, maps and other
details readily available to the citizens of Manchester Township
and their duly elected officials;
The proposed alternate route of the ET Rover Pipeline through
Hadley Township would be devastating in many ways to Hadley,
and to all of Lapeer County.
Hadley Township is home to 2 state parks. Thousands of visitors
and local residents enjoy the scenic beauty of these parks. Many of
Hadley's businesses depend on tourists to maintain their livelihood.
The proposed pipeline comes very close to both state parks and as
such would have a major impact on the environmental traits of both
parks. Hadley is also home to the Sutherland Nature Center. If the
proposed pipeline were to cut through the Nature Center, the
unique and sensitive ecosystem of the entire center would be
destroyed.
Hadley Township encompasses the Flint River Watershed. The
proposed route of the pipeline is routed to cross the same creek no
less than 3 times. A rupture of the pipeline in this area would have
a devastating impact on the entire Flint River Watershed.
Alternatives, siting
RR1, RR10
Environment,
property values
RR3, RR5
FERC Pre-filing
process
RR1
FERC Pre-filing
process
RR1
Alternatives
RR10
Recreation,
aesthetics,
environmental
impacts
RR3, RR8
Watersheds
RR2
70 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
11/28/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Hadley Township
Chamber of Commerce
C491-4
Hadley Township
Chamber of Commerce
C491-5
Hadley Township
Chamber of Commerce
C491-6
Jerry J. Waters
Jerry J. Waters
C492-8
C492-9
Richard Tucker
Bruce Twp, MI
C493-1
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
Hadley is home to many farmers whose entire livelihood depends

on their ability to earn a living farming their land. The proposed
pipeline cuts through the middle of these farms and which disrupts
the tiles and the topsoil. The farmer would not be able to produce a
crop afterward as the land would not recover and the property
value would be nil.
As a rural community, Hadley would never be able to absorb the
extra costs due to additional emergency services and the required
training that would be required of fire and EMS personnel to
respond to a pipeline caused disaster.
Hadley Township and Lapeer County are simply a "pass-through"
for the pipeline. All products going through this are destined for
another country- we receive no benefit from this product and as a
result the company has no responsibility to its residents and
taxpayers.
We also run a maple syrup business on this land.
We have a lot invested in this property and giving up rightawats to
the use of eminent domain and the impact on property values
would be devastation to our familys.
The property when purchased was not capable of its maximum
potential because of tree lines, fence rows, and some wooded
areas. In the 2 years we have owned the property we have
invested time end expense in moving tree lines and fence rows
and will continue to clear the entire parcel, when clearing is
complete the property will be tiled, this will eliminate the ponding of
water and the saturation of the soil surface. Because of the gradual
rolling surface of this property there may be areas where the depth
of the field tile may be deeper then the rover pipeline which would
prohibit our tiling this property.
Farmland, property
values
RR5, RR8
Emergency
personnel
RR5
Benefits
RR1
Loss of business
Eminent domain
RR5
RR1
Property damage,
drainage tiles
RR2, RR5
71 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Richard Tucker
12/2/2014
Robert Kaplan
C493-2
Metamora, MI
Robert Kaplan
12/2/2014
Carrie and Joseph

Golda
Comment
ID
Number
C494-1
C494-2
Metamora, MI
C495-1
Carrie and Joseph

Golda
C495-2
Carrie and Joseph

Golda
C495-3
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
The Rover pipeline crossing our property will require excavation

this will destroy many qualities and functions of the soil and years
will pass before the soil (if ever) will return to its natural condition,
also while the pipe is being installed there may be areas of our
property we will not able to get to which will allow weeds to grow
and produce seeds that will create additional expence to control for
years to come.
I think the pipeline should be installed along a paved road to allow
access for the equipement needed for the installation. Pratt Road
could be used. Hadley Road could be used. M24 north of Ray
Road is open up to Dryden Road on the east side. It just makes no
sense to clear woods and fields to install a pipeline.
All I can figure is that you think there are less people to oppose the
project and that we will not stand up for our rights. That is a bad
reason to select a pipeline route. It should be based on geology,
groundwater and ease of installation. I hope you know what you
are doing and make the correct decision.
Our property borders on or is in the easement area depending on
how they wind up running the pipeline. We are concerned about
our safety, since we live in a wooded area and it would be difficult
and time consuming for emergency and fire departments to get to
the pipeline in our area in case of an explosion, let alone the fact
that there are no water hydrants to draw water from.
We are also worried about property values falling, since we will be
retiring within the next 5 years and may be consider selling our
house and property. How do you assure a potential buyer that it's
safe to be that close to a potential catastrophic explosion.
Since DTE Energy has proposed a pipeline that would require less
greenfield pipe construction by using existing DTE and Vector case
pipelines, we think the DTE project should be the one approved.
The ET Rover project would devastate farmlands, wetlands and
pristine woodlands in not only Lapeer County but other neighboring
counties as well.
Soil quality
RR7
Road impacts,
alternatives
RR5, RR10
Geology,
groundwater
RR2, RR6
Safety, emergency
personnel
RR5, RR11
Property values
RR5
Alternatives
RR10
72 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/2/2014
12/3/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Carrie and Joseph

Golda
C495-4
Carrie and Joseph

Golda
C495-5
Ann Stillwater
Bowerston, OH
C496-1
Ann Stillwater
C496-2
Ann Stillwater
C496-3
Ann Stillwater
C496-4
Michael and Lynn

Ghesquiere
Columbus, MI
C497-1
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
Another smaller factor in not wanting the pipeline in our area is the
idea of being in a loud construction zone that will disrupt our
peaceful rural existence as well as hinder traffic on our road, since
the pipeline will be crossing Miller Road.
As for the wildlife in our area, we have Pileated Woodpeckers in
our woods, which require 3-5 acres of uninterrupted woodland,as
well as many other bird species, deer, coyote, fox, woodchucks,
skunks, squirrels and bats. We feel the cutting down of many acres
of trees and stress on the animals is not in the best interest of our
community.
My family and I own land in the currently proposed pathway of the
ET Rover pipeline. Our property is the northwest corner of Ohios
Harrison County, in Monroe Township. We have a tree farm and
for over twenty years have worked to re-naturalize most of our
land. I have serious concerns about the most recently updated
map for the pipeline.
As I understand it, the current plan includes a diversion from a
relatively straight path and bends south into our property. Aside
from our forests and wetland, we also have two springs that are the
water sources for two separate households.
Our neighbor to the north has ponds that he built for aquaculture,
which he regularly drains. He also has a pipeline currently being
constructed on his property. Why was the ET Rover path changed
to go through the middle of our property where it could destroy our
water sources and wetland? A path on the northern edge of our
property, or on our neighbors property would not interfere with our
springs, but the current placement does.
FERC policy is to minimize disruption to property owners. After
decades of hard work, our peaceful property looks less used than
when we bought it, but is therefore much more precious to us. Our
delicious and reliable spring water is one of our most valuable
assets and is endangered by the pipeline.
We have approximately 60 acres of tiled fields comprised of hourse
turnout pastures and an existing hayfield.
Noise quality, road

impacts
RR5, RR9
RR3
Vegetation, Loss of
business
RR3, RR5
Wetlands,
waterbodies,
vegetation
RR2, RR3
Alternatives
RR10
Water use
RR2
Drainage tiles
RR2, RR7
73 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Michael and Lynn

Ghesquiere
Michael and Lynn
Ghesquiere
C497-2
Michael and Lynn

Ghesquiere
C497-4
Michael and Lynn

Ghesquiere
C497-5
Michael and Lynn

Ghesquiere
C497-6
Michael and Lynn

Ghesquiere
C497-7
Michael and Lynn

Ghesquiere
C497-8
C497-3
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
We have seven (7) fenced in hourse turnout patures constructed of

four board wood.
There is a natural spring flowing into a pond and man made
surface drains leading into ditched and subsequently to the county
drain in the wetland area. There is also a second pond in the
wooded area.
We have groomed trails throughout the wooded area and around
our hay field for use by the individuals who board private horses ar
out hunter-jumper/dressage training facility, and four our own trail
riding.
We have gravel driveways and interior roads connnecting buildings
on the farm, two large gravel parking lots, two lane dirt roads used
for tractors, and the aforementioned bridle trails throughout the
property.
We have buried electric and closed circuit wires between the
buildings and geothermal lines going East from 8799 residence.
We also have three (3) septic fields, one for the main barn, one for
8675 address, and one for 8799 address.
We would hope that our vigin woods and wetlands could be spared
by going either south through open farmland or north totally
avoiding the wetlands and county drain toward an already existing
power easement. Another option sparing our wooded area would
be to utilize the open area between our buildings and the wooded
areajust north of the woods out into the hay field.
Security is a concern as easements open up our property to
motorized vehicles, four wheelers, snowmobiles, etc. allowing easy
clear access into our woods. If the easement was out in the open
we could at least visually see trespassers, hunters, etc. this chaos
would damage our ability to advertise our training facility as "quiet,
private,a and in thr country setting offering wooded bridle paths".
As it is now the only easy access to our woods is through our
interior farm roads where we can monitor who and what is on our
property. This easement would have a great negative impact on
out liability for the horses and people who pay to use our property
and the habitat of our wooded areas.
Property damage
RR5
Waterways,
vegetation
RR2, RR3
Vegetation
RR3
Property access
RR5
Existing utilities
RR1, RR5
Wetlands,
Vegetation,
alternatives
RR2, RR3,
RR10
Property, loss of
business
RR5
74 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Michael and Lynn

Ghesquiere
C497-9
Michael and Lynn

Ghesquiere
C497-10
Michael and Lynn

Ghesquiere
C497-11
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
The west side of our property has a ravine which includes a creek
which various surface drains feed it. According to some state maps
this area is considered wetlands. The east bank of the ravine
varies from 10-20 feet above the lower areas. The wetland in this
area is 100- 400 feet wide and follows the direction of the creek.
The proposed route of the pipeline would go through these
wetlands and creek and would somehow have raise up to the
elevation at the top of the bank and continue east. Included are
some pictures showing the area. Pictures include shots of the
bank, wetlands and creek and the drainage ditch which according
to the proposed route will also cross in this area, so I assume they
would have to tunnel under the bank and under the drainage ditch.
We believe there are better routes for the pipeline, 1/2 mile north or
south the pipeline would go in much easier. The land is flat in these
areas and wouldnt have to cross an area like this that has a creek,
banks and wetlands. With this path the pipeline would have to go
under the water (ditches) three times before coming out in open
fields towards the east. Difficult to monitor & repair the pipeline in
these areas.
Also another reason we are concerned about the pipeline is for the
safety of the animals and riders. Whenever there is an easement
that you can get to by one of the local roads you will have trouble
with people trespassing. People would come in and try to hunt and
bring in fourwheelers and in the winter with snowmobiles. It makes
a nice track so people to speed up & down the path created and
really dont care where they are going. Since the proposed pipeline
would be going in areas near the horse paddocks and building
whenever someone trespasses in these areas there is a good
chance the horses would spook (from the strange noises) and
either the horse or the horse and rider could get hurt. Just not a
safe situation. The facilities are a training facility and this type of
atmosphere is not safe. There would be a chance some of the
horse owners wouldnt want to board here if they were worrying
about their and their horses safety. At the present time the facility
is only accessible from the driveways coming into the farm.
Waterways,
wetlands
RR2
Alternatives
RR10
Safety
RR11
75 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/3/2014
12/4/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Michael and Lynn

Ghesquiere
C497-12
Michael and Lynn

Ghesquiere
C497-13
Chris and Michelle

McCraw
Pinckney, MI
C498-1
Chris and Michelle

McCraw
C498-2
Carol Blotter
C499-1
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Re-route the pipeline to go straight from point 192 to over to 197.

According to the map there would be some woods to go through
and one location with water. It appears to be flat throughout this
area and would be a shorter route and less pipeline to be installed.
At a pointe east of location 194 continue the pipeline either along
the Edison easement or add to the Edison easement (width) as
necessary and run it parallel to the Edison easement and turn
south and extent it to point to where it can join the proposed route
at approximately the 197 location.
A month after we signed the papers and handed over our check,
ET Rover pipeline shows up at our house asking for permission to
go on our property. Not knowing the severity of the impact it was
going to have, we said yes, and it has been a nightmare since. The
pipeline is going to destroy that property. They will be cutting down
40%+ of the mature pines, and it is routed on the ridgeline which is
the most buildable area. They have told us we can just put our
house further back in the corner. Who buys 10 acres to be right
next to your neighbor, not to mention the added cost to have
everything ran back that much further?
We have been handed around by Rover employees, having to
rehash what our issues are. The communication is HORRIBLE with
them. They promise to contact you and that they care but then the
only time you hear from them is when they want something from
you. They are sneaky and holding back everything they can just so
they can get this in the ground. After that it doesnt affect their lives
anymore, but it ruins ours.
Two years ago, ET said there was no need for natural gas capacity
in Michigan and sold its pipelines. Now they are arguing there is a
need. And the need is not in Michigan. Their primary targeted
market is Ontario. That does not demonstrate that there is a public
need for this project.
Alternatives
RR10
Alternatives
RR10
RR5
FERC Pre-filing
process
RR1
Purpose and need
RR1
76 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/4/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Carol Blotter
C499-2
Carol Blotter
C499-3
Carol Blotter
C499-4
Carol Blotter
C499-5
Catherine Roberts
Manchester, MI
C500-1
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
This pipeline travels through a number of wetlands and natural

areas. The denuding of the land in order to lay the pipeline and
survey the pipeline does not honor the government commitment to
set aside land for public enjoyment. Walking through a denuded
stretch of land is not pleasant. Plus this product is highly
destructive if an accident does occur.
We are human! Accidents will happen. The potential of a spill is
less likely in a gas pipeline. However, the range of impact is larger
and more devastating. Not only the natural environment is at a
huge risk, but the property owners are as well, especially those
where the route might fall within a few hundred feet of their homes.
Property owners cannot refuse access to their property once this
project is approved EVEN if the line would run close to their
home or barns.
Business, government and citizens need to be able to work
together with government providing the oversight and direction. ET
Rover has not been a good partner. It has not shown itself to be
acting in good faith or with honorable business ethics. It has
coerced and intimidated land owners, sometimes showing up with
armed security forces to be on private land and this is BEFORE
the project is approved.
What are they trying to hide? At site # 67 the pipeline will be laid
within 50-100 feet of seven homes which are located along Reno
Rd, the pipeline right of way illustrated in purple line will be located
in the deepest end of 202 acre Pleasant Lake, the gem of our
community. We all love this lake. It is a private lake, and we take
care of it. It is scheduled to illustrate the cover of the Michigan
Riparian Magazine in the Spring issue 2015 because of citizen
efforts to maintain it. There are 150 homes around Pleasant Lake,
it is the most populated area in Freedom Township.
Wetlands, natural
areas, safety
RR2, RR3,
RR11
Safety
RR11
Property
RR5
FERC Pre-filing
process
RR1
Waterbody,
aesthetics
RR2, RR8
77 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Catherine Roberts
C500-2
Catherine Roberts
C500-3
Catherine Roberts
C500-4
Catherine Roberts
C500-5
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
The outlet for spring fed Pleasant Lake is at the West end of the
lake and runs under the field where the pipeline is proposed. A
County drain/dam controls the water level in Pleasant Lake and
protects the lake shore line from erosion and from flooding of
septic fields. At a high water level in the lake, the excess flows over
the dam empties into the overflow pipeline tile and discharges the
water from Pleasant Lake into Mill Creek. This makes Pleasant
Lake the headwaters for the Huron River which runs through
Washtenaw County. Putting the ET Rover pipeline at this proposed
site will endanger the ecology of Pleasant Lake and Mill Creek
from CONSTRUCTION silt, mud, and who knows what else.
Putting a pipeline along Reno Rd further INCREASES the
likelihood that an accident could or would wipeout numerous
homes within the 1800 foot blast area. And to further compound
the possible catastrophe of an accident, the Wolverine Pipeline
and Compressor station would also be in the blast area, and just
West of the Compressor Station is an oil pipeline. Just imagine the
total carnage and property damage in the event of an accident or
terrorist attack. We will, indeed, become a risky HOT ZONE.
Placing yet another pipeline in our area is not a good idea. We are
already saturated with explosive possibilities. Property values
could take a nosedive if yet another pipeline moves within 100 feet
of the Lake.
As I just stated, West of Pleasant Lake is a Compressor station
which is probably why Rover is heading our way they hope to
utilizes it services. Our windows and walls already shudder when
that Compression Station is running at capacity. What will another
3 billion feet of gas per day provide?
West of the Compression Station is an oil pipeline, and west of that
is a gravel pit. The pit owns a good chunk of land and it would be a
much better location to run the pipeline. The pipeline would be
placed away from our population center, the lake, and a productive
farm field, and would be located in a completely uninhabited area.
Waterways, water
quality, construction
impacts
RR2, RR5
Safety, property
values
RR5, RR11
Noise quality
RR9
Alternatives
RR10
78 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/3/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Catherine Roberts
C500-6
Catherine Roberts
C500-7
Phil Eward
Banwood, WV
C501-1
Phil Eward
C501-2
Phil Eward
C501-3
Phil Eward
C501-4
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Fail to see how ET Rover moving natural gas from PA, VW, and
OH will benefit the Citizens of MI as promised by Company
Officials. Where on this 850 miles of pipeline will the citizens have
access to natural gas for their homes. ROVER says this is the
case, but how will it be accomplished? I suspect that it is just a
means of moving/selling gas to Canada, and in the future probably
tar sands oil from Canada to the US. We have our own fracked
gas. Michigan doesnt need or want fracked gas from these States.
Let them sell their gas to their local markets. Surely, that is
cheaper than building a huge pipeline.
The building of a pipeline does provide some temporary jobs, but,
on the other side, what about the people whose homes and
resources are ripped out of their control. The condemned land is
worth more than dollars, it represents a family history, beauty, it is
part of the soul of many people.
The Rover Pipeline marks the first and largest direct connection for
our state to the massive shale gas reserves of Pennsylvania and
Southeast Ohio. Building this critical new energy pipeline is vital to
our economy.
Natural gas is playing an important role in supporting an American
manufacturing renaissance. Access to more affordable, reliable
natural gas means lower energy costs for consumers, more
opportunity for manufacturers and businesses, and a valuable raw
input used for construction of plastics, cars, and other products
made locally.
The benefits of the construction of the pipeline will extend to our
broader economy too. This $4 billion project will create 10,000
local construction jobs. In addition, 76 percent of the pipe will be
manufactured in the United States, along with all compression
assembly and packaging. Once operational, the pipeline will
provide more than $150 million in tax revenue each year, for states
and counties along the route.
Pipelines, like Rover, are as important and essential to our
communities as power lines, sewers, and roads. I urge you to
quickly approve the Rover pipeline and thank you for holding the
Benefits, fracking
RR1
Jobs
RR5
Economic benefits
RR5
Reliability
RR11
Economic benefits,
tax revenues
RR5
Benefits
RR1, RR5
79 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/2/2014
Commenter
Esteban Vera
Town, State
Williw Grove,
PA
Comment
ID
Number
C502-1
Esteban Vera
C502-2
Esteban Vera
C502-3
Esteban Vera
C502-4
Esteban Vera
C502-5
12/4/2014
Daniel Mitchell
Dillionvale, OH
C503-1
12/4/2014
Jonathon Ball
Shadyside, OH
C504-1
12/4/2014
Orion Heff
New
Martinsville, WV
C505-1
12/4/2014
Richard A. Frye
Valley Grove,
WV
C506-1
Issue/Concern
public hearing today.
The pipeline project will create jobs, supply Americans with
domestically produced energy, and be built to best-in-class
standards that protect the environment and local communities.
Due to the surge in domestic production, thousands of miles of
pipeline are needed to transport natural gas to end users across
the United States. Pipelines are the safest and most efficient way
to transport natural gas.
The Laborers' International Union of North America (LIUNA), has
been building pipelines for 100 years. As a member of LIUNA, we
receive extensive training to ensure the environment and local
communities are protected during and after pipeline construction.
Furthermore, when a project is built using Union labor, the majority
of construction workers are from the local conununity. Therefore,
local communities directly benefit from economic opportunities
created by the pipeline project. These projects support thousands
of construction workers and their families.
I urge you to consider the thousands of hard-working Americans
who will have access to lower energy costs and quality careers
because of the pipeline.
Good for our community. Vital to our economy. Brings tax
revenues that help infrastructure and our schools.
I am a local resident as this project is good for our community. Our
local has a higly skilled workforce and this pipeline would create
nearly 300 good paying jobs which will also bring tax revenues to
help the infrastructure and schools while providing economic
stimulants to the surrounding area during construction.
Brings tax revenues that help infrastructure and schools. Helps
meet energy demands with domestic energy. Will provide longterm energy reliability.
For the creation of 300 goodpaying jobs which entail would be
good for the areas economy. Creates new source of energy.
80 of 247
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Jobs
RR5
Purpose and need
RR1
Safety
RR11
Jobs, economic
benefits
RR5
Jobs, reliabilty
RR5, RR11
Economic benefits,
tax revenues
Economic benefits,
tax revenues, jobs
RR5
Tax revenues,
reliability
RR5, RR11
Jobs, reliability
RR5, RR11
RR5
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Adena, OH
C507-1
12/4/2014
Samuel Blake
12/4/2014
Ralph Ritter
Martins Ferry,
OH
C508-1
12/4/2014
George E. Fonner
C509-1
12/4/2014
Marcus Snider
Wheeling, WV
26003
Mingo Jct, OH
12/4/2014
Potts Burkey
12/4/2014
Steven Skinner
12/4/2014
Edward Franton
12/4/2014
C510-1
Moundsville,
WV
Dillonvale, OH
C511-1
C513-1
Roger Wade
Wheeling, WV
26003
Proctor, WV
12/4/2014
Sandra Darby
Beallsville, OH
C515-1
12/4/2014
David E. Daniel
Brownstown, MI
C516-1
C512-1
C514-1
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
Vital to our area's economy. Estimated $25 million economic

benefits/ Good for our community. Estimated creation of 3000 good
paying jobs. Highly skilled and trained workforce. Will provide
economic stimulus to surrounding areas during construction.
Being a local resident of this community I believe that these jobs
will create a lot of jobs and be very vital to our economy. The more
jobs we create in our valley the better all families and companies
will be. Less unemployment in our area the better everyone is.
Schools will also see the benefits of the jobs being created.
We need the work.
Economic benefits,
tax revenues, jobs
RR5
Economic benefits,
tax revenues, jobs
RR5
Jobs
RR5
I am a local resident. The economy here has been going downhill

for years. This pipeline would create a lot of jobs and could make
our economy and cities great again since the fall of the steel mills.
I am a local resident in union trades and I thinkg its good for our
economy and better source of energy for the environment.
It will provide long-term energy reliability. It will help to meet energy
demands with domestic energy and it will be vital to our area's
economy.
Will provide long term energy reliability.
Economic benefits
RR5
Economic benefits,
reliability
Economic benefits,
reliability
RR5, RR11
Reliability
RR11
Jobs, tax reveunes
RR5
Reliability
RR11
Environmental
impacts, vegetation
RR3
I support the project for the pipeline. It is good for local workers,
will help us out of the dependance on foreign oil. Brining more long
term jobs. Bring in more tax revenues.
Local resident, good for our community, will provide long term
energy reliability.
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources And the U.S.
Forest Service recently announced a major initiative to combat the
spread of the oak wilt virus that is currently threatening Michigan's
red oak trees. The current environmental impact assessment of the
proposed Rover pipeline must address this specific issue in detail.
Southeastern Michigan Red Oaks are found primarily among the
relatively small isolated hardwood stands in farmland. It is my
belief that Rover needs to stay clear of the woods.
81 of 247
RR5, RR11
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
David E. Daniel
12/4/2014
Judy Kaylor
C516-2
Tiro, OH
C517-1
Judy Kaylor
C517-2
Judy Kaylor
C517-3
Judy Kaylor
C517-4
Judy Kaylor
C517-5
12/4/2014
Kevin Myers
12/4/2014
Duane Ogilbee
12/4/2014
Zac Potts
12/4/2014
12/4/2014
12/4/2014
Michael Taylor
Charles A. Smith
Derek Knowlton
12/4/2014
Terry D. Loy
Terry D. Loy
Comment
ID
Number
Barnesville, OH
43713
Powhatan Pt,
OH
Woodsfield, OH
Fairmont, WV
Weirton, WV
Clarington, OH
43915
St. Clairsville,
OH
C518-1
C519-1
C520-1
C521-1
C522-1
C523-1
C524-1
C524-2
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
Stay away from the woods. Cutting them down is bad enough.
Spreading a disease around while you're doing it is insane. Doing
both to turn a profit when alternatives are available is criminal.
I fail to see the need for this pipeline because the Ohio area will not
benefit from the natural gas being pumped through it.
The land through this area is farmland which will be severely
affected for years.
There will be a significant impact on the land values. Both farm and
residential. In my case the proposed line runs approximately 600
feet from our home and through the entire diagonal width of the
farm.
I am very concerned about the integrity and public safety for my
own family and those residents of the small community of Tiro
which is very close to the proposed route.
The safety of ground water and the effects of the disruption to the
recent pattern tiling that was installed on this farm are a concern.
Local resident, good for our community, vital to our area's
economy.
Local resident, good for our community, creation of jobs, brings tax
revenue in.
Local resident, estimated creation of 3,000 good paying jobs.
Brings tax revenues that help infrastructure and our schools.
Estimated $25 million economic benefits.
It would help.
Provide economic stimulus to surrounding areas.
It will be good for local residents. It will be good for the local
economy.
A positive comment to bring positive employment to the area. The
jobs that are created by this project are good paying jobs with
benefits.
The projects will also create a great tax base for our local schools
and community.
Alternatives,
vegetation
RR3, RR10
Purpose and need,

benefits
Land use (ag)
RR1
RR8
Property values
RR5
Safety
RR11
Groundwater
RR2
Economic benefits
RR5
Jobs, tax reveunes
RR5
Jobs, economic
benefits
RR5
Benefits
Economic benefits
Economic benefits
RR1
RR5
RR5
Jobs
RR5
Tax revenues
RR5
82 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Terry D. Loy
12/4/2014
Kyle Kull
12/4/2014
Comment
ID
Number
C524-3
Wintersville, OH
C525-1
Leonard A. Sharp
Bellaire, OH
C526-1
12/4/2014
Laurence Sterey
Moundsville,
WV
C527-1
12/4/2014
Robert L. Neogy
St. Clairsville,
OH
C528-1
12/4/2014
Alex M. Blake
Adena, OH
C529-1
12/4/2014
Scott Hanes
Barnesville, OH
C530-1
12/4/2014
John Higgins
C531-1
12/4/2014
12/4/2014
Henry R. Gray
David Hall
New
Martinsville, WV
Wheeling, WV
Wheeling, WV
C532-1
C533-1
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
The area also offers the best qualified workforce in the nation. The
area laborers are trained for your work and safety.
I am a local resident who works in the construction field. This
project will help support my family. I support the rover pipeline
project and the benefits it will bring to my community and the state
of Ohio. This pipeline is the first and largest direct connection for
our state to the massive shale reserves of Pennsylvania and
southeast Ohio. Building this critical new energy pipeline is vital to
our economy.
It is always good for the community for the local schools and the
area when tax revenues that help infrastructure is upgraded and
increased.
Yes I think it would be good for our community. Wer have skilled
workforce and it will bring tax and revenues to the state and our
schools and long term energy.
As a member, I support the Rover pipeline project and the benefits
it will bring to the community and the state of Ohio. This will benefit
our community and economy as well. Natural gas and pipeline
work will be a great benfits fo a variety of businesses to the area as
well as others abroad.
Local resident, good for our community. Estimated creation of 3000
good paying job. Will provide economic stimulus to surrounding
areas. Create potential new source of energy. Brings tax revenues
that help infrastructure and our schools. Vital to area's economy.
I am a local resident, it is good for our community and we are higly
skilled and trained workforce. Vital to our area's economy.
It will bring work to local workers. It will help with energy in the
area.
Good for our community. Creates potential new source of energy.
It is good for economy and our people of the Ohio Valley. We
would do good job for any company that would hire union trade
workers.
Jobs
RR5
Jobs, economic
benefits
RR5
Tax revenues
RR5
Jobs, reliability
RR5, RR11
Economic benefits
RR5
Jobs, economic
benefits, tax
revenues
RR5
Jobs, economic
benefits
Jobs, reliability
RR5
83 of 247
Reliability
Economic benefits,
jobs
RR5, RR11
RR11
RR5
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
12/4/2014
James Aauthorne
Cadiz, OH
C534-1
12/4/2014
12/4/2014
Doug Beafore
Dean Wichtckman
Adena, OH
Sardis, OH
C535-1
C536-1
12/4/2014
Charles M. Thompson
C537-1
12/4/2014
Stephanie Francis
St. Clairsville,
OH
Moundsville,
WV
12/4/2014
Christopher D. Strait
12/4/2014
Chris Norton
12/4/2014
Keith Walls
12/4/2014
Rodney R. Hopkins
12/4/2014
Robert Cieslewski
12/4/2014
C538-1
Triadelphia, WV
C539-1
Martins Ferry,
OH
Martins Ferry,
OH
Bellaire, OH
C540-1
Bellaire, OH
C543-1
Brad Workman
Lewisville, OH
C544-1
12/4/2014
Jacob Chaplin
Woodsfield, OH
C545-1
12/4/2014
Aaron Bambos
C546-1
12/4/2014
Dylan Lyons
Bloomingdale,
OH
Benwood, WV
C541-1
C542-1
C547-1
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
This type of line are very good for our areas to make jobs on this
line and for more later jobs. They are trying to be nice to the locals
and be friends with local companys.
Good for all workers, money for all Bos.
I suport the Rover pipeline. Its good for the community. The area
has highly skilled and trained workforce. It is vital to our area
economy. Also this will bring tax revenues that help infrastructure
and our schools.
Vital to our area's economy and will provide long-term energy
reliabilty to our state and community.
I am a local resident, it will provide economic stimulus to
surrounding areas during construction and will provide long term
energy reliability.
Highly skilled and trained workforce. Estimated creation of 3,000
good paying jobs. Bring taxes revenues that help infrastructure and
our schools.
It will bring economic stimulus to our area.
Jobs
RR5
Jobs
Jobs, economic
benefits, tax
revenues
RR5
RR5
Economic benefits,
reliability
Economic benefits,
tax revenues
RR5, RR11
Jobs, tax revenues
RR5
Economic benefits
RR5
Tax revenues, jobs,

reliability
Economic benefits,
jobs
Jobs, reliability
RR5, RR11
Economic benefits
RR5
Jobs, reliability
RR5, RR11
Economic benefits,
jobs
Jobs
RR5
Local resident, good for commmunity, creation job, trained, tax

revenues, vital to our areas longterm energy reliability.
Being a local resident the pipeline would be a great assest to the
requin. We have skilled and trained workers.
It will be good for our community. They will have highly skilled
workforce. It will create new sources of energy.
Will provide economic stimulus to surrounding areas during
construction.
Lot of job openings, bring work into the valley area. Long term
energy.
I am a local resident and this is good for our economy. It will create
good paying jobs for our people and help local businesses.
It will be good for our community and provide jobs for us, we are
highly skilled and trained for the work and will do a good job on the
jobsites.
84 of 247
RR5
RR5
RR5, RR11
RR5
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
12/4/2014
12/4/2014
Greg
Helen A. Fodor
Shadyside, OH
Bellaire, OH
C548-1
C549-1
12/4/2014
Frank Terlosky
Moundsville,
WV
C550-1
12/4/2014
Tamara Marriner
Moundsville,
WV
C551-1
12/4/2014
Tim Frederick
St. Clairsville,
OH
C552-1
12/4/2014
Larry J. Donato
Triadelphia, WV
C553-1
12/4/2014
Tracy Stevey
C554-1
12/4/2014
Roy Litton
12/4/2014
Marwine Roberts
12/4/2014
Matthew Sell
Moundsville,
WV
New
Martinsville, WV
New
Martinsville, WV
Wheeling, WV
12/4/2014
David Edgell
12/4/2014
C555-1
C556-1
C557-1
C558-1
Nick Grelles
St. Clairsville,
OH
Woodsfield, OH
12/4/2014
Robert S. Wilson
Bridgeport, OH
C560-1
12/4/2014
Samuel Baker
Powhatan Pt,
OH
C561-1
C559-1
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Goof for economy, school, local community, local union.

In these economic times, work is good for everyone and in every
case - stimulates local economy. Jobs mean money, money means
spending, spending promotes business. Everyone benefits.
As a member of the local 1149 I would be proud to work on the
Rover pipeline project because of its obvious economic benefit to
our area and I also believe hiring people from our local unions will
ensure proper and professional installation to keep negative impact
to our ecosystem at a minimum.
Good for our community. Union has higly skilled and trained
workforce. Creates potential new source of energy. Helps meet
energy demands with domestic energy.
I am a local resident. I think its good for the community. Its vital for
the areas economy, it brings tax revenues that help infrastructure
and our school.
This will provide many jobs, help our economy, meet energy
demands with domestic energy and many other important areas.
Its good for local community, our local schools, local residents, and
local union workers.
Local resident. Good for our community. Good for jobs.
Economic benefits
Economic benefits
RR5
RR5
Economic benefits,
jobs
RR5
Jobs, reliability
RR5, RR11
Economic benefits,
tax revenues
RR5
Economic benefits,
jobs
Economic benefits,
jobs
Economic benefits,
jobs
Jobs
RR5
RR5
Jobs, reliability
RR5, RR11
Jobs, reliability
RR5, RR11
Jobs, economic
benefits, reliability
Economic benefits,
jobs
Economic benefits,
jobs
RR5, RR11
I think it would be good for the people that work out of this union. It
will bring a lof of work for us.
Local resident, good for our economy. Will provide long term
energy reliability.
Good for our community. Local resident. Higly skilled and trained
workforce. Will provide long term energy reliability.
Local resident. Vital to areas economy. Will provide long term
energy reliability. Higly skilled and trained workforce.
Keep local people working. Good for community. Keep money in
our area.
It will put a lot of local people to work while bringing a lot of money
to the local economy.
85 of 247
RR5
RR5
RR5
RR5
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
12/4/2014
Tim Fletcher
Wheeling, WV
C562-1
12/4/2014
John Toth
Wheeling, WV
C563-1
12/4/2014
Kerry J. Bruce
Wheeling, WV
C564-1
12/4/2014
Daniel Dick
Beallsville, OH
C565-1
12/4/2014
David Drake
Cameron, WV
C566-1
12/4/2014
Terry Bonar
C567-1
12/4/2014
Justin Bucher
Cameron, WV
26033
Reader, WV
12/4/2014
John Fodor
Bellaire, OH
C569-1
12/4/2014
Keith Knisely
Paden City, WV
C570-1
12/4/2014
12/4/2014
William Rouge
Robert Arnold
C571-1
C572-1
12/4/2014
Michael Tedrick
Proctor, WV
Gleneaston,
WV
Cambridge, OH
C573-1
12/4/2014
Richard J. Fitzpatrick
Wheeling, WV
C574-1
12/4/2014
Michael B. Northcraft
New
Martinsville, WV
C576-1
C568-1
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
I am a local resident. Creation of 3000 good paying jobs. Potential

of new source of energy. $25 million economic benefit.
Local resident. Estimated creation of 3,000 good paying jobs.
Highly skilled and trained workforce.
Because it helps local residents and we have a highly skilled and
trained workforce.
Local resident. Good for our community. Provide long term energy
reliability.
I am support any work that provide job for the local area and local
work force to help the area grow and begin to have the money for
road and other improvements.
The work is needed in our state.
Economic benefits,
jobs
Jobs
RR5
Jobs
RR5
Economic benefits,
reliability
Jobs
RR5, RR11
Jobs
RR5
I am a local resident that believes this work is good for the

community because it creates jobs for our trained laborers in our
union.
Keep local people working. Good for community. Good for 3,000
jobs. Create potential for new source of energy. Vital to our area's
economy.
Estimated creation of 3,000 good paying jobs. Highly skilled and
trained workforce. Brings tax revenues that help infrastructure and
schools. Help meet energy demands with domestic energy.
If they use local people it will help everyone local.
Good for our community. Highly skilled and trained workforce.
Jobs
RR5
Economic benefits,
jobs
RR5
Jobs, economic
benefits
RR5
Jobs
Jobs
RR5
RR5
Jobs, economic
benefits
RR5
Jobs, economic
benefits
Jobs, economic
benefits
RR5
We need to keep up the work for local residents, become energy

dependent. We are highly skilled workers needing jobs. This will
help the economy.
Good jobs. Good for the community and economy.
Estimated creation of 3,000 good paying jobs. Vital to our area's
economy.
86 of 247
RR5
RR5
RR5
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
12/4/2014
David Householder
Harrisville, OH
C577-1
12/4/2014
Travis Gray
Wheeling, WV
C578-1
12/4/2014
Mark Petrucci
Wheeling, WV
C579-1
12/4/2014
James Asbury
Bridgeport, OH
C580-1
12/4/2014
Brant Powell
Barnesville, OH
C581-1
12/4/2014
12/4/2014
James Mickey
Matthew Morris
C582-1
C583-1
12/4/2014
Breman Paith
Cameron, WV
New
Martinsville, WV
Cameron, WV
12/4/2014
A. Davah
C585-1
12/4/2014
Matt A. Kotcles
Gleneaston,
WV
Bellaire, OH
12/4/2014
Charles Vanchure
Mt Pleasant,
OH
C587-1
12/4/2014
Brian Cooper
St. Clairsville,
OH
C588-1
12/4/2014
Nathan Kosut
Wheeling, WV
C589-1
C584-1
C586-1
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
Creates potential new source of energy. Help meet energy

demands with domestic energy. Will provide long term energy.
Vital to our area's economy.
I'm glad to hear and I support the Rover pipeline. I'm very glad and
happy to see that there will be an estimated $25 million economic
benefit. I hope maybe I can be apart of this project.
Local resident. Helps bring tax revenues that help infrastructure
and our schools. Vital to our area's economy.
Will greatly stimulate the local economy. People in this area need
jobs. The closing of local businesses has created a hardship on
many families. This would help a lot of families in the local area.
This will be good for our community and create jobs and create
potential new sources of energy.
Local resident. Highly skilled and trained workforce.
Local resident. Bring tax revenues to help infrastructure and our
schools. Highly skilled and trained workforce.
Estimated creation of 3,000 good paying jobs. Good for our
community.
To support our local residents. Help bring tax revenues to help our
schools. Hiring skilled workeforce.
This project will bring a boost to the local economy and provide
work for locally trained tradesmen. Everyone else is taking
advantage of this "boom" and this project will give us our share.
Will provide more jobs in area. Helps with school and revenues for
area. Will help meet energy demands with domestic energy. Will
also provide long term energy.
I'm a local resident and would really appreciate the long-term work.
The rover pipeline would bring vast economical improvements,
putting good local, hardworking men and women to work. The
Rover pipeline may also lead to my local union's growth.
Local resident. Good for our community. Estimated creation of
3,000 good paying jobs. Brings tax revenues that help
infrastructure and schools. Vital to our areas economy. Estimated
Economic benefits,
reliability
RR5, RR11
Economic benefits,
jobs
RR5
Economic benefts,
tax revenues
Economic benefits,
jobs
RR5
Economic benefits,
jobs
Jobs
Tax revenues, jobs
RR5
RR5
RR5
Jobs
RR5
Tax revenues, jobs
RR5
Economic benefits,
jobs
RR5
Tax revenues, jobs,

reliability
RR5, RR11
Jobs, economic
benefits
RR5
Economic benefts,
tax revenues, jobs
RR5
87 of 247
RR5
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
12/4/2014
12/4/2014
Kevin Cesario
Brandyn Whiting
Adena, OH
Parkersburg,
WV
C590-1
C591-1
12/4/2014
Glenn Ritcher
Valley Grove,
WV
C592-1
12/4/2014
Justin T. Gray
Wheeling, WV
C593-1
12/4/2014
David E. Daniel
Brownstown, MI
C594-1
12/4/2014
David E. Daniel
Brownstown, MI
C595-1
12/5/2014
Michael Preble
Fowlerville, MI
C596-1
Michael Preble
C596-2
Michael Preble
C596-3
Issue/Concern
$25 million economic benefit.
Local resident. Highly skilled workers.
I believe this is vital to our area's economy and good for energy
demands with domestic energy. It will provide long term reliable
energy. Local 1149 provides highly skilled and trained workers. Not
to mention the increase in tax revenues from this pipeline for the
state.
It is good for the community and has highly skilled and trained
workforce. It will bring economic stimulus to the surrounding area
while its going on.
I am in favor of this project going with the hope it will be done union
for the simple fact that it brings good wages and benefits to many.
Based on current design 32 percent of the total length of the new
pipelines will be parallel or adjacent to existing rights of way (e.g.
pipelines, electric transmission lines, roadways, etc. This
percentage is much lower than what Rover has been telling the
public. FERC needs to address this. It is almost impossible to know
what is accurate information when studying this project proposal.
"To date project pipelines cross no maple stands, orchards,
nurseries or old growth forests." I believe that this information is
false and indicates an attempt by Rover to deliberately mislead
FERC and the public. The more I learn about this proposed project
the more apparent it becomes Rover needs to be scrutinized.
Clearly, I missed the Union Pep Rally in West Virginia where they
passed out pre-printed forms and told everyone to write 1-3
positive sentences regarding the Rover Pipeline. Obviously these
people were not informed of the negative impacts of the
environment, property values and safety of their families.
Nor were they informed that their property will be illegally taken
from them because this pipeline is not a public necessity.
Nor were they told that these so called "jobs" are temporary and
the profits from this pipeline are going to Rover Pipeline and
Canada, not them.
88 of 247
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Jobs
Tax revenues, jobs,
reliability
RR5
RR5, RR11
Jobs, economic
benefits
RR5
Jobs
RR5
Alternatives
RR10
Vegetation
RR3
Environment,
property values,
safety
RR3, RR5,
RR11
Property, purpose
and need
Jobs, benefits
RR1, RR5
RR5
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Issue/Concern
12/4/2014
Thomas I. Mellott
Bridgeport, OH
C597-1
12/4/2014
Michael A. Paibi
Martins Ferry,
OH
C598-1
12/4/2014
John Coonchoff
C599-1
12/4/2014
Phil Fuart
Moundsville,
WV
Banwood, WV
12/4/2014
Amy Richard
Wheeling, WV
C601-1
12/4/2014
Matt Wadduall
Elking, WV
C602-1
12/4/2014
12/4/2014
Mark Timmer
Jason Frye
Bridgeport, OH
Valley Grove,
WV
C603-1
C604-1
12/4/2014
Earl Hercules
McMechen, WV
C605-1
12/4/2014
Matthew Ali
C606-1
12/4/2014
Peter F. Wodqreyh
Moundsville,
WV
Bridgeport, OH
Because its good for local workers. Helps to create new source of
energy.
Estimated creation of 3000 good paying jobs. Brings tax revenues
that help infrastructure and our schools.
Local resident. Vital to areas economy.
It will be good for our economy and help to provide long term
energy reliability while providing economic stimulus to surrounding
area.
Good for our community. Highly skilled and trained workforce.
Good for local workers.
Good for economy, local workers.
C607-1
Good for economy, jobs.
12/4/2014
Joshua R. Thomas
Shadyside, OH
C608-1
12/4/2014
Cody Charriere
Belmont, OH
C609-1
Local resident. It will be vital for our areas economy in the valley. It
will help with meeting local energy demands.
Stimulate local economy, create jobs, and help provide energy.
12/4/2014
12/4/2014
Robert Taylor
Cody McKeever
Wheeling, WV
St. Clairsville,
OH
C610-1
C611-1
Good for the community and vital to our area economy.

This creates too many jobs to pass up.
C600-1
Jobs for local workers. Skills for the work. Revenues for taxes.
Community benefits for schools. Domestic energy demands, long
term energy. Stimulates economy. New energy. Amount of
permanent jobs for workers.
Local jobs for local wokrers. Economy gain for this area. Schools,
retail, hospital, etc gain from it. Helps farmers, people, and the tri
state area.
Estimated creation of 3,000 good paying jobs. Estimated $25
million economic benefit. Vital to our areas economy.
Brings tax revenues that help infrastructure and schools. Good for
our community. Will provide long-term energy reliability.
89 of 247
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Economic benefits,
tax revenues, jobs
RR5
Economic benefits,
jobs
RR5
Economic benefits,
jobs
Economic benefits,
tax revenues,
reliability
Jobs, reliability
RR5
RR5, RR11
RR5, RR11
Jobs, tax revenues
RR5
Economic benefits
Economic benefits,
reliability
RR5
RR5, RR11
Jobs
RR5
Economic benefits,
jobs
Economic benefits,
jobs
Economic benefits
RR5
Economic benefits,
jobs
Economic benefits
Jobs
RR5
RR5
RR5
RR5
RR5
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Cameron, WV
C612-1
12/4/2014
Vincent E. LeMasters
12/4/2014
Derek Dempewolf
12/4/2014
Tom Gray
New
Martinsville, WV
Dillonvale, OH
12/4/2014
12/4/2014
Debbie Blake
Robert Richard
12/4/2014
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Economic benefits,
tax revenues
Jobs
RR5
C613-1
It will create 3000 local jobs and bring tax revenue to our
community. It will provide economic stimulus.
Good paying jobs for our members.
C614-1
Create good jobs for local workers. Good for local business.
RR5
McMechen, WV
Wheeling, WV
C615-1
C616-1
Keith Fluharty
Weirton, WV
C617-1
Highly skilled and trained workforce. Good for our community.

I believe it will create a lot of work for local workers and will be
good for the local economy and have highly skilled and trained
workforce.
This would be great for the local economy and local workforce!
Jobs, economic
benefits
Jobs
Economic benefits,
jobs
12/4/2014
12/4/2014
Judy Ney
James C. Thatcher
Bellaire, OH
Moundsville,
WV
C618-1
C619-1
12/4/2014
12/4/2014
Arttie Angus
Linda J. Stevens
Bellaire, OH
Metamora, MI
C620-1
C622-1
Linda J. Stevens
C622-2
Linda J. Stevens
C622-3
Local resident. Good for our community.

As a local resident, the pipelines like Rover, are as important and
essential to our communities as powerlines, sewers and roads. I
urge you to quickly approve the Rover pipeline and thank you for
holding the public hearing today. Hire skilled and intelligent
workforce, hire union.
Pipeline brings good taxes, people, better way of living.
I own three parcels of land in Section 16 of Lapeer County
comprising roughly 27 acres. I have lived here for 26 years. This
property is a horse farm first: Twelve-stall barn, tack room, indoor
riding arena, automatic waters, run-in sheds and roughly 15 acres
of fenced pasture.
For 23+ years, I drove through three (3) counties, commuting 120
miles per day round trip, to my job in Detroit, Michigan as an
Official Court Reporter in the Wayne County Circuit Court. Why,
you ask? So that some day I could retire and enjoy the scenic
beauty, peace and tranquility of my home.
We have two ponds on the property stocked with fish. Canadian
geese return each year to nest and have their babies. We have
Blue Herons who frequent our ponds - even a Great White Heron,
who has appeared the last few years.
90 of 247
Economic benefits,
jobs
Benefits
Purpose and need,
jobs
RR5
RR5
RR5
RR5
RR1, RR5
RR1, RR5
Tax revenues, jobs

Property
RR5
RR5
Aesthetics
RR8
Waterbodies, wildlife
RR2, RR3
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Linda J. Stevens
C622-4
Linda J. Stevens
C622-5
Linda J. Stevens
C622-6
Linda J. Stevens
C622-7
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
My husband and I enjoy sitting on our deck, on a warm summer's

night, watching the aerial acrobatics of the bats crisscrossing
between the trees, dining on mosquitoes and other bugs.
As part of my retirement plan, over the past 10 years my husband
and I have developed the parcel to the northwest. We have a UPick berry business on that parcel during the summer and fall. Our
clientele come to pick raspberries, blackberries and wine grapes.
Through the years, we have enjoyed watching our loyal customers'
children grow into young adults.
A private road (which is also a utility easement, recorded in my
Deed) is used by our customers to drive their cars back to the
berry field. (Exhibit A) This road has wetlands on either side. There
is also another area of wetlands on the east side of the farm. It is a
hallmark of spring each year when the familiar "chirping" sound of
the many different species of frogs begins to emanate from these
wetlands. red-winged blackbirds, Baltimore orioles, rose-breasted
grosbeaks and many varieties of woodpeckers nest there. The
white-tail deer have their fawns there, and several species of
turtles migrate between both wetland areas to nest and lay their
eggs. Over the last five years, Sandhill cranes have appeared and
utilize this area, together with rabbits and wild turkeys.
My farm is oriented south to north; the proposed pipeline route
runs west to east. In looking at Exhibit B, I have outlined my
property in yellow. The private road is marked in red. This new
route will bisect the farm. The pipeline has been moved closer to
my home and is now encroaching on the private road. It will pass
through the wetlands near the private road, as well as the wetlands
on the east side of the property. If this route is approved, roughly
15+ acres of my land will be inaccessible. I have no alternate
access to the back two parcels without crossing the pipeline. My
berry business will become defunct and half of the fenced horse
pasture will become unusable. This projected route will cause
irreparable harm, loss of use of my land, business interruption and
denial of pleasure and enjoyment of same.
Aesthetics
RR8
Loss of business
RR5
Wetlands, wildlife
RR2, RR3
Siting, property
access, loss of
business
RR1, RR5
91 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Linda J. Stevens
C622-8
Linda J. Stevens
C622-9
Linda J. Stevens
C622-10
Linda J. Stevens
C622-11
Linda J. Stevens
C622-12
Linda J. Stevens
C622-13
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
During construction in a forested wetlands area they are to "Cut

vegetation and trees off at ground level, leaving existing root
systems in place and remove cuttings from the wetland for
disposal. " A drawing of an excavator on mats is depicted. Once a
tree is "clear cut" there will never be another tree there. As for the
vegetation, it is intellectually dishonest to think the wetlands area
could ever be restored to an "as before" condition. The mats are
not there to protect the ground in the wetlands. We own an
excavator, it weighs 42,000 pounds. A CAT350 weighs around
65,000 pounds; a CAT365 is more in the 80,000-pound range. The
mats are to keep the excavator from becoming irretrievably mired
in the bog. Just because the roots are left in place does not mean
the vegetation will ergo grow back. The ecosystem will be forever
altered: The destruction of habitat will have a profound impact on
birds, amphibians, wildlife of all descriptions.
Trunkline Gas Company, LLC sold this pipeline to Enbridge in
2012. I am imploring that FERC not approve this project, as there
is no necessity and no benefit to the residents of Michigan. The
gas will arrive at the Dawn Hub in Sarnia, and be sold offshore and
elsewhere. Rover opines that 18% may return to Michigan. That's
not enough to justify necessity.
This project is not for the public good. It will irreversibly impact
local economies, diminish property values, and do untold damage
to the environment. The safety hazard and potential for ground, air
and water contamination outweigh any benefit it may have --but for
this company's bottom line.
If this project is found to be necessary, I object to the current route.
I offer as an alternative that Rover be required to utilize the lTC
corridor just to the north of the proposed route, thereby mitigating,
to some extent, the destruction in its path.
I cannot in good conscience ask that the pipeline be rerouted to the
north on my property, as many of homes are located there. Rover
has chosen the most populated area of Lapeer County for their
project.
We already have NEXUS and Vector. Do we really need another
Wetlands,
construction
impacts, wildlife
RR1, RR2,
RR3
Purpose and need
RR1
Benefits
RR1
Alternatives
RR10
Population
RR5
Purpose and need
RR1
92 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/4/2014
Commenter
Rick Platt
Comment
ID
Number
Newark, OH
C623-1
Rick Platt
C623-2
Rick Platt
C623-3
Rick Platt
C623-4
Rick Platt
C623-5
12/5/2014
Tom Wassmer
Adrian, MI
C624-1
12/4/2014
Janice Rivard
Metamora, MI
C625-1
Janice Rivard
Town, State
C625-2
Issue/Concern
pipeline?
My support stems from wanting to see energy independence for
our nation, better economic competitiveness for Ohio, jobs for
Ohioans, and improved manufacturing opportunities. I believe this
project is favorable for all of these reasons.
A great deal of the natural gas supply for our nation will come from
Western PA and Eastern Ohio in future years and pipelines are
necessary to realize that full potential for energy independence.
Efficiently transporting off energy resources is a key component in
economic competitiveness. Ohio's economy benefits.
Jobs will come from not only constructing the pipeline but also from
supplying U.S.-manufactured components that will go into
constructing the line, including compressors that are made in Ohio.
All of these add up to improved manufacturing opportunities in the
near-, short- and long-term.
I thought this process is about the environmental impact of the
project, not about the promised and highly disputable impact on
local economies!
ET Rover has informed me they plan to cross my 120 acres. This
land is not suitable for farming. It consists of wetland and a stand
of hardwood trees seventy to one-hundred plus years old oak,
maple and beech (Exhabit A). The wetlands (Exhabit B) contain
two streams that wind through ground that is moist to wet twelve
months of the year. The pipeline will run through both areas. I
question how the soil can be removed, a pipeline laid and the top
strata replaced to its original state without destroying the present
eco-system.
Both of the areas abound with wildlife and abundant vegetation.
The pipeline will run along the South side and at times parallel to
the Sutherland Sanctury. You will find more wetland and hardwood
on this pipeline route than on the Sanctuary itself. Deer, coyote,
turkey, pheasant and many migratory birds litS well as the
massasuga rattlesnake and possibly endangered species can be
found.
93 of 247
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Economic benefits,
jobs
RR5
Benefits
RR1
Economic benefits
RR5
Jobs
RR5
Jobs
RR5
Environmental
impacts
RR3
Wetlands,
vegetation,
ecosystem impacts
RR3, RR3
wetlands
RR2, RR3
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/5/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Janice Rivard
C625-3
Janice Rivard
C625-4
Janice Rivard
C625-5
Aura Detheridge
Metamora, MI
C626-1
Aura Detheridge
Aura Detheridge
Aura Detheridge
Aura Detheridge
C626-2
C626-3
C626-4
C626-5
Aura Detheridge
Aura Detheridge
Aura Detheridge
C626-6
C626-7
C626-8
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
A 5-acre man-made lake with a 15 to 20 foot earth dam (Exhabit C)

is within the buffer zone. In the event of an explosion, causing
damage to the dam, the flood plain would cross the pipeline with
the capability of causing adverse effects downstream. The overflow
from the lake also runs through the area and I question how the
quality of the water will be affected.
There are more viable routes that will not effect so many people
and disrupt additional ecologically sensitive areas, such as the
Michigan International Transmisson Company Route referred to as
ITC Route or the Nexus Pipeline Route. Following these paths
would cause less impact on property values and the environment.
It is unthinkable that a wealthy private company can obtain eminent
domain (without public necessity) over residents banes and land as
well as errupt farm land that may never be able to be developed in
years to come.
In lieu of the recent events, we feel the need to reiterate the nonnecessity of this project that will create hardship for residents,
wildlife and the land we love if granted and given eminent domain.
Please understand its a fact for us, this will be a long term
negative life altering event for as long as we live in the homes we
have planned, worked and sweated for.
There is no need for this pipeline.
This will not be creating temporary jobs for us.
This will not give us greater access to natural gas.
This will negatively impact our jobs in agriculture and food
production. This will negatively impact our revenue from
recreational areas.
This will negatively impact our property values.
This will negatively impact our land, water and wildlife.
This pipeline route is NOT safe for the residents and landowners.
We have worked hard and have a basic right to live in peace and
relative safety. If you approve this project to go through and allow
eminent domain that will shatter both.
Waterbodies, water
quality
RR2
Alternatives
RR10
Eminent domain,
land use (ag)
RR1, RR8
Wildlide, land use,

eminent domain
RR1, RR3,
RR8
Purpose and need

Jobs
Benefits
Jobs (agriculture),
recreation
RR1
RR5
RR1
RR5, RR8
Property values
Water, wildlife
Safety, eminent
domain
RR5
RR2, RR3
RR1, RR11
94 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Aura Detheridge
12/5/2014
Karen and Todd Revill
Comment
ID
Number
C626-9
Dexter, MI
C627-1
C627-2
C627-3
C627-4
C627-5
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
In closing, though we have provided Rover LLC with alternate

routes (that have been ignored) wed like to offer another possible
alternate route that would surely be met with no resistance. In the
spirit of working together we propose that all those who are in favor
of this pipeline let Rover LLC draw up a route that follows their
homes and neighborhoods. This would work for two reasons, it
would provide some income to those who want the pipeline and
would save Rover LLC time and money fighting with residents who
dont.
They are proposing to put this within the same area that we have
our garden in which we grow most of our vegetables for healthy
eating. Raise our chickens, that give us eggs to eat, and meat
hens, that give us meat to eat.
They are proposing to put this within the same area that we run our
wood furnace operation, which heats our house. We sustain our
heat with natural wood burning furnace. This is a large operation,
in which we manually cut wood down, split logs and heat our home
and our pole barn/workshop.
They are proposing to put this within the same area that we have
our pole barn which my husband runs his business from this
incorporates a workshop, which is heated with our wood burning
furnace) a work area in the barn which my husband does all
mechanical and building from to run his/our business.
The entire length of this proposed pipeline will also destroy all of
our trees which have grown through the years to create a nature
area for my children to play.
My children play and enjoy the outdoors in which we have worked
extremely hard to build. The pipeline will destroy all of the land that
we use to enjoy our land that we worked very hard to own. The
safety of my children, my family and my pets will all be at risk with
the installment of this pipeline.
Alternatives
RR10
Property
RR5
Property
RR5
Loss of business
RR5
Vegetation
RR3
Safety, aesthetics
RR8, RR11
95 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/4/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
C627-6
C627-7
C627-8
C627-9
C627-10
C627-11
Kathleen Kapa
China, MI
C628-1
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Not only will the pipeline destroy our land, the natural habitat which
we thrive to live in, our land will never be the same again. My
family will not be able to feel safe. The danger of this pipeline
leaves our house, our property worthless. Our health will be at risk,
not only while it is being put in, but many years after this. We will
be threatened by the gas that will not only have the possibility of
leaking into our well water, but a leak would be catastrophic. They
may say it is safe, but honestly, there is no guarantee. We refuse
to take that risk.
The construction of this pipeline, will bring down the value of our
land, it will prohibit us from ever being able to receive full value of
our land when selling.
The construction of the pipeline also causes serious threat to our
health and safety and welfare of our family.
The only people who are in favor of this pipeline are those that will
have financial gain. This is not right. This shouldnt be about
money. This does not benefit Michigan as a natural gas source.
The pipeline is only being used as a transportation means to get
the gas from one place to another. There is not any benefit to us as
Michigan landowners at all.
If this pipeline is approved via eminent domain, we will lose the
value of our home, the safety and security we now have the home
we have worked hard for all of our lives. We will no longer feel safe
living on our own property.
There have been many known gas explosions from natural gas
pipelines throughout the US. Leaving destruction in its path and
fatalities. We do not want to be put at risk.
I was not very happy to hear that they wanted to put in another
pipeline next to the existing ones we already have on our property.
However, we have now found out that the proposed Rover Pipeline
will not be on our property, but will now be placed on our neighbors
property and run adjacent to our property line. This will in effect put
us right in between two different pipelines!
Environment, safety,
water quality
RR2, RR3,
RR11
Property values
RR5
Safety
RR11
Benefits
RR1
Eminent domain,
safety
RR1, RR11
Safety
RR11
Existing pipelines
RR1
96 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Comment
ID
Number
Kathleen Kapa
C628-2
Kathleen Kapa
C628-3
Kathleen Kapa
C628-4
12/5/2014
David E. Daniel
12/6/2014
Steven J. Runfola
Steven J. Runfola
Town, State
Brownstown, Mi
C629-1
Morgantown,
WV
C630-1
C630-2
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
Who wants to be sandwiched in by gas pipelines? Who wants to

buy a home that is sandwiched in between two different pipelines,
and not only that, we are currently limited as to where anything can
be built on our property because of the easement.
There is plenty of farmland that they could go through instead of
invading our residential properties.
Not only that, they would in effect take out half of the woods in the
back of our property. This is absolutely not acceptable in any way,
shape or form. We have a myriad of wildlife that traverses the
woods, and now they even want to take that away from us! Enough
is enough. This insanity has to stop. We bought this property 20
years ago because of the peace and solitude it provides us and
well as the daily sightings of wild animals (deer, fox, turkeys, turkey
vultures, squirrels, weasels, the occasional coyote and the myriads
of different birds that visit our backyard). They will be destroying
their habitat. This is not what we moved here for.
Rover claims to have completed over 90 percent of mainline civil,
cultural, and biological surveys while only having acquired
permission to perform 76 percent of them. Rover says they have
completed, on average, 95 percent of supply lateral civil, cultural,
and biological surveys while having acquired permission to conduct
89 percent. Rover also claims to have completed, on average, 76
percent of market mainline civil, cultural, and biological while only
having acquired permission to conduct 69 percent. I would assume
that permission to survey would include landowner permission
and/or permission via court order.
42 inch pipelines are the largest of the gas pipelines. Pipelines
often leak and explode creating dangerous conditions for our
residents. Streams, creeks and rivers will be impacted by
construction activities and our fresh water resources may be
contaminated by leaks.
Trucks and heavy equipment would clog our roads and will
contribute to increased diesel fuel and hydraulic fluid pollution in
our communities.
Siting, future plans

to build/sell
RR1, RR5
Alternatives
RR10
RR3
Permission to
Survey
RR1
RR2, RR11
Construction
impacts, road
impacts
RR1, RR5
97 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Steven J. Runfola
C630-3
Steven J. Runfola
C630-4
Steven J. Runfola
C630-5
Steven J. Runfola
C630-6
Steven J. Runfola
C630-7
Steven J. Runfola
C630-8
Steven J. Runfola
C630-9
Steven J. Runfola
C630-10
Steven J. Runfola
C630-11
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
The building of this pipeline would necessitate more hydraulicfracturing ("fracking") which would use millions of gallons of fresh
water and thousands of gallons of toxic chemicals for each well
drilled. Much of this fresh water stays a mile down in the ground,
lost to the natural cycle, never to be available again.
Medical studies confirm that oil and gas spills release radioactive
isotopes into land, water and air. This seepage of toxic chemicals
would negatively impact our health.
A 75 foot permanent easement would limit the use of farmland and
timber resources.
Properties on which the pipeline would be constructed will lose
value as will neighboring properties.
Compressor stations - necessary to push the gas through the
pipeline - are large, noisy and leak hydrocarbons into the air which
would disrupt the use of land near and around them. There would
also be significant stress caused by constant noise and traffic.
Dominion will make a one-time payment for an easement. That
easement severely restricts what can be done on that property and
jeopardizes the future safety and stability of that land. The property
owners would still be responsible for property taxes on that land.
Many properties will suffer diminished value and will be assessed
at a lesser value. This will result in a tax loss for these localities.
Property sales potential would be diminished. Some banks may not
issue mortgages because of industrial use of the land. Some banks
may even call in existing mortgages because of the decreased
value of land.
Many counties where the pipelines are proposed have karst
geology. Karst limestone contains vulnerable water supplies. Leaks
from a pipeline buried in this type of terrain would go unfiltered into
the caves, underground streams and drinking water sources.
A 125 food wide construction right of way cut through our forested
mountains would scar the landscape and fragment timber
resources and hunting.
Fracking
RR1
Safety
RR11
Land use
RR8
Property values
RR5
Noise quality, air

quality, traffic
RR5, RR9
Compensation
RR5
Property values
RR5
Geology,
groundwater
RR2, RR6
Aesthetics, land use
RR8
98 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
12/4/2014
Jeffery Billeter
12/4/2014
Ryan Allenby
12/4/2014
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Issue/Concern
New
Martinsville, WV
Wheeling, WV
C631-1
Local resident. Good for our community. New work.
C632-1
Philip N. Maderia
Smithfield, OH
C633-1
12/4/2014
Matthew W. Maderia
Smithfield, OH
C634-1
12/4/2014
Zachary Hartine
C635-1
12/4/2014
Susan Wood
Moundsville,
WV
Cameron, WV
12/4/2014
12/4/2014
Pat Davis
Gregory Blake
Belpre, OH
Adena, OH
C637-1
C638-1
12/4/2014
Christopher Minch
Dallas, WV
C639-1
12/4/2014
Thomas C. Safreed
Sisterville, WV
C640-1
12/4/2014
George Nikels
C641-1
12/4/2014
Shane Civitillo
Moundsville,
WV
Wheeling, WV
12/4/2014
Harold J. Yost
C643-1
12/4/2014
William E. Crow
Moundsville,
WV
Triadelphia, WV
Will provide economic stimulus to surrounding areas during

construction. For example retail, hospitals. It will provide work for
local resident and be good for our community.
Local resident, good for our community, creation of good jobs, we
are highly skilled and trained workforce. It will provide economic
stimulus to surrounding areas during construction. Creates
potential new source of energy. Brings tax revenues that help
infrastructure and our schools.
It is god for our community and local businesses. It will create a lot
of jobs and boost the economy. It will help with the high energy
demands.
Local resident. 3,000 good paying jobs. Brings tax revenues for
infrastructure and our school.
Good for community. Creation of 3,000 jobs. Skilled and trained
workforce. Brings tax revenues. Will provide long-term energy
reliability. Helps meet energy demands.
Good for community.
It creates a potential new source of energy. Will provide economic
stimulus to surrounding areas during construction.
Local resident. Good for our community. Highly skilled and trained
workforce.
Brings tax revenues that help infrastructure and our schools. Will
provide long-term energy reliability.
Will provide long-term energy reliability. Local resident. Good for
our community. Vital to our area's economy.
Rover pipeline will help meet energy demands with domestic
energy. I am a local resident. Vital to our economy
I am a local resident and will be good for the community to create
jobs for local people. This is vital to out area's economy.
workforce.
C636-1
C642-1
C644-1
99 of 247
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Jobs
RR5
Economic benefits
RR5
Economic benefits,
jobs, tax revenues
RR5
Economic benefits,
jobs
RR5
Jobs, tax revenues
RR5
Jobs, tax revenues,

reliability
RR5, RR1
Benefits
Economic benefits
RR5
RR5
Jobs
RR5
Tax revenues,
reliability
Economic benefits,
reliability
Economic benefits,
reliability
Economic benefits,
jobs
Jobs
RR5, RR11
RR5, RR11
RR5, RR11
RR5
RR5
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
12/4/2014
David Winters
Wheeling, WV
C645-1
12/4/2014
Kristopher Kull
C646-1
12/4/2014
James T. Eddy
12/4/2014
Curtis Doyle
St. Clairsville,
OH
New
Martinsville, WV
Gleneaston,
WV
12/4/2014
Kenneth D. Irvin
12/4/2014
C647-1
C648-1
C649-1
Robin Wesche
Martins Ferry,
OH
Wheeling, WV
12/4/2014
Rachel Verdula
Wheeling, WV
C651-1
12/4/2014
12/4/2014
Bobby Jimyers
Jeffery R. Bennett
Bridgeport, OH
Wheeling, WV
C652-1
C653-1
12/4/2014
Glendale, WV
C654-1
12/4/2014
Christopher M.
Bowman
Michael Islay
Clarington, OH
C655-1
12/4/2014
Melissa Dray
Steubenville,
C656-1
12/4/2014
Terri Cook
Wintersville, OH
C657-1
12/4/2014
Maria M. Scott
Wintersville, OH
C658-1
C650-1
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Local resident. High skilled and trained workforce. Will provide

long-term energy reliability. Melps meet energy demands with
domestic energy.
manufacturing renaissance. We are a highly trained workforce.
Local resident. Provide economic stimulus to the area. Brings tax
revenues.
Highly skilled and trained workforce. Creates potential new source
of energy/ Brings new tax revenues that help infrastructure and
school. Estimated creation of 3,000 good paying jobs.
Local resident. Local jobs and will help the economy is our area.
Jobs, reliability
RR5, RR11
Jobs
RR5
Economic benefits,
tax revenues
Jobs, tax revenues
RR5
Will provide long term energy reliability. 3000+ good paying jobs.
Vital to areas economy.
Brings tax revenues that help infrastructure and our schools.
Estimated creation of 3,000 good paying jobs. Vital to our areas
economy.
Good for the community and local resident.
The work at hand could create many jobs to boost the areas
economy and help local people to provide to their families. The
security and life that we all deserve.
Skilled workers. Good wages. Drug free work force.
Local trained workers to work. It provides long term energy
sources.
This will be great for our community. It will create new jobs for our
skilled workforce. It will stimulate our economy.
This would be good for the community and also help keep jobs for
local workers.
This pipeline would be great for the area. It would lower the
unemployment rate by adding jobs for the area and also help with
school funding and keeping jobs in the area.
100 of 247
RR5
Economic benefits,
jobs
Jobs, reliability
RR5
RR5, RR11
Tax revenues, jobs
RR5
Benefits
Economic benefits,
jobs
RR5
RR5
Jobs
RR5
Jobs, reliability
RR5, RR11
Economic benefits,
jobs
Economic benefits,
jobs
Economic benefits,
jobs
RR5
RR5
RR5
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
12/4/2014
Joanne Orsini
12/4/2014
Mary Kay Sweeney
12/4/2014
Jim Sweeney
12/4/2014
Josh Loy
12/4/2014
12/4/2014
12/8/2014
Comment
ID
Number
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Steubenville,
OH
Steubenville,
OH
Steubenville,
OH
St. Clairsville,
OH
C659-1
It will be good for the economy.
Economic benefits
RR5
C660-1
Economic benefits,
jobs
Jobs
RR5
RR5
Tax revenues, jobs
RR5
James Rinkles
Martins Ferry,
OH
C663-1
Economic benefits,
reliability
RR5, RR11
Gwen Morris
David and Marlene
Galbraith
Colliers, WV
Metamora, MI
C664-1
C665-1
This would be a tremendous boost to local economy, creating jobs

that and good paying and everybody wins.
With all the industry that has been lost in the tri-state area this
provides good paying jobs and keeps everybody working,
By having the Rover Pipeline it will create an estimated 3,000 good
paying jobs. It will help bring tax revenue and infrastructure and our
schools.
Good for community. Vital to our area's economy. Estimated 25
million economic benefit. Helps meet energy demands with
domestic energy. Will provide long term energy reliability.
This would be good for the economy and good for this area.
It would cause all of our property values to go down, which in
return lowers our taxes, genertation a lot less income for our
townships.
It would make it impossible to sell our homes which could lead to
people walking away forcing the banks to take them back.
We have well water that most likely would become contaminated if
not now, in the future.
We have schools in these areas, what about their safety and
contaminated water?
We have seen the damage a 14" pipeline can cause. One
exploded in Virginia last years. We can't even imagine a 42".
We have a pond and are concerned about destroying all of the
wildlife that depend on it.
We are very concerned about disrupting the natural flow of water to
our pond. It could and most likely would flood all of us.
There is no eminent domain. This pipeline is not beneficial to us or
Michigan. How can this be forced upon us? This is only a benefit to
Canada and to make an oil company richer, at our expense.
Economic benefits
Property values
RR5
RR5
RR5
Polution
RR3
RR2, RR11
Safety
RR11
Waterbodies, wildlife
RR2, RR3
Water quality
RR2
Eminent domain,
benefits
RR1
David and Marlene

Galbraith
David and Marlene
Galbraith
David and Marlene
Galbraith
David and Marlene
Galbraith
David and Marlene
Galbraith
David and Marlene
Galbraith
David and Marlene
Galbraith
Town, State
C661-1
C662-1
C665-2
C665-3
C665-4
C665-5
C665-6
C665-7
C665-8
101 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/8/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
David and Marlene

Galbraith
C665-9
David and Marlene

Galbraith
John A. Smith
C665-10
Encampment,
WY
C666-1
John A. Smith
C666-2
John A. Smith
C666-3
John A. Smith
C666-4
John A. Smith
C666-5
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
We moved to the country to be near wildlife, safety, quietness,

neighbors who help each other. Our dream has become a
nightmare.
Could this make us targets for terrorism? Think how much
destruction this would casue.
Why cant Rover use public transportation easements that
already exist, or at least more of them, such as the existing
highway system? Or before more pipelines, new auto highways, or
public transportation systems such as light rail, use up more
farmland and open space, why doesnt some government entity
create a map for future use of these public needs instead of
random location?
I have a legal conservation easement on my property (to preserve
farmland and open space). Why cant such things as pipelines
automatically go around these properties? Some property owners
welcome the pipeline and the income it provides so why not use
those properties?
If the pipeline project is approved and the project is granted the
use of eminent domain, how is it right that the same government
that grants a legal conservation easement on a property then
grants a private company the right to take that same property for a
private use contrary to the conservation easement?
All public information prior to about October 1, 2014 from ET Rover
stated there would be one 42 inch pipe in one section across Ohio.
Then suddenly on about October 1, 2014 there is information
presented that there will be two side-by-side pipes. This seems to
be a trick tactic and should not be allowed.
There should be a clear and reasonable time period to complete all
work on the pipeline once started, and serious implications to the
pipeline company if the pipeline is not completed during that time.
Otherwise property owners are held hostage to the construction
process with no options or remuneration.
Wildlife, safety,
noise quality
RR3, RR9,
RR11
Safety
RR11
Alternatives
RR10
Conservation areas
RR3
Eminent domain
RR1
FERC Pre-filing
process
RR1
Construction
impacts
RR1
102 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/8/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
John A. Smith
C666-6
John A. Smith
C666-7
John A. Smith
C666-8
Monica Sallans
Goodrich, MI
C667-1
Monica Sallans
C667-2
Monica Sallans
C667-3
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
The pipeline companys responsibility for damage to land, such as

farmland, should extend indefinitely into the future, not just for
three years or some finite period, including new problems to
surface and subsurface drainage systems and crop response.
The pipeline owners should provide a bond to assure that financial
obligations of potential future problems will be met, including leaks
and resulting damage to land, and eventual removal of the pipeline
and return of the land to original condition.
If FERC approves the E.T. Rover pipeline project and gives ET
Rover eminent domain power, then after this approval date ET
Rover should not be allowed to change the route, width, or other
specifics of the plan just because they have eminent domain.
The environmental impact of such a huge project would be
devastating to many species of birds, mammals, fish, and reptiles.
The area proposed is habitat to sand hill cranes, geese, hawks,
owls, and an occasional sighting of a bald eagle. There are many
ponds and swampy areas home to fish, frogs, salamanders, turtles,
and muskrats. Deer, raccoon, opossum, squirrels, and chipmunks
also live in the proposed area. These creatures are already getting
squeezed from their habitats due to urban sprawl.
The environmental impact to people along the entire rout who
depend on ground water as their sole source of water. Many
homes and farms along the proposed pipeline depend on well
water. One small leak in the pipeline can contaminate thousands of
homes and poison people and animals that drink it. A small leak
may go undetected for years, sickening or killing some people
before someone puts two plus two together and figures it out.
Homes would be worthless because of environmental
contamination.
The use of our local roads to carry heavy equipment and
construction material will place an unfair burden upon our
community. We have been struggling for road construction funding
to repair a very outdated county primary road infrastructure.
Slowly, our county has been patching some of the crumbling
bridges in the area. Those portions of our local roads which are
Land use (ag),

drainage tiles
RR2, RR7,
RR8
Safety
RR11
Eminent domain
RR1
Wildlife, waterbodies
RR2, RR3
Environment, safety,
water quality
RR2, RR3,
RR11
Road impacts
RR1, RR5
103 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/1/2014
12/8/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Monica Sallans
C667-4
Monica Sallans
C667-5
Monica Sallans
C667-6
Monica Sallans
C667-7
Monica Sallans
C667-8
Ed Heller
C668-1
Ed Heller
C668-2
Ed Heller
David Carroll
Dexter, MI
C668-3
C669-1
Issue/Concern
marginally capable to handle current loads, will be stressed by the
steady heavy construction traffic brought on by the pipeline.
Our home value would decline because of the pipelines proximity
to us.
Public safety concern due to risk of explosion. We could just be
obliterated!
Our home values would decline, in addition to our health, and
safety.
ET Rover owned a pipeline just to the south of us, but chose to sell
it. Now they want to build another onewhy should they be
allowed to simply choose what they want to do, so their company
can make profits off of our precious land?
Finally, this pipeline does not benefit our community. The endpoint
of the pipeline is Canada. Sorry, but we already get Canadas
garbage in our landfills, while they protect their land. We need to
start protecting our land in the United States!
Starting out the Rover pipeline is not going to benefit the people of
the USA. The gas is going to Canada. When they try to my farm its
not for an hour or a day its forever. They pay people permits for a
lease forever. They own your property and we have to pay taxes
on it. They should have to pay yours forever. They are going to
make money from peoples property forever and pay them a
nothing one time amount.
Its sick when you see the forest they destroyed, erosion, and water
pollution caused by the pipeline companies.
Eminent domain is communism.
How would you like it if ET Rover were doing to you what it is doing
to us, our neighbors and landowners throughout America's
heartland? How would you like gangs of bullies with armed
bodyguards pushing your wives, mothers or even you aside,
illegally destroying your hard won property and threatening
prosecution if you get in their way?
104 of 247
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Property values
RR5
Safety
RR11
Property values,
safety
Purpose and need
RR5, RR11
Benefits
RR1
Benefits
RR1
Vegetation, water
quality, soil quality
Eminent domain
Property
RR2, RR3,
RR7
RR1
RR5
RR1
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
12/9/2014
Fred and Kay Zirger
Tiffin, OH
C670-1
11/26/2014
Will Risner
Adrian, MI
C671-1
11/28/2014
Will Risner
C671-2
Will Risner
C671-3
Will Risner
C671-4
Kellie Clay
Sawyer, MI
C771-1
C771-2
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
We are in favor of moving forward on the Rover Pipeline across

Ohio, with the understanding that fair compensation be made to
land owners and every possible safety method is used to protect
the surrounding area and the environment of Ohio. Progress
should not stop over the objections of a few as long as the above
measures are met.
I am writing to register my support for Energy Transfer Partners' ET
Rover Pipeline. The project will create jobs, supply Americans with
domestically produced energy, and be built to best-in-class
standards that protect the environment and local communities.
the United States. Pipelines are the safest and most efficient way
of construction workers are from the local community. Therefore,
I am writing to support the Rover pipeline project. As a LIUNA
member and laborer in the pipeline industry, It Is very Important to
move forward with this project. It will create jobs for people and It
also helps bring growth and recognition to a lot of businesses in
the small communities we are around while we are working on
these jobs.
It is a fact we need these resources in life and unless you are
amish I haven't seen one of these protestcrs leave a job site or
climb out of a tree and get on a horse to leave. They have all
gotten in vehicles which tells me one thing. They appreciate and
use these resources as well.
Benefits
RR1
Jobs
RR5
Purpose and need
RR1
Jobs
RR5
Economic benefits,
jobs
RR5
Jobs, economic
benefits
RR5
Benefits, reliability
RR1, RR11
105 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/5/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
John Belknap
C777-1
John Belknap
C777-2
John Belknap
C777-3
John Belknap
C777-4
John Belknap
C777-5
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
Energy Transfer Partners (ET), through its Rover Pipeline LLC, is

seeking to lay claim to the rights of nearly 12,000 of acres of
private property, about 4,000 acres of it here in Michigan, in order
to build this gas transmission line. They claim there is a need for
this gas and that this proposed pipeline in necessary to fulfill the
need. They have stated clearly their intent to use eminent domain
to seize the property when necessary.
Hundreds of miles of project, with permanent 50 foot cleared areas
and 125 feet of cleared work area does not sound like no longterm footprint to me.
Rover states that the forested areas cleared for permanent rightsof
way will never be allowed to re-vegetate. The temporary
construction rights-ofway will be allowed to re-vegetate, but they
admit it could take over a decade and a half to return to preconstruction conditions. Further, they have told us personally that
they will not pay to replant forests.
ET petitioned and was given permission to abandon its Trunkline
pipeline which transported natural gas to the Michigan-Indiana
border, claiming a lack of need. In their request they stated that
after the abandonment ET would continue to serve its core market
through its remaining facilities utilizing supplies through their
Panhandle and Rockies Express pipelines. There is excess
pipeline capacity available to their core market area in the
Midwest. They defined their primary market as including Illinois,
Indiana, Michigan and parts of Tennessee. Now, just two years
later, they are petitioning for permission to seize our properties
claiming a necessity for extra natural gas supply.
In initial information from ET we received in the mail and initial talks
with their people, we heard no mention of this gas being used in
Michigan; it was claimed to be going to Ontario. Now, according to
ETs Joey Mahmoud at a Lima Township meeting on October 14,
2014, they have claimed they have 18% of Rovers capacity sold to
the Michigan market. Where did this sudden need for gas come
from?
Property, eminent
domain
RR1, RR5
Maintenance
impacts
RR1
Vegetation,
construction impacts
RR1, RR3
Purpose and need
RR1
Purpose and need
RR1
106 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
John Belknap
C777-6
John Belknap
C777-7
John Belknap
C777-8
John Belknap
C777-9
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Michigan has significant natural gas reserves which serve much of

our needs. Further, at least eight other pipelines cross Michigan on
the way to markets in the northeastern United States and Eastern
Canada and these satisfy the remainder of the states natural gas
demand. I believe there is no sudden new need for gas supply in
Michigan or even in the United States.
Rather, there is an unexpected abundance of gas production,
fueled largely by the Marcellus and Utica shale projects. This gas
needs to be moved, and ET wants to seize the opportunity to move
as much of it as it can for profit. The growth of gas consumption is
in foreign markets such as Canada and Mexico, not here in our
country. The building of this pipeline does not meet any gas needs
here in the USA; it is designed to help ET profit by transporting gas
to these foreign markets.
Use of existing rights of way must be considered. There are two
other current proposals that will accomplish the same gas
transportation; Enbridges Nexus project and Kinder Morgans
Utopia. These two pipelines are planned to use existing pipelines
in Michigan, requiring virtually no further condemnation of private
owners lands. ET itself owns the Panhandle Eastern pipeline and
its attendant right-of-way just a few miles east of this proposed
route. This line originates and terminates at essentially the same
facilities as Rover and should be utilized rather than destroying
additional natural areas. If more pipeline capacity is needed, they
should use this existing right of way.
We followed their directions to get a variation considered,
personally handing copies of aerial photos to their people with
suggested alternatives drawn on them. We gave them these
photos as early as 8/1/2014. ET has not responded to our reaching
out and these variation requests do not even show up on their
Resource Report 10- Alternatives publication which they
published in November. We spoke with personnel in their Ann
Arbor office and were promised that they would follow up with us
but we heard nothing. We further engaged them at the last scoping
session that was held November 20 of this year in Chelsea, MI.
Purpose and need
RR1
Benefits
RR1
Alternatives
RR10
Alternatives
RR10
107 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/8/2014
12/8/2014
Commenter
Becky Kelly
Comment
ID
Number
Fostoria, MI
C778-1
Becky Kelly
C778-2
Becky Kelly
C778-3
Becky Kelly
C778-4
William J. Haener
William J. Haener
Town, State
East China, MI
C779-1
C779-2
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Residents will carry the burden of risk but will not benefit in any
way. How can the safety of an underground pipeline be verified?
What if ET Rover sells this to another company? A natural gas leak
has occurred this year in Berrien County. Marshall, MI has also
experience the largest oil spill in the continetial US.
Additionally, the amount of destruction to our natural habitats,
neighborhoods, and farms during the construction phase would
significant change the atmosphere and aesthetics of our land.
Then afertwards no trees could be replaced.
The pipeline itself would then inevitabley become an irresistible
magnet for snowmobilers and ATVs creating noise, vandelism, and
safety issues for nearby homes.
The longer and older it got, the increased risk would escalate. This
is not a legacy we should leave to future generations.
Benefits, safety
RR1, RR11
Environment, land
use, construction
impacts, aesthetics
RR1, RR3,
RR8
Safety, noise quality
RR9, RR11
Safety
RR11
Future plans
to build home
RR8
Safety, aesthetics
RR8, RR11
There is an existing 75 foot wide piece of private property adjacent

to my home where the pipeline is actually planned to be built. Our
neighbors home is located approximately 40 feet south of this
pipeline where they intend to cross the St. Clair River into Ontario,
Canada. The current owners of the property where the pipeline is
proposed to be built, the Schweihofer family, have completed plans
to build a new home at this location. They intend to start
construction immediately after their current home is sold (currently
for sale on the market).
If the Rover project goes through as planned, a 42 high pressure
natural gas pipeline will be approximately 40 feet from my bedroom
and that of my neighbors. Besides the obvious concern for our
safety on a daily basis given the potential hazard to our home and
family, another consequence of the projectassuredly is a significant
decrease in our surrounding property values as there are dozens
of other existing homes in both directions. I have spent a lifetime
saving the funds to acquire this pristine riverfront property only to
have a potential high pressure pipeline run almost directly through
it.
108 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
William J. Haener
C779-3
William J. Haener
C779-4
William J. Haener
C779-5
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
The University of Michigan and Michigan State University have a

spawning reef under construction in the St. Clair Riverwaters of the
proposed pipeline. This reef project is a joint venture with federal
funding, University of Michigan, Michigan DNR and others. Cost of
the spawning project exceeds a million dollars and the reef is
designed to provide a spawning area for sturgeon (a threatened
and endangered species),whitefish, (a fish not presently spawning
in the river) and walleye, a highly desirable and economically
important species. The proposed Rover Pipeline has potential to
disturb/destroy spawning process.
I would like to suggest two reasonable alternatives to consider for
routing this project through existing energy corridors that would
minimize the environmental impact to residential and virgin
farmland properties. There are existing energy corridors
approximately one mile north and one mile south of our location.
The location to the north adjacent to Puttygut Road currently
houses high voltage electrical transmission lines and numerous
pipelines that cross the river from Michigan to Canada with
approximately 300 feet of riverfront right of way. The location to the
south is home to DTE Energy companys St. Clair and Belle River
Power Plants (approximately 1 mile apart) where they own 1500
feet of riverfront and a 10 acre package of mostly unused land
where the water intake plant exists.
There is space to accommodate the Rover Pipeline at both of
these locations to leverage the existing established energy
corridorand minimize the impact to the surrounding communities.
The additional benefit for this pipeline as it runs from West to East
is that is can easily be routed adjacent to these existing
transmission lines-thereby minimizing the need to acquire
additional agricultural and residential property.
Wildlife
RR3
Alternatives
RR10
Alternatives
RR10
109 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/8/2014
12/10/2014
Commenter
Joel Laber
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Metamora, MI
C780-1
Joel Laber
C780-2
Joel Laber
C780-3
Michael and Kimberly

Beard
Goodrich, MI
C781-1
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
Club, Hunters Creek Farms. These are just a few organizations

that contain some of the mystical land of Metamora, MI. This land
is world renowned for its scenery, horse farms, hunting grounds,
and agricultural countryside. Metamora, a rural haven, just north of
Detroit, west of Port Huron, and east of Flint, is now being
threatened by a high pressure natural gas line. The attractions
listed below are going to be affected by this pipeline; torn up,
disturbed, and uprooted. If this pipeline is put in through our home,
it will never be the same. These beautiful fields, aromatic woods,
and rolling hills will be tainted if this pipeline is approved and
shoved down our throat.
And the impact of this pipeline doesn't just end after it is put in the
ground. As a degreed and practicing mechanical engineer, I can
assure you that it is not a matter of IF this pipeline will leak, it is a
matter of WHEN. For a long weaving pipe, bolted together section
by section, through a time of pressure fatigue, will leak. Thus
further putting our lovely and heavenly home at further risk due to a
possible explosion/fire, especially since the gas going through the
proposed pipeline is ready to be used.
It is impossible to "minimize" it's environmental impact, or come up
with a "creative solution" to this problem. When one looks at the
evidence, it is pretty clear, this pipeline will greatly disrupt the
environment, and should not be put in.
The proposed route near our property would be detrimental to
wildlife and humans in the affected area. It requires disturbing
existing homes, digging up wetlands, and clearing woodlands. It
will require the clearing of mature trees, disrupting nesting areas
for songbirds, migratory birds, and other tree-dwelling animals,
including brown bats, which are currently threatened by White
Nose disease. Michigan has lost a great deal of our mature
hardwoods to the Emerald Ash Borer, so we need to preserve as
many of our mature trees as possible.
Environmental
impacts, aesthetics
RR3, RR8
Safety
RR11
Environmental
impacts
RR3
Wildlife, wetlands,
vegetation
RR2, RR3
110 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number

Beard
C781-2

Beard
C781-3

Beard
C781-4
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
It is also questionable as to whether this pipeline is even needed.

Energy Transfer already had an existing natural gas pipeline
providing capacity to Michigan, which was one of two existing lines.
They petitioned your agency to allow them to sell it to another
company to reverse it and convert it to oil. Their justification was
that Michigan had an oversupply of NG and therefore, Trunkline
was redundant. State officials and residents opposed this,
concerned that that this could put our woodlands and wetlands in
jeopardy because someone could exploit the decreased capacity
to justify building a NEW pipeline in Michigan, carving a pathway of
destruction across the landscape. This was widely mocked by ET
Rover as hysteria and as having no basis in fact. How ironic, then,
that less than two years later, this same company is petitioning
your agency to do this very thing, and trying to sell the concept as
bringing "much needed" natural gas to the state.
The benefit of the ET Rover pipeline to Michigan residents is
minimal, with a token amount of NG being sold here. All of the
counties north and east of Livingston receive no benefit from this
pipe and are simply being used as a highway by ET for their profit.
The entire process of shutting off Trunkline now looks like a
deliberate act to cut off NG supply to Michigan in order to justify
this new project, which they may have had in mind when they
convinced you to approve the sale and reversal of Trunkline.
If there truly is a need to move fracked NG from the Utica and
Marcellus Shale to Canada by way of Michigan, a more logical
option would be to approve the proposed Nexus Pipeline under
consideration by DTE Energy and partners, which proposes using
mostly existing easements and hooking into an existing pipeline
network in extreme southeastern Michigan. This minimizes the
negative environmental impact to Michigans residents and natural
resources. This would also provide any needed NG to the state of
Michigan and to Canada, if there is indeed an actual need.
Purpose and need
RR1
Benefits
RR1
Alternatives
RR10
111 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/9/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number

Beard
C781-5
Gaylord Stashuk
C782-1
Gaylord Stashuk
C782-2
Gaylord Stashuk
C782-3
Gaylord Stashuk
C782-4
Gaylord Stashuk
C782-5
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
We are directly impacted by this project, as it will be less than 100'

from our house, and could affect our mature trees and possibly our
septic tank located near the property line. This would also
ultimately impact two permanent wetlands directly north and south
of our property.
Domestically produced natural gas supplies spurring growth in
U.S. manufacturing sounds great in a re-election commercial, but I
am at a loss to explain why these gasses would have to pass
through my yard on their way to a foreign country with no benefit
along the way.
I am also alarmed at the disregard for the environmental impact of
the proposed route of the pipeline, and encourage FERC to resist
efforts of those heavily invested in profiting from energy production
to steamroll legitimate landowner, community and environmental
concerns.
I also agree with the honorable representative that it is imperative
for FERC to proceed fairly with the pre-filing scoping process and
subsequent reviews under Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act and
the National Environmental Policy Act. As such I would like to
highlight the following disregard for the environment in the short
section of the proposed route that passes through Lapeer County
Michigan, and encourage FERC to closely examine the entire route
for other such environmental negligence.
The green line shows an existing (large) utility right of way that
although passing through existing wetlands, must be disturbed for
right of way maintenance. The red line shows the proposed path of
the pipeline, which according to the NWI wetlands map shows no
less than 22 new intrusions (red circles) into wetlands in 15 miles
of pipeline.
Using eminent domain for the acquisition of pipeline right of way,
requires that the property being taken be used to benefit the public
(Canadian) rather than specific individuals (Rover et al). I know this
law has broad interpretation, but if truly for the public good, it could
just as easily be taken from another utility as a group of land
owners, with much less environmental impact.
Vegetation,
wetlands
RR2, RR3
Benefits
RR1
Environmental
impacts
RR3
FERC Pre-filing
process
RR1
Wetlands
RR2
Eminent domain,
alternatives
RR1, RR10
112 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/9/2014
Commenter
Kelly Sexton
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Lapeer, MI
C783-1
Kelly Sexton
Kelly Sexton
C783-2
C783-3
Kelly Sexton
C783-4
Kelly Sexton
C783-5
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
Rover Pipeline has not satisfied the FERC requirements as

outlined on your website. They have made very little information
available to the public and have not been forthcoming with answers
when asked directly. They have moved and hidden information on
their website to make it as difficult as possible for the public to
search and try and get the answers they need.
They are not using existing right of ways as stated on their website.
Energy Transfer sold an existing pipeline to Enbridge less than two
years ago, stating there was enough natural gas to supply
Michigan. The sale of this line was approved by FERC at the
protest of Gov Rick Snyder and many other federal and state
officials. Now all of a sudden, Michigan needs more natural gas
infrastructure? NO. Energy Transfer wants to increase their profit
and landowners are their means to do it.
Rover should not be issued a Certificate of Public Convenience
and Necessity which will grant them the right to use Eminent
Domain. The Rover Pipeline does not BENEFIT anyone East of
Shiawassee County, Michigan. The Rover Pipeline goes straight to
Canada from this location. The spirit of the Natural Gas Act was
that Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity were
granted to benefit the public. The Rover Pipeline does not benefit
the public and should be denied.
This pipeline will cause irreversible environmental destruction to
our animal habitats that live within this route. The area of the route
through Hadley Township, Lapeer Michigan, consists of the Flint
River Watershed, Farmers Creek, Lake Metamora and many more
ecologically sensitive areas. The Indiana Bat, a Federally
Protected Species is known to live and breed in this area of mature
hardwood and pine forests. The Massasauga Rattlesnake, a
species of special interest, also lives and thrives in this area. There
is also a wide variety of other wildlife in this area that will forever be
destroyed if Rover is allowed to bulldoze their environment. Rover
Pipeline should not be allowed to destroy our natural resources
and cause devastating consequences to our wildlife so they can
profit financially.
FERC Pre-filing
process
RR1
Alternatives
Purpose and need
RR10
RR1
Eminent domain,
benefits
RR1
Environmental
impacts, wildlife,
watersheds
RR2, RR3
113 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/10/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Kelly Sexton
C783-6
Kelly Sexton
C783-7
John Huddle
Napoleon, OH
C784-1
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Rover Pipeline has an alternate route. They can move one-half

mile north and follow the ITC corridor. They even state on their
website that they will use existing rights of way, so why cant they
use this existing right of way? Rover is trying to create their own
pipeline superhighway and own it outright so they can come back
and run another pipe, on our land, land that we pay taxes on and
maintain.
It doesnt appear that The Rover Pipeline planners are all that
conscience of potential problems along the proposed route. They
have this 42 pipeline slated to run within mile of a berm that
holds back Lake Metamora. The berm is about 400 feet long and
about 12 feet high and its main purpose is to hold back a lake.
What are these people thinking? If this pipe explodes it could
undermine the structural integrity of this berm and, not only do we
have an explosion to deal with, we now have a potential flood.
Rover should be made to use the existing rights of way and avoid
these potential catastrophic situations.
The area Henry County, Ohio is located in the area formerly known
as "The Great Black Swamp" It was originally part of Lake Erie. It is
all prior converted wet lands.lt is the greatest concentration in one
area of field drainage tile in the country. Drainage is critical to this
area. It is made up of a variety of soils with very high water tables.
The land contour is very flat, with much of it having a 1/10" fall or
less. There are 1200 to 1500 lineal feet of subsurface field
drainage tile installed on the average per acre. Surface drainage
and subsurface drainage is a necessity. Seasonally, much of the
land actually floods.
Alternatives
RR10
Safety, siting
RR1, RR11
Wetlands, soil
quality, drainage
tiles
RR2, RR7,
RR8
114 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/10/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
John Huddle
C784-2
John Huddle
C784-3
John Huddle
C784-4
Larry H. Helmick
Sistersville, WV
C785-1
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
Environmentally and drainage wise these soils can not handle the
large 42" pipeline proposed and especially not two 42" pipes close
together. It would cut all subsurface drainage and interrupt the
surface drainage as well. This would be a disaster to the land and
the farms in this environmentally unique area of the country. This
would create a damning affect underground as well as on top of
the ground totaling blocking the flow of the water. If the field
drainage tile can not be reinstalled it would make large tracts of
land useless. This also involves main outlet drainage from
neighboring houses and farms not even directly in the pipelines
path. Thousands of acres affected not hundreds of acres. This
prime agricultural farmland goes from highly productive to useless.
Property values will plummet.
The safety issues have not been addressed as far as all of us living
next and within Yards of two 42" natural gas pipelines. Please take
the time to investigate this pristine farmland and realize how fragile
the ecosystem is. If this proposed pipeline is approved it will
change the way of life and the soil around us forever.
I respectfully request the pipeline change the proposed route to
fifty miles south from this area avoiding this disaster. Reconsider
another route around the "Black Swamp" area. This should not be
destroyed for someone else's profit.
Survey permission: ET Rover Pipeline LLC has never retained
written property examination permits from the above land owners.
There is a possibility that ET Rover Pipeline will include in their
application to FERC, that the owners of property #3 above are
owned by Timothy and Sandra Miller. They are deceased and the
property now belongs to Larry and Ann Helmick. Property # 4 may
be listed as being owned by Jim and Carla Lantz. They also were
the previous owners of the property. The property is now owned by
Frank Fluharty.
Environmental
impacts, drainage
impacts, land use
(ag), property values
RR2, RR3,
RR5, RR7,
RR8
Safety, soil quality
RR7, RR11
Alternatives
RR10
Permission to
Survey
RR1
115 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Larry H. Helmick
C785-2
Larry H. Helmick
C785-3
Larry H. Helmick
C785-4
Larry H. Helmick
C785-5
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
Frank Fluharty advised that he has never been contacted by ET

Rover Pipeline but has seen surveyors on his property. ET Rover
Pipeline has never obtained survey permission from the rightful
property owners. Attached as exhibit 1 of this comment are three
unsigned examination permits along with two self-addressed
envelopes to return them to ET Rover.
Exhibit # 2 should be noted as having property 080.350 and
080.340 outlined in yellow and property 081.000 in green. These
depictions don't accurately represent the property lines of these
properties. Attached is exhibit 3 and 4 are the copies of the actual
surveys of the property at time of purchase. Looking at exhibit 2 it
would appear that the property line of 80.340 is far below the
suggested proposed line and needed right of way. This is a
misrepresentation of survey lines. This results in the possibility that
the North East corner of 80.340 could be crossed by the right of
way easement without any compensation or permission granted to
the property owner.
Environmental Considerations: Looking at Exhibit 2, located
directly above the residence on 080.340, is a dark green area. This
is a natural spring fed pond. This pond is a natural habitat for fish
and other wildlife. At one point it had almost dried during the
summer but the natural fed spring from the hill side above has
been sufficient to continue the presence of water and wildlife. The
disruption of the hillside above this natural pond would possibly
disturb the ecosystem resulting in the loss of this natural land
formation.
Also above the pond just below the proposed red line is a small
green area running north and south. This is a natural slip of the
hillside that has been monitored. Any further disruption of this
property could result in a slip of the earth's surface. This also could
result in the loss of the pond below and property damage.
Permission to
Survey
RR1
Survey
RR1
Ecosystem impacts,
wildlife
RR3
Waterbodies,
property
RR2, RR5
116 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Larry H. Helmick
C785-6
Larry H. Helmick
C785-7
Larry H. Helmick
C785-8
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
The proposed pipeline route travels directly south thru 081.000.

This renders this piece of property useless to the owners. This was
purchased as a building lot for the future homes of the
grandchildren and children of Timothy Miller and Larry and Ann
Helmick. This will no longer be the case if this proposed route is
approved. Furthermore there are current building plans to extend
the drive way of the residence 080.350 and build a 3 car garage
just west of the home. See exhibit #2. Note the location of the
planned garage. Building of this garage will start this month. The
intent is to join property 081.00 and 080.350 and sell as one piece
of property. We currently are in negotiations with potential buyers.
These buyers have indicated after reviewing the recent gas line
proposal that they are not interested in the property if the gas line
goes as planned.
The inherent danger associated with the large volume and
pressure of the natural gas and the proximity of the location of the
line to the residence made the property not desirable. The
imminent threat of a possible catastrophe declines the property
value. This value cannot be regained and is a permanent loss.
The ultimate concern for the families that reside on property
directly affected by the pipeline or near the pipeline is their safety.
The pipeline affecting Larry and Ann Helmick's property is a 36
inch high pressure natural gas line. Currently there is no safety
consideration given to structures in place during the planning of
this line. No studies or laws in place to keep ET Rover Pipeline
LLC from keeping a minimum safe distance from residences in
case of a incident. However, FERC only concerns the issuing of
the permit with the safety of the pipeline. The right of way
easement only provides safety for the gas Pipeline itself.
Property use, future

plans to sell
RR1, RR5
Safety, property
values
RR5, RR11
Safety
RR11
117 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Larry H. Helmick
C785-9
Larry H. Helmick
C785-10
Larry H. Helmick
C785-11
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Studies have been conducted by independent corporations in light

of natural gas pipeline explosions. Attached is exhibit #5, the
Journal of Pipeline Safety. This study is based on minimum safe
distances for structures based on pipeline diameter, pressure of
the gas and BTU's of the compressed gas. Although there is no
law to protect the citizens of West Virginia from minimum safe
distances from major natural gas lines, this is a good opportunity
for FERC to consider it when granting right of way easements.
According to table 5 on page 17 of the Journal of Pipeline Safety,
the minimum safe distance for buildings to withstand an incident
and provide adequate survival time for evacuation varies. For a 36
inch line operating between 522 PSI and 957 Psi,the distance is
between 474 and 673 feet.
The proposed pipe line location on tract 081.000 places the
residence located on 080.350 less than 474 feet from the gas line.
In the event of an explosion,the occupants of the residence have a
near 0 percent chance of survival. Other incidents that have
occurred involving explosions of high pressure large diameter gas
lines will also support the close proximity death zone to the
explosion. This also puts the residence located on 080.340 at risk
for a near 0 chance of escape or survival if an explosion or incident
occurs. The owners of these residences did not ask to be placed in
an area in which a 36 inch high pressure natural gas line wraps
around them on two sides and is within 200 foot of the home.
There are children with dreams and futures that live here and this
is their home.
Alternate Routes: Based on the proposed route, it would be more
feasible to bypass the above mentioned properties. This could
easily be done by traveling east slightly to the road Old WV RT 18
then turning south and crossing WV RT 18 and rejoining the route
south of the above mentioned properties. The other alternative is
for ET Rover Pipeline to purchase tract 080.340, 080.350 and
081.00 from the owners. This will allow for the pipeline to be
moved south of the pond and avoid the environmental impact. The
residences could be removed which would avoid the danger of
close proximity exposure in the case of an incident.
Safety, siting
RR1, RR11
Safety
RR11
Alternatives
RR10
118 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
12/11/2014
Rosematy Caruso
Pinckney, MI
C786-1
Rosematy Caruso
12/9/2014
Dan A. Hopkins
Dan A. Hopkins
C786-2
Linden, MI
C787-1
C787-2
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
Silver Lake is one of the most popular family recreation

destinations in this area. Many families travel out here from Ann
Arbor to enjoy the lake's soothing water and its natural beauty.
Those of us who live here also appreciate this beauty, which is why
we have settled out here.
We also appreciate our well water - and do not want to be polluted
by any leakage from a pipeline - and no one can promise us that
that will never happen. The state of Michigan is still suffering from
the damage done by the Enbridge corporation's pipeline in the
Kalamazoo River in July of 2010.
The property that we own is predominately a wetland, I am very
concerned about the environmental impact that they will have
crossing a wetland. This wetland is home to many animals,
including many frogs and other amphibians that currently are dying
off at an alarming rate as it is. Many species of birds nest there as
well, these include turkey, robins, blue jays, cardinals, doves,
woodcock, pheasant, sparrows, finches and many more I am sure.
As well many predatory birds hunt this land for prey, I have seen
hawks, falcons and heard owls. The Rover Pipeline call this a
scrub wetland, the animals and I call it home.
The road we live on in Linden, MI is lined with majestic Red Oak
Trees, they are proposing to cut 150 x probably 200 foot wide
swatch down. In Michigan there is a serious disease of oak trees
called Oak Wilt. This disease kills oak trees in as little as 6 months
and at this time there is no treatment once the trees are infected.
The best course of action to prevent infection, according to the
Michigan DNR is to not cut, prune or disturb Oak Trees from April
15 until they go dormant again in the late fall. I realize that this is a
threat whether they bring the pipeline or not. However purposely
cutting trees down could increase the risk of infection.
Waterbodies,
recreation
RR2, RR8
Water quality
RR2
Wetlands, wildlife
RR2, RR3
Vegetation
RR3
119 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/3/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Dan A. Hopkins
C787-3
Dan A. Hopkins
C787-4
Dan A. Hopkins
C787-5
Dan A. Hopkins
C787-6
Mary Lou Orr
Grand Blanc,
MI
C788-1
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
I am concerned with my and my neighbors property values, having

a pipeline in such close proximity to us. I know that I as a potential
buyer would have concerns with a high pressure gas line of this
size so close to homes. If we lost the Oak trees on our properties it
would have a very negative impact on property values. Losing the
use of property do to a permanent right of way would probably
have a negative impact as well. Just having the threat of a pipeline
would make selling a home in our area very difficult at this time.
My wife and I purchased this property to enjoy with our family. We
wanted a place where our grandchildren could come and play and
be safe. To be able to explore and enjoy nature. If they are
installing a pipeline this will not be possible. With heavy equipment
and a deep trench it will be very dangerous for them. I did not buy
this property so my family could not use and enjoy it. We moved
here for the solitude and quiet, to enjoy nature. That will be gone at
least while they are installing the pipeline and from then on there is
always the chance of looking out and having someone from the
gas company in our back yard.
I understand that they want a pipeline to get Natural Gas to market.
But I question the public need. I believe when you are going to take
someone's private property it needs to be about more than tax
dollars and temporary jobs. I don't believe money and profit should
be the driving force to determine whether we need another
pipeline.
Even if there is a public necessity at this time to move this gas to
market, there has to be an alternative route that impacts fewer land
owners, be it following highway right of ways or other right of ways.
I realize that some of these other routes might be more of a
financial burden on the pipeline company but that is there burden
to bear not mine or my fellow land owners.
The DNR and Mundy Township designated this area as a
protected natural wetland. The Flint Journal newspaper identified it
as one of the largest, oldest, most densely wooded areas in
Genesee County.
Property values,
future plans to sell
RR5
Construction
impacts, safety
RR1, RR11
Purpose and need
RR1
Alternatives
RR10
Wetlands,
vegetation
RR2, RR3
120 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/10/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Mary Lou Orr
C788-2
Mary Lou Orr
C788-3
Mary Lou Orr
C788-4
Mary Lou Orr
C788-5
Michael J. Gilleran
China Twp, MI
C789-1
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
After losing the ash trees to the Emerald Ash Borer and many
other trees to a tornado in 2013, the woods are just beginning to
recover. There are many century old trees: sycamore, beech,
hickory, horn beam, cherry, sassafras, muscle trees, as well as
oak, maple, poplar, and elm.
This is a natural habitat for a blue heron colony (also recovering
from the tornado), wood ducks, wild turkeys, green herons, great
horned owls, red tail hawks, as well as various song birds. Other
woodland critters: squirrels, raccoons, opossums, skunks, and
deer have survived the natural predators of fox and coyote.
This area supports a wide variety of native plants and wild flowers:
jack-in-the-pulpit, May apples, white and pink trillium, ferns, sedge
grasses, columbine, and cardinal flower.
How can we justify upsetting the natural balance of water, flora,
fauna and continue to destroy the few remaining wetland areas in
our county, township, and backyards. There must be a better route
I A natural wetland requires our protection, not desecration.
In recent months I learned that ET Rover is seeking approval to
install a new 42 inch natural gas transmission pipeline in my
immediate neighborhood. In my previous eComment submissions
to your organization, I sighted numerous reasons why approval of
this project would be unfair to myself and my neighbors. It would
be the third large pipeline in our immediate proximity and would
mean some of the homes in our area would virtually be surrounded
with pipeline. Not only is this a genuine safety concern, but it would
destroy some of the natural habitat around us, disrupt the wildlife,
as well as hinder myself and another neighbor from building our
future homes. This third pipeline would really impede on our rights
private landowners.
Vegetation
RR3
Wildlife
RR3
Vegetation
RR3
Wetlands,
RR2, RR3
Existing pipelines,
wildlife, future plans
to build
RR1, RR3,
RR5
121 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Michael J. Gilleran
12/11/2014
Deanna Stashuk
Comment
ID
Number
C789-2
Metamora, MI
C790-1
Deanna Stashuk
C790-2
Deanna Stashuk
C790-3
Deanna Stashuk
C790-4
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
Recently I learned that another organization by name of Nexus, is

also involved in bidding for the same program as ET Rover; for the
transmission of natural gas to the exact same hub center in
Ontario, Canada. However, it is my understanding that Nexus
already has a substantial portion of the pipeline infrastructure in
place and if their proposal is approved, it would not cause nearly
as much disruption within our community. Fewer residence and
local farmers within our vicinity would be affected and yet the
pipeline network of Nexus would serve the same purpose as what
ET Rover is attempting to accomplish.
Especially along the proposed 15 mile route that passes through
Lapeer County, Michigan where Rover shows total disregard and
environmental negligence in bypassing existing right of ways
owned by other utilities and the land running parallel to it.
Along this specific 15 mile route this proposed pipeline imposes no
less than 22 new intrusions into unstable wetlands which are
connected to various other natural resources, including the Flint
River and Clinton River Watersheds.
This breach has been brought to the attention of Rover many times
but they remain impervious as they have continued to seek to
purchase right of ways and threaten eminent domain from
landowners in this area.
It unnecessary, negligent, and self indulgent for Rover to run this
pipeline through private properties exposing risks and hazards to
the environment along the way, and I hope that FERC understands
that this is not only an unnecessary intrusion on wildlife with a huge
negative impact on the pristine environment that exists in Lapeer
County, but also an unnecessary intrusion on the rights of
landowners, especially those who reside along the pipeline route
with no other pre-existing right of ways. While I applaud FERC for
its concern for the environmental impact, FERC cannot close their
eyes to this fact that there are simply other options to route this
pipeline!
Simultaneous
RR1, RR10
Environmental
impacts, existing
easements
RR1, RR3
Wetlands,
watersheds
RR2
Eminent domain
RR1
Environment,
wildlife, existing
easements
RR1, RR3
122 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Comment
ID
Number
Deanna Stashuk
C790-5
Deanna Stashuk
C790-6
12/11/2014
Susan Ruvido
12/11/2014
Julie Griess
Julie Griess
Town, State
Metamora, MI
C791-1
Whitmore Lake,
MI
C792-1
C792-2
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
No measure of industry standards and regulations, even if

employed satisfactorily, can totally prevent the possibility and
likelihood of a breach, whether in structure or operation, in a
pipeline of this size and magnitude.
Insist and enforce that Rover use ITC ROWs and areas parallel to
it where it is possible to contain and minimize environmental
disturbances and possible disasters that are inherent to the
construction, usage, and maintenance of pipelines.
I was at the meeting with FERC last night in Flint, Mi and was
disheartened at how land/homeowners waited for hours to speak
and many left before speaking due to not being able to wait. The
problem is is that many employees and contractors and paid shills
of ETRover were able to tie up valuable time that could've been
used for the people whose land would be impacted by this pipeline.
Of course the employees want it- why are they able to talk before
people that have driven far and taken out time in their night to be
able to speak? This meeting lasted till ten pm. Most of the
audience had left by then. That was unfair to all the many people
whose names were called and were long gone. Please don't do
that in tonight's meeting. ETRover employees should talk when
everyone else has had a chance.
Michigan does not need this gas, although we will bear the impacts
of constructing pipelines through our state so that gas can go to
Canada and probably overseas. This is purely for the economic
benefit of the oil and gas industry, while we get our state torn up
and our property rights compromised.
Additional impact of the export of fracked gas is that our resources
will be depleted. The industry has funded studies claiming that
these resources will last for many years. In fact there is widespread
opinion that there is possibly no more than a 14-year supply of gas
from shale, even without exporting.
Safety
RR11
Alternatives
RR10
FERC Pre-filing
process
RR1
Purpose and need,

economic benefits
RR1, RR5
Fracking, purpose
and need
RR1
123 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Julie Griess
12/11/2014
Susan K. Hendricks
Comment
ID
Number
C792-3
Grand Blanc,
MI
C793-1
Susan K. Hendricks
C793-2
Susan K. Hendricks
C793-3
Susan K. Hendricks
C793-4
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
By exporting gas, the industry is attempting to raise our prices to

those overseas. This not only increases their profit, but also makes
it worthwhile to drill new wells that would not otherwise be
worthwhile economically. We should not be contaminating our
country so that private corporations can squeeze the last dollar of
profit from fossil fuels. We should instead be investing all effort
towards development of clean, renewable resources, which are
now available technically and economically. This is also a better
way to provide jobs and support manufacturing.
I live in Grand Blanc Township, MI. This is an area of interlocking
wetlands and wildlife that would be adversely affected by this
pipeline. The entire watershed would be negatively affected.
Michigan is a land of immense fresh water resources and to risk
these for a dangerous, outmoded type of fossil fuel is
unacceptable.
The environmental impact severe locally, and all along the pipeline
in Michigan. The company insists there will be no leaks, which of
course cannot be guaranteed. Indeed, we continue to hear of
leaks, explosions, contamination, as well as old pipelines being
adapted into oil pipelines in these sensitive areas.
Michigan gets no true perceivable benefit, and is indeed being
asked to send this pipeline through more miles than anyone else. I
would also mention that this gas is to go to Canada where it ,isn't
be resold to us (unbelievable, good only for the company) and it
carries gas from fracking, a known environmentally damaging
practice. This pushing of fracking and movement of natural gas is
shortsighted, as we should be looking for ways to decrease our
pollution, not increase it or export it to other countries.
The company insists this is a clean process. Nothing could be
further from the truth. Not only is the natural gas dangerous to us in
the event of leaks, but fracked gas contains methane, a high
compound that contributes excessively to global warming.
Purpose and need
RR1
Wetlands, wildlife,
water
RR2, RR3
Environmental
impacts, safety
RR3, RR11
Benefits
RR1
Safety
RR11
124 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/11/2014
12/5/2014
Commenter
Karen and Don
Distelrath
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Columbus, MI
C794-1
Karen and Don

Distelrath
C794-2
Karen and Don

Distelrath
C794-3
Anonymous
C795-1
Anonymous
C795-2
Anonymous
C795-3
Anonymous
C795-4
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
A portion of our land (tract #11169) is documented to be a wetland.

However, this is the same area that is proposed for the
construction of the ET Rover Pipeline. As a result, this brings new
concerns to light regarding the preservative and protection of the
environmental functions provided by this wetland. For instance, this
wetland contributes to flood control, sediment control, ground water
recharge, water quality, wildlife habitat, recreation, and esthetics.
To mitigate the environmental impact of the proposed pipeline, an
alternative route is required. We are proposing the route to be
moved slightly north of where the surveyors are currently
surveying. More specifically, our proposed route is north of Big
Hand Drainage Ditch. This route is preferable because it involves
the least environmental impact. Choosing this route helps to lessen
the overall destruction of wetlands as well as reduce deforestation,
which is beneficial to all conservation efforts.
To reiterate, our proposed alternate route for the ET rover pipeline
on our property results in the best possible protection of the
environment. Due to our unique situation and concerns, we have
made every effort to find an alternative favorable to all those
involved and affected.
Wetlands, wildlife,
water quality,
recreation,
aesthetics
RR2, RR3,
RR8
Environmental
impacts
RR3
Alternatives
RR10
The jobs they are touting as a reason to approve this pipeline will
be transient at best, lasting a few months to a year or so.
There will be very few permanent jobs, and how many of these will
even be union, or even be staffed by local personnel rather than
current ET personnel transferred here?
Rover personnel stated early in our contacts with them that they
were proud to be doing this all inhouse, with Rover personnel. This
doesnt sound like using local-based union labor to me. Nor does it
sound like long term sustainable employments for workers who live
in Michigan
The relatively short-term boost to any local laborer in wages surely
will not be worth the destruction of irreplaceable habitat, lifestyle,
livelihood and dreams.
Jobs
RR5
Jobs
RR5
Jobs, reliability
RR5, RR11
Benefits
RR1
125 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/1/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Anonymous
C795-5
Anonymous
C795-6
Debra L. Moffett
Metamora, MI
C796-1
Debra L. Moffett
C796-2
Debra L. Moffett
C796-3
Debra L. Moffett
C796-4
12/8/2014
Gary L. Mason
C798-1
9/21/2014
Marylou Erickson
Lapeer, MI
C799-1
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
With these union comments being largely from members in West

Virginia and other areas outside of Michigan (and outside the path
of the pipeline) how can it be said to positively impact the
employment of workers who live in Michigan and near the pipeline
path?
Our neighbors and community whose property this pipeline is
being ran through cannot even obtain natural gas service to their
homes as the gas companies will not provide it as it is not
profitable due to low density.
I oppose this project because of the negative, non-reversible
effects it could have on our community. Out water quality,
argricultural properties, mature hard-wood forested areas and
wildlife habitat could be at risk if this pipeline is allowed.
We have a pond which is visited by blue herons, mallard ducks and
Canadian geese which raise their families in the field next to our
pond. Also snapping turtles and Blanding turles have laid their
eggs in and alonf the beach of our pond. What will happen to them
if their natural habitat is compromised?
Just to the north of us, and in the buffer zone, is a large private
damned lake. There is concern of what might happen if the pipeline
should go through there and an explosion occurs.No one knows
what would happen to the mature forested area that would be
affected should the dam fail.
I know the demand for natural resources is great. This pipeline is
not planned to help our community, our state or even our county!
Why should we have to suffer declined property values and
adverse environmental effects so some rich oil company can pad
thier pockets selling thier resources to "diverse" markets.
I understand the nation needs this kind of infrastructure to grow
and provide for energy, jobs, ect but consider this project for those
living on or along the pipeline. The safety issure are one
consideration, but what of the irreprable loss in property values to
those affected. Of what benefits is the pipeline to those affected?
Pipelines as a whole have earned a dismal record and this pipeline
does absoultely nothing for Lapeer County residents.
Jobs
RR5
Purpose and need,

benefits
RR1
Water quality, land

use (ag), vegetation,
wildlife
RR2, RR3,
RR8
Wildlife
RR3
Waterbodies,
vegetation
RR2, RR3
Benefits
RR1
Safety
RR11
Benefits
RR1
126 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/9/2014
Commenter
Jack Duncan
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Metamora, MI
C802-1
Jack Duncan
C802-2
Jack Duncan
C802-3
Jack Duncan
C802-4
Jack Duncan
C802-5
Jack Duncan
C802-6
Jack Duncan
C802-7
Jack Duncan
C802-8
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
While I have many, as shown below, the necessity of this pipeline

for both Michigan and the USA tops my list. As the product being
moved is not being delivered to Michigan but rather to Canada
through Michigan, it is not at all clear how this benefits the affected
Michigan communities. The only winner in this project is the
pipeline company.
Necessity of pipeline and route. Who directly benefits? Rationale
for proposed route (using out of date maps) versus current
population reality? Use of existing pipeline corridors? Use of
existing infrastructure? (Highways, Power lines).
Benefits to township, county, and state. Jobs are temporary and
not necessarily going to MI businesses/people. Tax revenue will be
offset by property value reduction (i.e. lower intake from property
taxes). Unclear benefit of lower utility cost.
Property value. Lower after approval (probably already affected by
route plan). Even lower during construction. Values have not
recovered from Great Recession market collapse. Will result in
more homeowners under water on their mortgages.
Home owners insurance will go up due to proximity of pipeline.
May result in lack of coverage.
Disruptions, before construction (threats and intimidation from ET
Rover and lack of information forthcoming from ET Rover), during
construction (noise and property damage), after construction (ongoing maintenance and on-going fear of gas leaks and pipeline
damage).
Environmental: Risks to fresh water supply, Wetlands, Wildlife, and
Restrictions on land use.
Purpose and need,

benefits
RR1
Purpose and need,

benefits, alternatives
RR1, RR10
Property values
RR5
Property values
RR5
Insurance
RR5
Construction
impacts, safety
RR1, RR11
Wetlands, wildlife,
land use, water
quality
Compensation
RR2, RR3,
RR8
Fair Compensation: Loss of property value and loss of property for

easement.
127 of 247
RR5
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/10/2014
Commenter
Myrna Frisch
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Metamora, MI
C803-1
Myrna Frisch
12/10/2014
12/10/2014
Dave Frisch
C803-2
Metamora, MI
C804-1
Dave Frisch
C804-2
Dave Frisch
C804-3
Dave Frisch
C804-4
Thomas J. Gagnon
Goodrich, MI
C808-1
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
There is a sanctuary and state park within walking distance; open

to all. There is so much wildlife; turkeys, fox, deer, pheasant,
coyotes. The disruption of natural resources and wildlife alone
needs to be of the utmost concern to all, not to mention the
damages involved with highly flammable substances under high
pressure.
The economic impact is insignificant. Whatever revenue, goods
and services that the pipeline may generate to our community or
local economies will only be temporary, not long term.
It is my understanding that this Rover pipeline has a history of
spoiling the land and destroying what natural habitats we have left.
This pipeline will in no way benefit our community. On the contrary,
I believe it presents a danger to our community. I had helped to
leave something for my children and grandchildren.
This pipeline will lower the property values and raise homeowner
insurance rates. Most of us are on fixed incomes as it is, many
seniors already affected by a stagnant economy will be further
pressured to make sad choices. Pay medicine or pay higher
insurance premiums.
In closing, any economic gains to our community during
construction of this pipeline will only be temporary not long term.
We don't want this pipeline running through our community.
According to a diagram I was shown by Bennie Shields, (a
supervisor of the right-of-way team for ET Rover) the latest
planned routing for the pipeline passes directly through the middle
of my woodlot. I have indicated this routing with the red line on the
diagram. This routing would permanently reduce our woodlot size
by up to 25% (depending on how wide the permanent easement
would be, supposedly 50-100 ft) and would result in the clearing of
over 33% of our mature timber!
Wildlife,
conservation areas
RR3
Economic benefits
RR5
Environmental
impacts
Benefits
RR3
RR1
Property values
RR5
Benefits
RR1
Vegetation
RR3
128 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Thomas J. Gagnon
C808-2
Thomas J. Gagnon
C808-3
Thomas J. Gagnon
C808-4
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
We use the wood that we harvest from the woodlot to heat our
home. The woodlot is just under 5 acres in area, which is barely
the amount needed to generate enough firewood annually to heat
our home. With the recent die-off of ash trees in our area due to
the Emerald Ash Borer, we are already facing a possible shortfall
in supply in the not-too-distant future. An additional permanent loss
of 25% of our wood-producing area, and a clear-cutting of 33% of
our trees, is going to make it impossible to continue to heat our
home in this way. Not only will this cause a financial hardship for
us, as we will have to purchase more propane to heat with, heating
with firewood grown on our own property is the most carbonneutral method available, as no fossil fuels are used.
Our woodlot also contains a mix of mature, soon-to-be mature, and
sapling sugar maple trees that we tap to make maple syrup. While
we currently are doing this for personal use, I had been hoping to
produce syrup for sale in the near future, as I will be required to
take early retirement in a few years and will need to augment my
fixed income. According to ET Rover, every effort will be made to
return our property to its pre-construction condition. A sugar maple
tree needs to be at least 40 years old before it can be tapped for
syrup production, and then it can only support one tap. I have trees
on my lot that I estimate to be over 100 years old (and probably
much older), which are capable of supporting three taps! There is
no way that these trees will be able to be replaced. Even the trees
that are not currently able to produce are decades old, and would
be able to be tapped in the foreseeable future.
While I understand that this relatively cheap domestic energy
source needs to reach its users, and sending it through a pipeline
is cheaper, more environmentally friendly, and above all, much
safer than shipping it by rail, and I realize that this pipeline is going
to inconvenience someone, we already have two huge electrical
transmission lines cutting through our property!! We already have
to put up with the sight of these behemoths every time we look out
the window, do we have to have our woods hacked to pieces as
well? I think someone else can make a sacrifice for the public
convenience and necessity of this pipeline.
Vegetation
RR3
Vegetation, Loss of
business
RR3, RR5
easments
RR1, RR10
129 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Thomas J. Gagnon
C808-5
Thomas J. Gagnon
C808-6
Thomas J. Gagnon
C808-7
Thomas J. Gagnon
C808-8
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
From a purely environmental view, among other things, our

woodlot is home to the spotted coral-root orchid (Corallorhiza
maculata), which is a protected Michigan wildflower. There is also
a small vernal pond which plays host to numerous creatures every
spring.
The green line, takes the pipeline a couple of hundred feet north,
then east, then southeast along the northern edge of the
northernmost of the two power line cuts. This would take the
pipeline through an area that is already cleared of timber. The
adjacent property, labelled 400-002, is a privately-owned, but
vacant, woodlot. This is a much larger woodlot than mine, and if
some additional trees do need to be cleared along the edge of it, it
would be a much smaller percentage of the total trees in that lot.
This would also have the advantage of keeping the pipeline out of
the area between the two power transmission lines which,
according to one of the ET Rover people I talked to, could cause
some sort of engineering difficulties.
My second alternative suggestion is the blue line. This takes the
pipeline a little further north, but then just continues directly east.
While this is wooded property, it is entirely owned by
Consumers/ITC and would have the least impact on private
landowners. This routing keeps the pipeline even further from the
transmission lines, which should further reduce engineering
problems.
On a slightly less local level, taking the pipeline another few
hundred feet further north before turning east would route it
through farmland, requiring even less permanent forest loss.
Quoting 18CFR Ch 1 again, paragraph 380.15(d)3 says that
rights-of-way should avoid forested areas and steep slopes
where practical. I think that a few hundred feet of additional
pipeline qualifies as practical. Additionally, I would imagine that
there would be some offsetting cost savings from not having to cut
down as many trees and remove their stumps, which would make it
even more practical.
Vegetaton,
waterbodies
RR2, RR3
Alternatives
RR10
Alternatives
RR10
Alternatives
RR10
130 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Thomas J. Gagnon
11/20/2014
Comment
ID
Number
C808-9
Metamora, MI
C809-1
C809-2
C809-3
C809-4
C809-5
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
This pipeline makes its turn to the east about 30 miles too far
south. Looking at the large scale routing map, its obvious that the
planners were trying to avoid the largely populated areas by
passing to the west of the Detroit urban and suburban areas and to
the east of Lansing, but where they should have passed to the
north of Flint and on into Tuscola county which is much more open
farmland, they tried to squeeze in between Flint and Pontiac. This
area may appear to be open, especially compared to the suburban
areas around Detroit and Pontiac, but in reality it is divided up into
small to medium sized hobby farm type lots. Its one thing to
blaze a 100 foot wide path through a piece of farm property that is
a mile or more in area, it is an entirely different story when you take
that same 100 foot path out of someones property which only
stretches a few hundred feet from side to side! This pipeline would
be much better routed and would affect fewer people if it were to
pass somewhere between Flint and Saginaw, east through Tuscola
County and then south and west of Port Huron.
I own a ten acre parcel that is on the projected path of the pipeline.
On my property are numerous century old white pine trees, box
elder, oak and maple, as well as several fruit trees.
My land has acted as a natural game preserve, and is home to
deer, rabbits, wild turkeys as well as many different species of
raptors. There are many species of wild flowers as well.
There is an underground creek that covers the property. My land is
sloped and it is tiled.
I am concerned that the construction of the pipeline would cause
irreprable damage to the plant life and wildlife, as well as being a
source of contamination to my groundwater, which is a concern
because I have a well.
We have many species of bats as well as reptiles that live here,
and I am concerned that their numbers will decline if this project is
authorized.
Alternatives
RR10
Vegetation
RR3
RR3
Waterways,
drainage tiles
Vegetation, wildlife,
water quality
RR2, RR8
Wildlife
RR3
131 of 247
RR2, RR3
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/4/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Fred Mueller
C810-1
Fred Mueller
C810-2
Fred Mueller
C810-3
Fred Mueller
C810-4
Fred Mueller
C810-5
Fred Mueller
Fred Mueller
C810-6
C810-7
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
This pipeline is not a public necessity. Our Michigan community

supports the development of long term clean renewable energy
sources, not destructive quick fixes produced by fracking in
Pennsylvania. This line will not warm one house in Lapeer County.
We need to keep our non-renewable resources in this country, not
export them. I don't support Michigan being a pass through for this
purpose.
Over thirty years ago, my husband purchased a beautiful wooded
10 acre parcel, that includes 5 acres of horse pasture, intersected
by a creek that flows from Hadley-Metamora State Park, a quarter
of a mile down the road. The proposed 42 inch pipeline will be
located next to our property line, north of the park where it will
cross the unpredictable South Branch Farmer's Creek.
I am concerned about the safety of its location near our home and
near our neighbor's homes.
I'm concerned about the effects of the destruction of vegetation
along South Branch Farmer's Creek, access to park during
construction and the safety of people visiting and camping at
Hadley-Metamora State Park in case of a need to evacuate. I'm
also concerned about the proximity to the dam that holds Lake
Minnewanna in place. This line is not well planned. The soil to the
east of my driveway, the hill through which the pipeline will go, is
unstable. It already has multiple 4 foot deep erosion ditches.
Please review the pictures showing the unpredictability of South
Branch Farmer's Creek In 2011, we had an inch of creek water in
our horse barn.
Construction will block Herd Road, the only paved access to the
State park.
The woods in the background next to the creek will be destroyed.
Hadley Metamora State Park's only entrance is 1/4 of a mile from
where the pipeline will cross Herd Rd, 15 feet south of the end of
my driveway. The only paved access to the park is Herd Rd from
the north. This section of Herd Rd in Lapeer County was paved in
1982 to accommodate the heavy flow of RVs to the park's 214
campsites. Construction will block paved access.
Purpose and need,

benefits
RR1
Waterways
RR2
Safety
RR11
Waterways, soil
quality
RR2, RR7
Road impacts
RR5
Vegetation
Recreation,
construction
impacts, access
RR3
RR1, RR5,
RR8
132 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/1/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Fred Mueller
C810-8
Fred Mueller
C810-9
Fred Mueller
C810-10
Fred Mueller
C810-11
Jerry and Darlene

House
Metamora, MI
Jerry and Darlene

House
C811-1
C811-2
12/11/2014
Cathy J. Muha
Chelsea, MI
C812-1
12/11/2014
John Deikis
Chelsea, MI
C813-1
John Deikis
Comment
ID
Number
C813-2
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
Pictured is our 10 acre parcel looking east. All the woods in the
distance, along the creek, to the right of our horse fence between
our property line and the centennial horse farm and the 40 acre
organic farm to the south will be destroyed. The proposed line will
cut my neighbor's 40 acre organic farm in half.
Turkey, buzzards, hawk, deer, sand hill crane, blue heron, owl,
bluebirds, martins, 2 migrating mallards, crawdads, salamander,
frogs, turtles, Mississauga rattlesnake, red and grey fox, badger
are some of the wildlife that inhabit the wooded and stream areas
of our farm.
Raises concerns about uncontrollable erosion with the removal of
all vegetation along the bank.
Raises concerns about uncontrollable erosion after heavy
equipment construction damage to the creek banks causing
pollution and worsened flooding downstream.
We are in an area of spectacular natural beauty encompassing the
Metamora Fox Hunting area, the 1000 acre Michigan Boy Scouts
Camp, great farms and residential homes.
To disrupt this area with a not needed let alone potentially
dangerous 42" gas piepline in the northern boundary of this region
shoud automatically be unheard of.
There was a lot of talk about this project bringing jobs to out
community. These jobs, however, are only temporary which the
harm done to people's land is permanent. I don't see how this
deserves eminent domian status, as it hardly benefits us.
More generally, ET Rover does not appear to have demonstrated a
public need for its pipeline. Two years ago, ET asserted there was
no need for additional natural gas capacity in Michigan and sold an
existing pipeline to Enbridge. Now it is arguing just the opposite.
The proposed pipeline is not designed to serve existing markers in
the US but to develop new markets to meet needs in Ontario. Does
meeting Canadian economic need justify running a pipeline
through Michigan?
Vegetation, Loss of
business
RR3, RR5
Wildlife, waterways,
vegetation
RR2, RR3
Soil quality (erosion)
RR7
Soil quality (erosion)
RR7
Recreation
RR8
Purpose and need
RR1
Jobs, benefits
RR1, RR5
Purpose and need
RR1
Benefits
RR1
133 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
12/11/2014
David A. Daniel
Brownstown, MI
C814-1
12/11/2014
Deanne Bednar
Oxford, MI
C815-1
12/12/2014
Commenter
Deanne Bednar
C815-2
Deanne Bednar
C815-3
Deanne Bednar
C815-4
Fred Kamradt
Goodrich, MI
C816-1
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
Southeastern Michigan has lost over a million Ash trees over the
last several years due to the Emerald Ash Borer. Now Michigan's
oak trees are being destroyed by the Oak Wilt Virus. The combined
effect of these two problems has created many large canopy gaps
in our woodland habitats and riparian corridors. FERCS
environmental impact analysis must address the combined,
cumulative impacts of other existing and proposed pipelines. This
"cumulative/combined impact" approach to analysis must be
applied to current environmental stressors that are not necessarily
linked to pipeline construction but may be exacerbated by pipeline
construction.
I feel fear because I am wanting safety for the environment and
safety for present and future generations.
I feel concern because chemicals (some are carcinogenic) and
very high pressure endanger our water quality and the stability of
the land itself (causing earthquakes in some places).
I am frustrated that people living in these places of extraction, and
along the transmission corridors bear the ecological burdens, the
disruption during construction, the ongoing effects of pumping
stations.
I long for a conversation (as a human species) that challenges us
to really really seek environmental design and efficiency solutions
that help us find life-affirming strategies that we and future
generations can really "live with".
With comments filed by the public during forums and online, the
notice states FERC has "identified numerous issues that we think
deserve attention," including purpose and need for the project,
impacts of clearing forested areas and other vegetation, impacts
on land use including agricultural lands and associated drainage
systems and use of eminent domain to obtain project easements.
Vegetation,
RR1, RR3
Safety
RR11
Water quality,
geological impacts
RR2, RR6
Ecological impacts,
construction
RR1, RR3
Alternatives
RR10

(ag), drainage,
eminent domain
RR1, RR2,
RR3, RR8
134 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Fred Kamradt
12/12/2014
Fred Kamradt
12/12/2014
Deborah Lazowski
Deborah Lazowski
Comment
ID
Number
C816-2
Goodrich, MI
C817-1
Howell, MI
C818-1
C818-2
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
Im still trying to figure out why all the Union people were allowed to
take away most of our {the people affected by this project} time to
speak and voice our concerns about this project. I understand they
{the Union people} need and want the work but I dont think we {the
people affected by this project} were given an ample amount of
time to voice our concerns.
I dont understand where public use or necessity come into play
here in Lapeer county, MI since this pipeline is just passing through
Lapeer and going straight through to Canada. We here in Lapeer
county get nothing out of this at all, except our land taken from us
and a pipeline that we get no benefit from. At the FERC meeting
Wednesday 12-10-2014 in Flint MI Rover stated that they were
supplying us with 78 percent of the gas from this project, that was
a lie as we are only getting 18 percent.
My primary concerns are related to potential impacts to the
wetlands, ecosystems and impacts on migratory bird pathways.
There are potentially biologically sensitive features in the area and
if disturb, will not come back, no matter the mitigation actions that
may take place. Currently it is a home to a number of species of
animals, birds, (turkeys, songbirds, egrets, fish & insects). There is
a small pond & creek in the area. This is a very special area, and
do not want it disturbed. Local deer & wildlife (honey bees) enjoy
this pond & river.
The other concern is the replacement of soils, & vegetation located
in the area. The land that is disturbed needs to be replaced as it
was found. And not just moved back in place, but same levels of
ground, as in compacted & leveled, and then vegetated and
sustained.
FERC Pre-filing
process
RR1
Purpose and need
RR1
Wetlands, wildlife,
waterways
RR2, RR3
Soil quality,
vegetation
RR3, RR7
135 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Deborah Lazowski
Comment
ID
Number
C818-3
12/12/2014
Karl Roehrig
Rochester, MI
C819-1
12/14/2014
Marilyn Bahena
Tecumseh, MI
C820-1
12/11/2014
Joel Traylor, Pastor
Shadyside, OH
C821-1
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
There will be numerous construction trucks, bringing equipment &

supplies to the area as well as workers personal vehicles. Who will
be repairing the dirt roads? The dirt road system needs to be
maintained while they are using them. State of Michigan does not
have money to support the road system. The addition of heavy
truck traffic in the area will surely have an impact on our dirt roads
as they are only 2 car widths wide with no shoulders. Also will the
trucks be parked on the roads? As these roads are only 2 car
widths wide, it will have an effect on personal car traffic in the area
as well. Also storm water needs to be addressed. As the roads,
ditches & farmland have storm water run offs, how will the pipeline
during construction affect the current situation?
I would like to request that Energy Transfer look at a different path
for their Rover pipeline rather than through our property. There is
an Electrical Transmission easement directly to the west of our
property. I believe that is owned by ITC. There is an easement
already in the area. Why cant they use that? FERC wants to
assess the environmental impact of a project first. Common sense
states to use what you have already and not ruin more land, the
environment and the local communities. The number that I was
given for our property is MI-WA-111.530.
I strongly object to the proposed pipeline near Tecumseh,
Michigan. The pipeline will not benefit the citizens of Tecumseh or
of Michigan in any way and may very well damage our health and
our water supply. We should not endanger our health and our
children's and grandchildren's health in order to enrich business
interests in Canada and other states. Please stop this pipeline.
The Survey "flags" or markers indicate a proposed path for the
pipeline which will seriously hinder our ability for future expansion
of our facility. ET Rover has indicated their requirement for a 50'
easement for the pipeline, and the proposed path would eliminate
the use of prime, level land on which we would expand.
Construction
impacts, road
impacts
RR1, RR5
Alternatives
RR10
Water quality,
benefits
RR1, RR2
Survey, future plans

to build
RR1, RR5
136 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Joel Traylor, Pastor
12/12/2014
Deanna Stashuk
Comment
ID
Number
C821-2
Metamora, MI
C822-1
Deanna Stashuk
C822-2
Deanna Stashuk
C822-3
Deanna Stashuk
C822-4
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
I understand that the commission will also evaluate alternatives to

the project including pipeline routes. Other possible routes on our
property that the pipeline could use without interfering with our
plans for expansion might include: within the easement on the
western border of our property which runs parallel to County Road
46; or closer to our eastern property line, which is near the
surveyed route.
Were you to have done so, you would have learned that the case
is much more unique and complex, especially in Genesee and
Lapeer Counties, Michigan where much of the dispute is due to the
fact that Rover Pipeline refuses to follow existing right of ways
owned by ITC and the land running parallel to it.
Along a specific 15 mile route in Lapeer County, this proposed
pipeline imposes no less than 22 new intrusions into unstable
wetlands which are connected to various other natural resources,
including the Flint River and Clinton River Watersheds, a number
of State Parks holding valuable natural resources and sanctuaries
to wildlife, including the iconic bald eagle.
This breach has been brought to the attention of Rover many times
but they remain impervious as they have continued to seek to
purchase right of ways by threatening eminent domain from
landowners in this specific area. Rover continues to show a total
disregard to landowners and environmental negligence in
bypassing these existing right of ways through ITC which would
contain and minimize environmental disturbances which are
scientifically inherent to natural gas pipelines.
Further, DTE, Michigans own energy provider, has plans to
construct a pipeline of their own in the near future which will
provide energy for Michigan residents unlike the Rover Pipeline
where Michigan only serves as a transport line. DTEs Nexus
pipeline, in compliance with FERC regulations, will use existing
right of ways and not intrude on landowners and pristine,
untouched land, and provide long-term jobs for Michigan residents,
also unlike the Dallas Texas based Rover Pipeline LLC.
Alternatives
RR10
Existing easements,
alternatives
RR1, RR10
Wetlands,
watersheds,
recreation, wildlife
RR2, RR3,
RR8
Eminent domain,
existing easements,
alternatives
RR1, RR10
Simultaneous
RR1, RR10
137 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Deanna Stashuk
12/10/2014
Karl Roehrig
Comment
ID
Number
C822-5
Rochester, MI
C823-1
Karl Roehrig
C823-2
Karl Roehrig
C823-3
Karl Roehrig
C823-4
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
While respecting the rights and concerns of legitimate landowners

is to INSIST that Rover use existing ITC ROWs and areas parallel
to it where it is possible to contain and minimize environmental
disturbances and possible disasters that are inherent to the
construction, usage, and maintenance of pipelines.
In discussion with the company representative I expressed that I
was not interested and requested that they find another path. He
stated that I could not stop them and that they would use eminent
domain if needed. He also requested permission to enter the
property for a survey. I told him no one is allowed on my property.
He then stated that they had legal authority to enter my property
without my permission. Again this is not a true statement but an
Energy Transfer bully tactic!
I asked the Rover Pipeline employee how we could go about
getting the pipeline run down the west side of the property and not
right through the middle which would destroy the entire 33 acre
parcel. He told me to get a lawyer. Again, if FERC is looking at the
environmental impact of this project it would not allow the
destruction of the entire piece of property (and not just a portion of
it). Energy Transfer should be required to work with property
owners to minimize impact and value destruction of property. I can
assure you that this is not happening!
This company is attempting to bully property owners to get their
way for financial gain. I understand this is a meeting to assess the
environmental aspects of the project. I would encourage FERC to
look at the economic and psychological impacts that this horrific
project will have and the damage it will do to property owners, the
environment and the local communities as a whole.
In doing research on this project I find it interesting that ET sold a
gas line in Michigan that could have been used for this project. I
find it interesting that they sell a gas line 2 years ago (2012) and
then think they can turn around and have their way with FERC,
property owners and our Michigan Communities to construct
another gas line where ever they see fit. At the time they wanted to
sell the gas line they stated there was no need for such a line.
Alternatives
RR10
Eminent domain,
permission to survey
RR1
Property,
alternatives
RR5, RR10
Economic impacts,
environment,
property
RR3, RR5
Purpose and need
RR1
138 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Karl Roehrig
C823-5
Karl Roehrig
C823-6
Karl Roehrig
C823-7
Karl Roehrig
C823-8
Karl Roehrig
C823-9
Karl Roehrig
C823-10
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
If this is really a needed pipeline and FERC is really interested in

the environmental impact of this project why not use existing Right
of Ways? There is an Electrical Transmission easement directly to
the west of our property. I believe that is owned by ITC. There is an
easement already in the area. Why cant they use that?
FERC wants to assess the environmental impact of a project first.
Common sense states to use what you have already and not ruin
more land, the environment and the local communities. I suspect
that the reason they dont want this is it will cost more money for
this greedy company. I also suspect that since DTE Energy is
trying to get a similar line approved that there are a tremendous
amount of politics at play.
This is another blatant violation of FERC regulation. Energy
Transfer continues to manipulate the entire process for the gain of
monetary profit. They are not being transparent with the
stakeholders involved in this project.
There is a lack of necessity of this project, and it has limited
benefits to our State of Michigan and local communities and will
cause disruptions to private property and the environment that are
not needed. There are tremendous environmental threats that the
proposed route poses to sensitive environmental areas that you
need to really consider.
It is my understanding that not one Michigan Utility company has
signed up for the gas that is supposed to benefit the State of
Michigan. The company wants to transport its gas through our
state and my property for their financial gain.
It is also my understanding that to use Eminent Domain to steal my
property it needs to be for the public good. Michigan has over 1
trillion cubic feet of natural gas. What Rover Pipeline wants to bring
to Michigan we already have. What they are bringing we don't
need! If the gas is not being used in Michigan please tell me how
this is for the Public Good?
Environmental
impact, alternatives
RR3, RR10
Simultaneous
projects, cumulative
impacts
RR1
FERC Pre-filing
process
RR1
Purpose and need,

benefits,
environmental
impact
RR1, RR3
Lack of
buyers/shippers
RR1
Eminent domain,
purpose and need
RR1
139 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/12/2014
Commenter
Alex McDonnell
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Dexter, MI
C824-1
Alex McDonnell
C824-2
Alex McDonnell
C824-3
Alex McDonnell
C824-4
Alex McDonnell
C824-5
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
The Enbridge line very recently, less than a year ago disrupted
agricultural, upland and wetland grounds during the construction
process. Forested woodlands have not even begun to recover from
the tree removal, wetlands seem to have recovered somewhat but
there are still years ahead before the environment returns to a
mature wetland.
Please consider relocating the ET Rover line along Enbridge line
17 for as long as possible. Reuse of this line will minimize the
disruption of untouched woodlands, wetlands and agricultural
lands. Re-excavation along Enbridge line 17 will delay the recovery
of wetlands along this route but it will not disrupt and destroy
currently untouched and mature ecosystems.
There is a wet land along my Easterly boarder that will surely be
destroyed and take years to recover.
I imagine this might sound petty but there is a family of badgers
that live on my ground that I have taken reasonable measure to
ensure their safety. The badger is a protected species in the state
of Michigan. Construction along the proposed route will
undoubtedly push these animals to a new location.
The proposed route travel across lands that offer significant future
economic potential for development. Minimizing this disruption
seems to be in the best interest of all parties involved.
Cumulative impacts,
vegetation, wetlands
RR1, RR2,
RR3

(ag), wetlands
RR3, RR3,
RR8
Wetlands
RR2
Wildlife
RR3
Economic impacts,
land use
RR5, RR8
140 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
12/12/2014
David A. Daniel
Brownstown, MI
C825-1
12/12/2014
Lois B. Robbins
Oxford, MI
C826-1
Lois B. Robbins
C826-2
Lois B. Robbins
C826-3
Lois B. Robbins
C826-4
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
The Rover pipeline, as it is now proposed, would essentially create

a miles long corridor across Southeastern Michigan would likely
contribute to the spread of the Oak Wilt Virus and Emerald Ash
Borer. As heavy equipment moves back and forth along this
corridor during construction oak trees will be wounded and cut
creating feeding opportunities for virus carrying beetles that will
move along this same corridor via the transport of felled oak trees.
New Ash Borer infestations will develop via the movement of felled
ash trees. Both of these beetles will also move along this corridor
via attaching themselves to construction equipment and materials.
This will happen. No amount of paperwork filing or mitigation
efforts will stop it. This pipeline is going to add to a huge existing
problem currently being dealt with by the USFS and the Michigan
DNR. Rover needs to avoid our remaining woodland habitats!
The E. T. Rover pipelines proposed for Lapeer, Genesee and other
S.E Michigan counties present an unacceptable environmental
hazard with no real or lasting benefit to those residents. This
pipeline will carry fracked natural gas from our neighbors in Ohio
and Pennsylvania to Canada.
I believe it is unfair to ask the people living along fossil fuel
transmission corridors to bear the burden and risk associated with
this technology. For property owners, this means disruption during
construction, a lowering of property values; for some, being
required to live next to a pumping station, and for all, the risk of
unintended consequences in the future.
I feel frustrated to see the expansion of an infrastructure for an
energy source that our government should be sunsetting. Aside
from the questionable nature of the fracking process itself and its
contribution to Global Warming and Climate Change, the risks are
too great.
No financial reward can compensate for an irreversibly
contaminated aquifer or waterway or an unforeseen toxic chemical
leak at the extraction site, or a gas leak along the way.
Vegetation,
RR1, RR3
Environmental
impacts, fracking,
benefits
RR1, RR3
Construction
impacts, property
values, safety
RR1, RR5,
RR11
Alternatives
RR10
Water quality, safety

(leaks)
RR2, RR11
141 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/12/2014
Commenter
Kathleen Kapa
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
China, MI
C827-1
Kathleen Kapa
C827-2
Kathleen Kapa
C827-3
Kathleen Kapa
C827-4
Kathleen Kapa
C827-5
Kathleen Kapa
C827-6
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
There was a very informative article in "The Blue Water Voice"

dated Wednesday, December 10, 2014. It was stated that
Michigan already has six lines between the US and Canada. That
is plenty to take care of whatever needs are to be met now and in
the future.
Many people brought up the adverse environmental impact that
this project would have on not only the local flora and fauna, but
the wildlife that we have come to love.
Personal to our situation is the fact that they will be sandwiching us
in between their (Rover's proposed pipeline) and the 2
transcontinental lines to the north. Not only will this be detrimenal
to our property value as no one will ever want to buy this property
that they cannot build on or do anything else with, but just the very
idea of having this pipeline so close to our home is just
unconscionable.
The idea that they will be able to use eminent domain if all other
negotiations fail is appalling and ridiculous. Who are these people
that they can come in and just take our land? Who are these
people that when they take this land, they do not buy it, but lease it
forever and then don't pay any taxes on the land because we still
own it technically, so we have to pay taxes onb property that we
can do nothing with.
When this proposed pipeline comes through, they will be taking
away our woodlands which have been growing there for
generations. For myself, I have a more selfish reason, I am a
mushroomer, and they will, in effect,take this all away from me. Not
to mention that they will be effecting the wildlife around us to a very
large degree.
We also have a sorts of "wetlands" in our backyard that all of the
wildlife around us use. I have seen first hand the kinds of things
that some of the other property owners testified to as to theground
changing and not being like it was when we first got here. Once
they mess with the land, they cannot put it back to it's original
state, no matter what they say.
Purpose and need
RR1
Environmental
impacts, wildlife
RR3
Property values
RR5
Eminent domain
RR1
RR3
Wetlands, wildlife
RR2, RR3
142 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/12/2014
12/13/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Kathleen Kapa
C827-7
Kathleen Kapa
C827-8
John Dornoff
Ann Arbor, MI
C828-1
John Dornoff
C828-2
John Dornoff
C828-3
Frank Zaski
Franklin, MI
C829-1
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
This is supposed to be a free country and people are supposed to

have rights when it comes to property they own. But, unfortunately,
in this case, we do not. Currently, we are looking at eminent
domain because if they decide at some future date that they want
more, they will just be condemning out property because they will
be needing the space.
We understand that 50 years ago when the first pipeline was put
through, this was all farmland. Now, it sadly is not. There are plenty
of wide, open fields to the north or south of us that they could go
through, but I'm guessing that they were not given permission be
these landowners.
A pipeline like this does need meet the requirement of the
definition of "necessity", as most of the gas that the line is carrying
is intended for export to another country. The only people
benefiting from this project are the gas and oil companies, while
putting helpless property owners (and the environment as a whole)
at risk.
Please do not allow this project to proceed, and please consider
the safety and rights of homeowners first, over the interests of a
private company whose driving motivation is profit.
Sending oil from Pennsylvania though Michigan, out of the country
to Canada can't possibly be considered a necessity by any
definition of the word. Don't turn our state into a volatile chemical
highway that sees no direct benefit, but shoulders all the risk.
FERC should consider the many alternatives to the Rover pipeline
including the Nexus and ANR East pipelines and already
successful Michigan Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
programs.
Eminent domain
RR1
Alternatives
RR10
Purpose and need
RR1
Safety
RR11
Purpose and need,

benefits
RR1
Alternatives
RR10
143 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Frank Zaski
C829-2
Frank Zaski
C829-3
Frank Zaski
C829-4
Frank Zaski
C829-5
Frank Zaski
C829-6
Frank Zaski
C829-7
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
FERC must consider the cumulative impact and need of Rover

alongside other reasonably foreseeable pipelines including Nexus,
ANR East and the Vector Expansion. The proposed Rover, Nexus
and ANR East pipelines essentially do the same thing. Not one,
and certainly not all three are needed nor should be approved.
Recall, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires an EIS
to consider the cumulative impacts of the proposed federal agency
action.
NEPA requires FERC to present the environmental impacts of the
proposal and the alternatives in comparative form, providing a
clear basis for choice among options.
Rover would be the most disruptive pipeline, tearing up 383 miles
of property compared with 320 miles for ANR East and 250 miles
for Nexus. ANR East and Nexus are already partially established.
A Michigan report found that much higher electric and natural gas
energy efficiency savings are readily achievable According to the
Michigan energy efficiency report: The economic potential for
electricity savings over the next ten years ranges between 30.1%
and 33.8% of forecast kWh sales for 2023.
FERC should consider the large potential of renewable energy in
Michigan to lower future demand for natural gas electric generation
According to the Michigan renewable energy report: It would be
possible to meet increased RPS targets of as much as 30% (or
perhaps higher) from resources located within the State. [Michigan
utilities will easily meet the current 10% RPS by 2015.] There is no
scenario in which, as a purely technical matter, even very
aggressive renewable energy goals could not be met.
FERC should consider that Michigan had more underground
natural gas storage capacity than any state in the nation with over
1 trillion cubic feet of capacity. Smart utilization of this substantial
storage capacity should negate future need for extra gas pipelines
to meet Michigan seasonal demands.
Cumulative impacts
RR1
Environment
RR3
Alternatives
RR10
Purpose and need
RR1
Purpose and need
RR1
Purpose and need
RR1
144 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Frank Zaski
12/13/2014
David Daniel,
Jeanne Littlefield Trust
C829-8
Brownstown, MI
David Daniel,
Jeanne Littlefield Trust
12/13/2014
Deanna Stashuk
Deanna Stashuk
Comment
ID
Number
C830-1
C830-2
Metamora, MI
C831-1
C831-2
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
FERC should keep in mind that the true customers of any natural
gas pipeline are the final US residential, commercial and industrial
natural gas users It is their measured need for natural gas,
property rights and a clean environment that are paramount.
Dillers, shippers and transport companies are not the real
customers. Their exploitative goals and maximum short term profit
objectives are a threat to premature depletion of US national
resources, our long term energy security and our environment.
The Jeanne Littlefield Daniel Trust has, on 3 different occasions,
denied Rover Pipeline, LLC permission to enter upon our acreage
located in Freedom Twp, Michigan. They do not have permission
to enter upon our land for any reason. There exists, no court order
giving Rover permission to enter upon our land. We dispute
Rover's claim that a Michigan law exists allowing surveyors to
enter upon private property with impunity. In spite of this, Rover
has trespassed upon our property, cut down trees, and performed
survey work.
This process of information gathering that Rover and FERC are
engaged in is deeply flawed. Any information about our land that
has been compiled and reported in this manner should be
disregarded. We expect to be allowed due process during this
process.
If you find reason for approval for this pipeline, that you insist that
Rover Pipeline use existing ITC right of ways or the land parallel to
it in order to ensure that this pipeline will have minimal negative
environmental impact that are inherent to natural gas pipelines.
It is alarming that Rover intends to run their pipeline through
untouched pristine private and state owned land, especially along
the proposed 15 mile route that passes through Lapeer County,
Michigan where Rover shows total disregard and environmental
negligence in bypassing existing right of ways owned by other
utilities where such environmental impact can be managed and
contained.
Benefits,
environment
RR1, RR3
Permission to
Survey
RR1
FERC Pre-filing
process
RR1
Alternatives
RR10
Environment,
alternatives
RR3, RR10
145 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/14/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Deanna Stashuk
C831-3
Deanna Stashuk
C831-4
Deanna Stashuk
C831-5
Terrence O. Lahr
Navarre, OH
C832-1
Terrence O. Lahr
C832-2
Terrence O. Lahr
C832-3
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
Along this specific 15 mile route (Please see map below) this
proposed pipeline imposes no less than 22 new intrusions into
delicate wetlands which are connected to various other natural
resources, including the Flint River and Clinton River Watersheds.
This breach has been brought to the attention of FERC and Rover
many times but Rover Pipeline remains impervious as they have
continued to seek to purchase right of ways and threaten eminent
domain from landowners in this area, stating their reason for not
using ITC ROW in this section of their proposed route according to
Rover Representative Joey Mahmoud, is that they want to own
their own right of ways so they do not have to pay ITC ROW fees.
There are also a number of state parks, recreational areas, and a
small but significant wildlife sanctuary in the path of Rovers
preferred route. Therefore I encourage you to closely examine the
entire route for other such environmental negligence before making
any recommendations in your EIS.
I hope that when considering approving this project which will give
it emanate domain you consider the fact that oil prices have
plummeted down to the point that it will slow down fracking to the
point that this project may not be needed. In my opinion its not
needed anyway because it only benefits shale oil and gas
companies by allowing them to export gas out of our country into
Canada therefore raising our gas prices by getting more demand
for it.
The only benefit they show for putting it in is Job creation. These
jobs will last only a year or two and then it would be done. Most of
the jobs would then leave leaving all the stores that benefited by
the extra business back where they started maybe worse because
they probably would expand for the extra business and not need it
a year or two down the road.
Now they are trying to lift the ban on oil exports which could put the
next generations in the same boat that we where in back in the
70's with a shortage of crude oil. How would this benefit the public?
Wetlands,
waterways,
watersheds
RR2
Emienent domain,
alternatives
RR1, RR10
Recreation, wildlife
RR3, RR8
Eminent domain,
purpose and need
RR1
Benefits, jobs
RR1, RR5
Benefits, Purpose
and need
RR1
146 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/14/2014
12/14/2014
12/14/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Terrence O. Lahr
C832-4
Also giving them eminent domain will allow them to take away my
drive access to my property as shown in my previous upload
(Accession Number: 20141107-5164) to your site showing the
route they propose running up my only access point. They stated
that my drive will no longer be able to run up its current path
because no drives will be permitted to run parallel over the pipeline
easement. This is the only path I can put a drive on do to vary
uneven terrain, visibility on the road and limited access width to my
property.
Eminent domain,
property access
RR1, RR5
Lee Walsh
C833-1
Environmental
impacts
RR3
Lee Walsh
C833-2
I urge FERC to disapprove the Rover Pipeline through Lenawee

County and southeast Michigan. This project puts sensitive
environments at risk while benefiting only the wealthy 1% and the
oil/gas companies.
Further, its seizure of property through eminent domain is unethical
and unAmerican. I urge you to change with the times and listen to
citizens, NOT industry. Their claims of economic benefits and job
creation are greatly overblown and inaccurate.
This objection is related to the proposed 36 inch gas pipeline
possibly being run on my property. I have never been contacted by
ET Rover Pipeline LLC. My home is currently on the market to be
sold and this would in all probability cause my home to be
considered unsellable.
There is also the safety of all residences in this area as this
pipeline is to be under high pressure and only to be buried 3 feet
underground. There is the possibility of property damage from the
placement of pipeline also - ground slippage ,etc.
I would request that an alternate route be considered for this
pipeline - I do not wish to have it cross my property.
On July 28, 2014, the Rover Pipeline representative advised us of
a change in the route of the pipeline across our property. We
advised Rover that the route crosses an area believed to be an
historic Indian village or burial mound and asked the area be
avoided and the pipeline be redrawn along the property line to the
north.
Eminent domain,
economic benefits
RR1, RR5
RR5
Safety, property
damage
RR5, RR1
Alternatives
RR10
Cultural impacts,
alternatives
RR4, RR10
Connie Fluharty
Sistersville, WV
C834-1
Connie Fluharty
C834-2
Connie Fluharty
C834-3
Judy J. Alsdorf
Wooster, OH
C835-1
147 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/13/2014
Commenter
Comment
ID
Number
Judy J. Alsdorf
C835-2
Judy J. Alsdorf
C835-3
Amy & LokMan Sung
Amy & LokMan Sung
Town, State
Lapeer County,
MI
C836-1
C836-2
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
The survey crew included an archaeologist. Flint and arrow head

pieces were found at the base of corn stalks and where survey
holes were dug along the proposed pipeline route. The
archaeologist was excited about a square/rectangular specimen
found that was about 2 inches long that he indicated was 3000
years old and dated to the Hopewell Indians. He said he had only
seen one other like it in his career and indicated it was significant.
On October 16, 2014, the Rover representative returned three
small 3x6 plastic bags with flint chips, and arrow head pieces. The
Hopewell Indian artifact was not returned. The Rover
representative said he would try to find it at their office location in
Canton, Ohio. The Rover representative followed up saying the
artifact could not be located. Rover had fired the archaeologist and
had concern that he may have removed the specimen. We were
told nothing found on our property would change the decision
regarding the route of the pipeline.
It should be recognized that this and other artifacts/specimens
found on our property during the forty two years we have lived here
indicate this is potentially a restrictive area of an Indian village or
burial mound. The pipeline route is through the mound then
diagonally across the property.
Doubtless, representatives from ET Rover would state that they
are required to monitor transmission lines for leaks regularly. Flyovers are the most common method of examination. However,
aerial inspections over the region in question prove problematic,
since many parts of southern Lapeer County are wooded areas.
Spotting evidence of a natural gas leak such as discoloration of
ground cover is virtually impossible along the entire length of the
pipeline due to greatly reduced visibility.
Inconsistent rules and inspection regimes indicate that the
assessment of pipelines lacks the objectivity necessary to correctly
ascertain a pipelines condition and hazards to the surrounding
population.
Cultural impacts
RR4
Cultural impacts
RR4
Safety
RR11
Safety
RR11
148 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Amy & LokMan Sung
C836-3
Amy & LokMan Sung
C836-4
Amy & LokMan Sung
C836-5
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Insufficient funding prohibits PHMSA from hiring enough inspectors

to adequately monitor Americas millions of miles of pipelines. This
does not instill confidence that the pipeline E.T. Rover wants to
install in my small town will be properly or even regularly
examined. Additionally, the natural gas industry often inspects its
own pipelines due to a critical shortage of qualified inspectors. This
disturbing information, together with the reality that the oil and gas
industry has written many of the safety standards adopted by
PHMSA, represents an alarming conflict of interest.
Lack of adequate maintenance and evaluation render pipelines an
extreme hazard to public safety. The proposed pipeline in our area
is 42 inches in diameter and has a blast radius of over 1000'. I do
not feel secure knowing that my toddler and husband are living
within this deadly zone. Since 1969, the National Transportation
and Safety Board has documented yearly accident reports detailing
multiple incidents of pipeline failures, ruptures, explosions, wideranging fires, toxic chemical leaks, fatalities, injuries, and property
damage. As of 1986, five hundred people have lost their lives due
to pipeline accidents.
Extensive areas of forested land, wetlands, and vegetation must be
removed for the Pipeline's construction. The planned Pipeline also
runs next to several lakes (ex. Mirror and Misch Lakes). Obviously,
the wildlife in the direct path of the Pipeline will be either displaced
or killed, and the flora in that region will be destroyed. The effects
of the Pipeline on the lands adjacent to it will have equally
hazardous outcomes. For example, Hunters Creek runs through
my and my neighbors' properties, and these properties contain
widespread areas of wetlands. These wetlands are home to
numerous amphibian species, such as salamanders, frogs, toads,
snakes, birds, such as the Eastern Bluebird, Pileated Woodpecker,
and Sandhill Cranes, and wild game, such as whitetail deer and
wild turkey.
Safety
RR11
Safety
RR11
Vegetation,
wetlands,
waterways, wildlife
RR2, RR3
149 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/13/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Amy & LokMan Sung
C836-6
Amy & LokMan Sung
C836-7
Amy & LokMan Sung
C836-8
Amy & LokMan Sung
C836-9
Freedom Twp,
MI
C837-1
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
In addition to the wildlife, there will also be effects to the crops and
livestock in this region. Approximately 70% of the proposed route is
directly in land used for agriculture. Changes in the drainage tiles,
soil compaction, topsoil disruption, and the introduction of weeds
may completely wipe out the livelihoods of the local farmers.
Relief valve noise may decrease the production of commodities
such as milk and eggs. This affects both large-scale industrial
farmers and those of us that have small-scale livestock in our own
yards.
The homes in this area also use wells for their water supply, and
the water quality in the region is already tenuous. Issues, such as
the Metamora Landfill incident in 1986 have made homeowners
very leery of things that might make their water even less safe to
drink. When I moved into my current home, water testing already
returned high levels of VOCs and arsenic. Contamination of local
watersheds (i.e. Flint Watershed) from the Pipeline's construction
and maintenance will only make the situation worse.
The reasons for the public necessity of it to the citizens of Lapeer
County and Michigan are not clear. It can be argued that the
Pipeline servers predominantly as an International conduit of the
natural gas and does not even supply Michigan residents beyond
the MichCon delivery point in Livingston County. Alternative routes,
such as the DTE Nexus lines already are segregated and warrant
exploration.
It is very hard to believe that there exists an actual need or real
necessity for three more pipelines to provide natural gas to
Michigan. ET itself claimed that the line it abandoned two years
ago was excess capacity and the market was served by the
remaining lines.
Agricultural impact,
soil quality, drainage
tiles
RR2, RR7,
RR8
Noise quality
RR9
Water quality,
watersheds,
construction/mainte
nance impacts
RR1, RR2
Purpose and need
RR1
Purpose and need
RR1
150 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
C837-2
C837-3
C837-4
C837-5
C837-6
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
With most of the receiving markets being outside the United

States, only a small percentage of the gas that ET will be moving
will stay in Michigan. Still, ET has not been shy about wanting to go
through untouched pristine private and state owned land,
regardless of the impact to the lands of US citizens; to get the gas
to their international customers as well as their willingness to use
eminent domain if needed. Many of these landowners, whose
lands will be disrupted, cannot obtain natural gas service as it is
not cost beneficial to the provider.
We get the need for some eminent domain decisions. The
Countrys greater need for energy and security is paramount in our
view. But when the same thing can be accomplished by other
means it is only proper for the Federal Government to stand up for
and to protect the citizens from corporate land seizing.
Both the Enbridge Nexus and Kinder Morgan Utopia plans call for
using existing rights-of-way, not further destruction of pristine
lands. These two companies appear to be trying to accomplish the
same stated goal of transporting this new gas as is ET, but they
are trying to do so in a minimally intrusive, respectful manner.
ET is seeking new lands to seize despite there being other rightsof-way, both owned by ET and owned by other energy companies
in the vicinity. ET has not made any effort in truly considering these
existing corridors. We live within a few miles of these and there
have been no survey stakes, no trucks on the side of the road to
even give the pretense that there was ever any serious
consideration by the company to use existing corridors as outlined
in FERCs siting rules. Nearby is the Panhandle Eastern Natural
Gas pipeline, a corridor, now owned by ET that lies just a few miles
east of the proposed Rover route that travels to the SAME point for
a metering station.
My question to FERC, would not the power of eminent domain to
gain access to private lands, be applicable to easement rights
owned by other energy companies? Why should they not be willing
or required to do the same to gain access to other companies
corridors rather than attack individual land owners if not for the
reason of the cheapest way to build a pipeline?
Benefits, eminent
domain
RR1
Eminent domain
RR1
Alternatives
RR10
Existing easements,
alternatives
RR1, RR10
Eminent domain
RR1
151 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
12/14/2014
Daniel J. DuRocher
Comment
ID
Number
C837-7
Hadley Twp, MI
C838-1
Daniel J. DuRocher
C838-2
Daniel J. DuRocher
C838-3
Daniel J. DuRocher
C838-4
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
Where we live there are miles of proposed pipeline NOT utilizing

an existing right-of-way, the path is running through acres of forest,
wetlands, streams and ponds, environments that FERC siting
requirements state should be avoided. These environments will be
damaged regardless of Rovers submitted restoration plans. The
land can never be returned to its original pristine state, regardless
of Rovers submitted restoration plans, the damage will never be
fully mitigated as the lands will never again be able to be
considered as pristine.
The property boasts a large deer population and the fields and
woods make an ideal habitat. Looking out my kitchen window it is
not unusual to eight or more deer in the woods where the present
route of the pipeline will destroy a significant part of these woods.
In addition to the deer and other rural animals we have a large
number of birds including Blue Herons in the pond that is fed by
Pine Creek and endangered Sand Cranes in the field adjacent to
the barn. When they visit, the grand kids love to see the animals
and want to learn about them.
Our property (as shown in the aerial photo [Photo 3] has two ponds
and beautiful woodlands giving us the isolation and privacy we
prefer.
The proposed route of the ET Rover pipeline per the 14 November
2014 maps on file with FERC will enter our property from the
southwest approximately 600 feet from Pine Creek Drive (a private
road) into a large horse paddock, it will then run almost due east
where it will pass within 250 feet of my house and barn. If this route
is allowed to go forward It will cut a swath through the large horse
paddock (which will be rendered useless during preparation,
construction and restoration) and then through my woodlands that
consist of deliberately planted conifer trees.
Vegetation,
wetlands,
waterways
RR2, RR3
RR3
Wildlife, waterways
RR2, RR3
Waterbodies
RR2
Property damage,
vegetation,
RR1, RR3,
RR5
152 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Daniel J. DuRocher
C838-5
Daniel J. DuRocher
C838-6
Daniel J. DuRocher
C838-7
Daniel J. DuRocher
C838-8
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
These trees were planted in the early 1970s and are now fully
mature. I estimate that the pipeline will require cutting
approximately 400 to 600 trees. In addition to being a privacy
buffer, these trees form the habitat for a significant number of deer
and other woodland animals. It is adjacent to the open field where
endangered Sand Cranes come every summer.
The pipeline path continues eastward towards the Pine Creek and
Pine Creek Drive along my property line through a lowland basin
that acts as an overflow for the Pine Creek. The pipeline easement
will come within approximately 50 feet of our pond that is fed by the
Pine Creek and in the summer supports migratory birds such as
the Blue Heron.
Using this formula and estimating 500 conifer trees averaging 40
feet in height that will need to be removed the total quantity of
wood that will be cut is approximately 33.6 cubic feet of wood per
tree or 403 board feet of lumber per tree. If that were the average
yield from the 500 trees the total loss of wood would be 201,500
board feet of lumber. As Fir Lumber is presently selling for $1.33
per board foot this would represent total of $268,667.00 of potential
lost income.
Per the ET Rover route map on file, they intend to clear a path up
to 125 feet wide or more for temporary work space which will run
approximately 600 feet in length from the large horse paddock to
the property line at the road. This will devastate my privacy and no
amount of permitted restoration will ever replace the woods that
once stood there. In point of fact, we will be paying taxes in
perpetuity on land that will no longer protect our privacy, land we
can no longer have trees on and no longer have control of. This
cleared area will now provide access to what would essentially be
a highway for trespassers, hikers, motorcyclists and hunters to
access my land. I find this completely unacceptable.
Vegetation
RR3
Waterways, wildlife
RR2, RR3
Loss of income
RR5
Vegetation, privacy
RR3, RR5
153 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/15/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Daniel J. DuRocher
C838-9
Daniel J. DuRocher
C838-10
Daniel J. DuRocher
C838-11
Daniel J. DuRocher
C838-12
Karl Klement
Pinckney, MI
C839-1
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Given the fact that the construction will come within 250 feet of our
stable/arena there is no telling what the effect of the construction
traffic, commotion and heavy machinery noise will be on our
expensive show horses. How will they react with the long term
disruptions affecting their training, their dispositions or even their
heath?
Based on the movements of the ET Rover surveyors I suspect they
will want to put a temporary work space in the field next to the
barn where my show horses are kept and trained which will further
impede the operation of the farm and create further disruptions for
the livestock to deal with; additionally, the fact that there will be an
open 8 foot deep trough that will be a significant danger to any
horse getting loose or any of the wildlife in the area.
We owned a vacant 10 acre parcel that had a pipeline that cut
across the NW corner of the property. I know from personal
experience that land with a pipeline is at best difficult to sell; if it is
sold it cannot be sold for the same price that an equivalent parcel
without a pipeline can be sold for.
This property represents one of the most significant investments of
our lives. We suffered a significant loss of property value through
the great recession of the last decade. Property values have now
rebounded somewhat but not to the level when we purchased the
property. We are now on the verge of retirement; are we now being
told we must suffer a further reduction of property value by having
a pipeline run through it, a pipeline that will be of absolutely no
benefit to me, my neighbors and my community?
It is for this reason I am worried about the changes to the noise
and vibration levels around our home should this project be
approved. After considering the situation I have come up with this
idea. As a condition to obtain the permit E.T. will be required to
inform all existing homeowners on or within the Quarter Mile
Buffer of the potential of this environmental pollution. If this is a
concern of the homeowner they can enter into this arrangement
with E.T.
Noise quality
RR9
Construction
impacts, livestock
RR1, RR8
Future plans to sell,

property values
RR5
Property values,
benefits
RR1, RR5
Noise quality
RR9
154 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
11/30/2014
12/15/2014
Commenter
Kenneth Hartwig,
Beverly Hartwig Trust
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Hadley Twp, MI
C840-1
Kenneth Hartwig,
C840-2
Kenneth Hartwig,
C840-3
Kenneth Hartwig,
C840-4
Deanna Stashuk
Metamora, MI
C841-1
Deanna Stashuk
C841-2
Deanna Stashuk
C841-3
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
First of all, I oppose the pipeline through the family farm in Hadley
Township. No compensation will even come close to impact of
pipeline through the 100 plus acre property.
FERC has the final decision on the route of the Rover pipeline.
Most of the gas is going to Canada for export. Two competitive
companies are planning new pipelines to Canada with routes
through Michigan. Considering the many impacts to community
and landowners how is it necessary for two pipelines?
Over 60% of the proposed new NEXUS pipeline route follows
existing right-of-ways including electrical high power lines in Ohio
and Michigan, substantially limiting environmental impacts and
effects to landowners (reference eWashtenaw County website).
Nexus Gas Transmission pipeline intend to widen existing electric
right-of-ways, when possible, by 50 feet.
An alternate route from approximately MP108 in Livingston County
to MP183 in St. Clair County on Oakland Alternative map dated
August 2014 can utilize 85% route along existing powerlines to
substantially limit environmental impact and effects to landowners.
This pipeline is NOT necessary and therefore not acceptable for
approval, to which FERC agreed to those terms for the
abandonment of the existing pipeline less than 1 year prior to
Rovers pre-filling for an application for this much larger pipeline.
This earlier decision should preclude the latter discrepancy of an
apparent sudden and dramatic need for a much larger pipeline.
Michigan based DTE has plans for their own natural gas pipeline
(NEXUS) to follow ITC ROW and not infringe on landowners and
taxpaying citizens.
While FERC may be less interested in this cause for protest, it is
still morally, ethically and constitutionally wrong on the part of this
committee to seek enterprise over landownership, especially when
other routes are available and have been well established by
hundreds of residents who are already being negatively affected by
this pipeline.
Compensation
RR5
Purpose and need,

benefits
RR1
Alternatives
RR10
Alternatives
RR10
Purpose and need
RR1
Simultaneous
projects
RR1
Alternatives
RR10
155 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/12/2014
12/15/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Deanna Stashuk
C841-4
Deanna Stashuk
C841-5
Jeff Schweihofer
China Twp, MI
C842-1
Jeff Schweihofer
C842-2
Jeff Schweihofer
C842-3
Kate Nickles
Linden, MI
C843-1
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
The case regarding environmental concerns has been more than

well established and articulated by thousands of landowners, local
and state representatives, and environmental agencies.
Reasonable alternate routes have also been provided as
recommended by FERC.
And concerned landowners is to insist and enforce that Rover use
ITC ROWs and areas parallel to it, where it is possible to contain
and minimize environmental disturbances and possible disasters
that are inherent to the construction, operation, and maintenance
of pipelines.
About one mile north of our parcel there exists current easements
with high voltage transmission lines and pipelines crossing the
river. To the south about one mile sits DTE Energys electric power
plant with about a ten acre open piece of land which consists of a
water intake facility for the power plant cooling water.
To bring a 42" natural gas pipeline between prime residential river
front real estate through a 75' lot is complete corporate
irresposiblity and irrational on behalf of ET Rover. This pipeline will
be 40 feet from 2 residential houses along the river. The two
neighbors, the Haenor family and Miotke family, have strong
objections to this pipeline. Along with our family losing a piece of
river front property, the devaluation of residential housing around
the pipeline will be great.
When there exists current industrial easements one mile south and
north of our parcel, and the fact that this planned pipeline will be
between a 50 home residential development, I feel this plan is
without any forethought or consideration for the community that ET
Rover will be entering.
It passes through original growth hardwood forest, natural wetland,
and tiled agricultural field. The landscape has been beautifully
protected and is home to many wild animals and birds. It also
contains ash trees as yet unaffected by the emerald ash borer,
which may be useful to researchers studying resistance to this
disease.
Environment
RR3
Alternatives
RR10
Alternatives
RR10
Property values,
zoning
RR1, RR5,
RR8
Alternatives
RR10
Vegetation,
wetlands
RR2, RR3
156 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/15/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Kate Nickles
C843-2
Kate Nickles
C843-3
Christine Tarr
Oxford, MI
Christine Tarr
12/15/2014
Comment
ID
Number
Susan Ruvido
C844-1
C844-2
Metamora, MI
C845-1
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
The pipeline would not only adversely affect my family, but also
three neighbors who use the property for hunting, wood supply,
and recreation.
If any of the arguments for building this pipeline were in the general
publics best interest, the landowners affected might be more
receptive to it. As it is, I speak for myself and my neighbors when I
say we reject this plan as unnecessary and detrimental to
everyone except Energy Transfer LLC.
However, at the same time, I am deeply disturbed that the reroute
is now planned to go through the land my brother, who died
tragically 5 years ago, had stewarded and where his widow still
lives. The new route, as currently projected, is slated to come very
close to the home he built and to destroy a beautiful stand of pine
trees that he planted 30 years ago, thereby destroying a part of his
precious legacy. My heart breaks to even contemplate this.
I am deeply concerned that the gas being transported through this
pipeline will be obtained by Hydraulic Fracturing, a process that is
known to wreak serious and even devastating consequences in the
lives and health of the people, land and water in proximity to the
wells. Furthermore, I grieve for those living after us who will suffer
the unintended consequences of enormous volumes of hugely
toxic water being removed from the hydrologic system, stored deep
underground (ostensibly forever). That we would leave such
potential for environmental catastrophe to our grandchildren to deal
with is almost beyond my comprehension.
How in America can a private company take part of the value of
your property for financial gain? I am a homeowner that would
have the proposed Etrover pipeline running along 1300' of my
property but not on my property so I would receive no
compensation like my neighbor to the north that would have this on
their property.
Recreation
RR8
Purpose and need
RR1
Vegetation,
emotional impacts
RR3, RR5
Fracking
RR1
Siting,
compensation
RR1, RR5
157 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/15/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Susan Ruvido
C845-2
Susan Ruvido
C845-3
Susan Ruvido
Metamora, MI
Susan Ruvido
12/15/2014
Comment
ID
Number
Susan Ruvido
C846-1
C846-2
Metamora, MI
C847-1
Susan Ruvido
C847-2
Susan Ruvido
C847-3
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
One of the reasons i bought this property was because of the large
oaks on the property line. Some of these are at least two to 300
years old. They are on my property but the canopies and root
systems go many feet onto my neighbor's property where Etrover
wants to dig. I've been told by Joey Mahmoud of Etrover that
digging will be in the spring and summer, a very deadly time to trim
or disturb oak tree root systems due to oak wilt, a very serious
disease that kills oak trees. Depending on the type of oak they
could die quick or take years to perish.
So those of us that have sparsely treed parcels but have so much
value in these mature trees would not only lose the beauty and
sheltering nature of these trees but a huge monetary value too.
WE can't set a precedence for more of these fracking supporting
pipes to be installed where there is currently no easement. This is
Metamora Hunt country, a beautiful area of lovely homes and
farms. There are existing easements, unused pipelines, and
industrial areas that are more suited to a high pressure natural gas
pipeline- and there is nothing "natural" about it- fracking is
poisoning water and destroying the natural beauty of the states
that allow this practice.
Etrover should not be allowed to proceed with this project, let them
work harder and find more unused pipes or abandon this project
altogether. Yes its easier to plow through virgin farmland but that
should not be allowed, only to have this gas sold mostly to another
country.
I was told by Joey Mahmoud of Etrover that they would simply dig
through all the wetlands that they come across, those wetlands
filter the water in our Flint and Belle river watersheds, giving us our
pure clean water and must be protected.
As well as the the huge loss of woods and trees due to their need
need for a giant swath of cleared land that would contribute to air
pollution since out trees clean and cool the air.
Not to mention those of us that will lose our sense of security and
safety in our own homes when we are forced to live within
hundreds of feet of a potentially dangerous pipeline.
Vegetation
RR3
Loss of income
RR5
Fracking, existing
easments
RR1
Alternatives
RR10
Wetlands,
watersheds, water
quality
RR2
Vegetation, air
quality
RR3, RR9
Safety
RR11
158 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Susan Ruvido
12/15/2014
12/15/2014
T Spears
Comment
ID
Number
C847-4
Dexter, MI
C848-1
T Spears
C848-2
T Spears
C848-3
T Spears
C848-4
T Spears
C848-5
Karen Warner
Goodrich, MI
C849-1
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
There is no public need for this, please deny Etrover permission for
this destructive project and let us keep Michigan safe and beautiful.
Lack of need. In 2012, Rover sold its gas pipeline through
Michigan claiming there was no need for the pipeline. A short time
later, at the Nov. 20, 2014 scoping meeting in Chelsea MI, Rover
claimed that the newpipeline is fully subscribed with a 20 year
demand. Clearly, these statements are not consistent.
Deliberate or demonstrated inability or unwillingness of Rover to
act with integrity towards landowners. This is clearly documented
in the consistent comments from ALL landowners at the Nov. 20,
2014 scoping meeting. Many spoke of very poor communication,
lack of proper notifications, intimidation, and poor respect for their
property.
If the company will not respond with respect to landowners now,
there will be little to expect in the future should they be granted
eminent domain. If that happens, there will be little reasonable
recourse for individual homeowners to resolve issues with the
Rover corporation.
Construction through sensitive wetlands and woodlands, creating
even more destruction and fragmentation of habitats. Habitat
destruction continues to severely impact native species and
frequently brings in invasive species that continue to spread in
adjacent areas. Rover has made the statement that it is committed
to full restoration, but their actions in contrast to their statements
so far demonstrate this statement lacks credibility.
Creating a few temporary jobs is not a justifiable reason for the
long term taking of others property rights, destroying their back
yards and property values.
The pipeline would require cutting through a large section of
Michigan farms, wetlands, woodlands, and residential areas before
supplying gas to Canada. The proposed route near my home
traverses large wetland/drainage basins that feed Kearsley Creek
and the Flint River Watershed.
Purpose and need
RR1
Purpose and need
RR1
FERC Pre-filing
process
RR1
Reliabilty
RR11
Wetlands,
vegetation,
RR1, RR2,
RR3
Jobs, property
values
RR5
Land use (ag),

wetlands,
vegetation,
waterways
RR2, RR3,
RR8
159 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Karen Warner
C849-2
Karen Warner
C849-3
Karen Warner
C849-4
Karen Warner
C849-5
Karen Warner
C849-6
Karen Warner
C849-7
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
Construction of this pipeline will necessarily require digging

through or under these waterways, changing soil composition and
causing soil erosion which will run into the Gibson Drain and
ultimately Kearsley Creek. This will undoubtedly adversely affect
the trout population of the creek for years or even permanently. It
will also impact the resident waterfowl and animals dwelling in and
near those wetlands.
Further, from the perspective of the Michigan residents along the
route, is there truly any benefit? While some of the gas will be used
in Michigan, most of it will be piped to Dawn, Ontario, Canada. The
affected Michigan residents will merely have their property usurped
to be used as a gas highway.
Is this pipeline even necessary? Within the last two years, Energy
Transfer received approval from FERC to shut down an existing
natural gas pipeline through Michigan because Michigan had too
much capacity and the pipe was sold to be reversed to carry oil.
How, then, do we suddenly find ourselves in need of extra gas?
I am also concerned about safety. Will this pipeline be monitored
by someone thousands of miles away in Texas monitoring a
computer and calling for remote help if there is a problem?
What few local jobs this will generate will be temporary during
construction.
If we truly are in need of more natural gas, there is a better
alternative than the ET Rover pipeline. DTE Energy and Spectra
Energy are also proposing a pipeline to bring natural gas from the
same sources through Michigan to Canada, but are proposing a
much less disruptive route to do so.
Construction
impacts, soil quality,
wetlands
RR1, RR2,
RR7
Benefits
RR1
Purpose and need
RR1
Safety
RR11
Jobs
RR5
Alternatives
RR10
160 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Karen Warner
C850
Christeen Duncan
Comment
ID
Number
C849-8
Metamora, MI
C850-1
Christeen Duncan
Christeen Duncan
C850-2
C850-3
Christeen Duncan
C850-4
Christeen Duncan
C850-5
Christeen Duncan
C850-6
Christeen Duncan
C850-7
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
The Nexus Gas Transmission project includes the construction of

195 miles of 45-inch pipeline in Ohio and 45 miles in Michigan to
supply existing pipelines to Dawn, Ontario. This also has a public
benefit to Michigan in that DTE is a Michigan company, so profits
from this project and permanent jobs, as well as any local taxes
generated, would remain in the state of Michigan. DTE is a
resident of the state, so there is more local accountability. If there
is truly a need for this project, this would be a better alternative in
terms of public need and convenience, and better for our
environment.
Why would ET Rover be allowed to come into the state of
Michigan-this beautiful state, surrounded by natural fresh water, a
state like no other in the union- and be (potentially) poisoned from
leaky pipelines, explosions and other incidents from pipelines.
What happens if ET Rover sells this proposed pipeline too?
How can ET Rover truly repair the land back to its original
existence?
Why would a 42 inch pipeline carrying pressurized natural gas be
allowed in residential areas?
Why is ET Rover, a company, able to use the "Eminent Domain
Law", when it only for our government to use for the greater good
of its people? ET Rover plans on making money with Canada.
Our homes will lose value, which is lower tax dollars for our
townships. We are hearing that insurance companies may increase
our policies, or we may not even be able to find an insurance
company to insure our homes and properties. Realtors are telling
us about all the extra paper work that is involved in selling a home
with a pipeline going through the property. That is if a buyer can be
found.
Union workers of Michigan are asking for the ET Rover pipeline
because they want the money for doing the job. But are they
guaranteed the work? If they get the job(s), they get to walk away
from the work and not be affected by what they negatively helped
do to other people's personal property.
Alternatives
RR10
Water quality, safety

(leaks)
RR2, RR11
Reliabilty
Environmental
impact
Zoning
RR11
RR3
Eminent domain
RR1
Property values,
RR5
Jobs
RR5
161 of 247
RR8
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/15/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Christeen Duncan
C850-8
Gary Rosser
C856-1
Gary Rosser
C856-2
Gary Rosser
C856-3
Gary Rosser
C856-4
Gary Rosser
Gary Rosser
C856-5
C856-6
Gary Rosser
C856-7
Gary Rosser
C856-8
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
Our Michigan government talk about the money being brought into
Michigan and the affected counties is short sighted: The ET Rover
pipeline will continue to be a concern and possibly a liability for
generations to come. Affecting homeowners, agricultural land,
townships and etc.
This gas line would come a hundred feet flum a day care, there are
children here all day long from six months old to ten year old, my
own son went here for years and it is next door to my family and
home.
There are many facts out there about the leaks that these gas pipe
lines have bad.
There are a lot of wetlands in the so called path of this ET Rover
pipe line.
ET rover aheady has an existing pipe line in Oakland county that is
not being used.
Not one drop of this gas is for the people of Lapeer or Michigan.
ET rover has other options of areas that they can run this pipe line,
like down a power line or besides the railroad tracks or even I-69.
There was a new hunting Law passed this year for our area. You
can now hunt from an elevated platform with a rifle and as you
know a rifle bullet can travel over a mile, this area was always
shoot gun only. I am told by ET rover workers that this pipe line
would only be three feet below the ground, Ifyou are up in a tree
and shoot into the ground missing a deer with a rifle bullet I can
guess that there is a good possibility that a bullet in some area of
the ground could reach this pipe line.
As you know in the down turn of the economy several years back
the value of homes drop. My home a one point was worth less than
half of what I paid for it. It took me 20 plus years to save to have
the home that I have now. I am sure ifthere is a 42 inch pipe line
next to me that the value will most likely stay at balf if not decline.
Agricultural impact,
property
RR5, RR8
Loss of business
RR5
Safety
RR11
Wetlands
RR2
Existing pipeline,
purpose and need
Benefits
Alternatives
RR1
RR1
RR10
Safety
RR11
Property values
RR5
162 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Gary Rosser
C856-9
Gary Rosser
C856-10
12/16/2014
Robert C. Meyer
C857-1
12/16/2014
Alex P. O'Neill
St. Clairsville,
OH
C858-1
Alex P. O'Neill
C858-2
Alex P. O'Neill
C858-3
Alex P. O'Neill
C858-4
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
All the lakes and streams and rivers in the state of Michigan all end
up running into the Great Lakes at one point I would bate to see
the State known for its Great Lakes end up being known as the
Great polluted Lakes. And this could surely happen ifthis pipe line
at any point in its route was to leak.
And a reminder every one in this path ofthe pipe line have wells for
drinking water. And a leak into the ground could and would destroy
peoples drinking water.
My brother, Charles and I are owners of 250 acres of farmland
used for raising beef cattle. We are a LLC known as Meyer
Brothers Farm and have been informed the Rover pipeline will be
crossing our property. I have placed a request with Rover
approximately 4 months previous to meet personally to discuss
possible routing locations thru our property. Have not received a
reply as of current date 12/16/2014. Having attended open
discussions in the past, find it in our best interests to meet
personally with Rover reps at my home at their earliest possible
convenience! My brother and I are more than willing to discuss
possible routing locations thru our property with no intentions of
impeding the impending progress of the overall project.
The proposed Clarington to Cadiz 42 inch pipeline will impact yet
to be subsided portions of The Ohio Valley Coal Company.
The proposed Seneca to Clarington 42 inch pipeline and Sherwood
Lateral36 inch pipeline will impact yet to be subsided portions of
American Energy Corporation.
The Majors ville Lateral 36 inch pipeline and proposed compressor
station will impact yet to be subsided portions of The Ohio County
Coal Company.
Murray has obtained legal right to subside these properties. If the
proposed pipelines and compressor station are constructed and
operational when undermined, significant damage, up to and
including, possible loss of life, could occur.
Waterways, water
quality
RR2
Water quality
RR2
Alternatives
RR10
Loss of business
RR5
Loss of business
RR5
Loss of business
RR5
Safety
RR11
163 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/16/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Alex P. O'Neill
C858-5
Alex P. O'Neill
C858-6
David & Elizabeth

Beveridge
Alma, WV
C859-1
David & Elizabeth

Beveridge
C859-2
David & Elizabeth

Beveridge
C859-3
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
Additionally, the above mentioned proposed pipelines appear to

impact various Murray owned surface properties in Ohio and West
Virginia. These properties can include facilities necessary to mining
operations, in which mining hazards may be present. The
additional construction of pipelines on these properties
couldintensify already existing hazards and introduce the mine
workers associated with these properties to additional health and
safety hazards.
Murray is willing to agree to conversations with Rover in an attempt
to relocate the proposed pipeline and compressor station to a
location that will not be impacted by future mining operations.
The route as flagged runs very close to an ancient tree on our
property. This is likely the oldest living tree on the property,
estimated age 150 years minimum, possibly as old as 200 or more
years old, having a circumference so large that two people
probably could not reach around and join their hands. Any route
should leave at least 100 feet from the drip line of the tree to the
nearest point of disturbed land. The exact route near the tree
should be up to the landowner discretion so as to not endanger this
living treasure.
The route as flagged endangers the portion of a high meadow
nearest to our house to future deep well (Marcellus shale) drilling
site. This high meadow was targeted by a drilling company for
investigation, but the pipeline route would encumber the portion of
the meadow furthest from our home, thus leaving only the portion
of the meadow nearest to our house for a drilling site. This would
make our home uninhabitable, and destroy all value of our home.
The pipeline route should be modified to move the pipeline to the
portion of the meadow nearest to the house (down to the first
wooded area near the bottom of the high meadow) to allow a
drilling site only on the portion of the meadow furthest from the
house.
Loss of business,
safety
RR5, RR11
Alternatives
RR10
Vegetation
RR3
Vegetation, property
value
RR3, RR5
Alternatives
RR10
164 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
11/1/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
David & Elizabeth

Beveridge
C859-4
David & Elizabeth

Beveridge
C859-5
David & Elizabeth

Beveridge
C859-6
Harold and Garre

Croswell
Metamora, MI
C860-1
Harold and Garre

Croswell
C860-2
Harold and Garre

Croswell
C860-3
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
I have significant and serious complaints against the way we have

been treated as landowners during this process. I gave only verbal
permission to the agents of this project to survey on our property
only if I received 24 hour advance notice of the survey, and was to
accompany the company representatives to mutually agree to the
proposed pipeline route. Only after I found the surveyors parked on
my neighbors land and seeing individuals scrambling up the hill on
both sides of our property line did I find out that they had already
completed the pipeline route on our land and were proceeding to
my neighbors land.
Upon reading the FERC docket I now see that the company plans
a right of way between 125 and 150 feet wide. This is a terribly
excessive amount of environmental destruction.
I have been trying ever since this process started to find out at
least a rough idea of what we would be paid. We have no idea if
our land will be taken at almost no compensation. We also
anticipate that our small country lane will be destroyed by
excessive use of trucks, our quality of life will be destroyed by
excessive dust, dirt and noise, and that our sleep will be disturbed
for an excessive length of time due to the noise. My wife is not a
well person and needs in general about 14 to 16 hours of peaceful
sleep time every day.
There is no reason to bring any pipeline through Michigan and it is
not needed. There Is no benefit to Michigan at all. There am other
exisfing pipelines that can be used, and this is a Canadian issue.
Michigan is a major contributor in the agricultural wodd; a large
percent of the WORLD'S fresh water supply, and the commerce
with our Great lakes and farming communities is no small matter.
We moved to a rural area in Michigan afier rebrement to get away
from the noise and traffic of the city, to feel safe, and have peace
and quiet. We live where horses and farming are the norm.
PLEASE DO NOT allow this pipeline to disrupt our beaufiful skde.
Our safety and home values would be affected.
FERC Pre-filing
process, permission
to survey
RR1
Environmental
impacts
RR3
Compensation,
noise quality
RR5, RR9
Purpose and need,

benefits
RR1
Vegetation, water
quality
RR2, RR3
Noise quality,
aesthetics
RR8, RR9
165 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/9/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Harold and Garre

Croswell
C860-4
Harold and Garre

Croswell
C860-5
Harold and Garre

Croswell
C860-6
Harold and Garre

Croswell
C860-7
Harold and Garre

Croswell
C860-8
Michael T. O'Brien
West Union,
WV
C861-1
Michael T. O'Brien
C861-2
Michael T. O'Brien
C861-3
Michael T. O'Brien
C861-4
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
ET Rover filed with a false impression that Lapser County is low

populated farming land. The Population here has grown
significanfiy since 1988 and residenfial areas have increased
greatly.
Since we live where aggregide mining is part of our economy due
to the pierce of rock quarries, ET Rover said they would include
blasting to dear the land. Can you imagine what blasfing would do
to disrupt horse farms with expensive Arabians and purebreds?
Landowners would have burden of paying taxes and mowing on
the 50-foot easement since ET Rover statss they would mcw once
every 3 years. What kind of lame commitment is that?
Recently improved and repaved major highways such as M53,
M24, M97 and I-69 would be torn up all over again. We have just
recovered from the construction.
Lets talk about safety. Gas pipelines of this size and pressure
could cause homble leaks or accidents in the future. Why on earth
should we allow ET Rover to put these pipefines anywhere in
Michigan? The risk is not worth it. We have not forgotten the
pipeline rupture near Marshall, Michigan, and the largest in U.S.
history. Benelfis to Michigan are none.
The danger and hazard it will present to my neighbors, livestock,
home, family, children, grandchildren and future generations to
come.
The change it will bring to my property with the lack of
development for future agriculture and forest growth.
Possible increased rates of insurance and taxes. Devaluation of
my farm.
Always present danger of erosion and the nuisance of future work
with construction and maintenance of heavy equipment on the
pipeline.
Population
RR5
Construction
impacts (blasting),
noise quality
RR1, RR9
Maintenance
impacts
RR1
Road impacts
RR1, RR5
Safety, benefits
RR1, RR11
Safety
RR11

(ag)
Property values
RR3, RR8
Soil quality
RR7
166 of 247
RR5
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/15/2014
12/16/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Michael T. O'Brien
C861-5
Gary E. Schilling
C862-9
Gary E. Schilling
C862-10
Gary E. Schilling
C862-11
Gary E. Schilling
C862-12
Gary E. Schilling
Gary E. Schilling
Frank Zaski
C862-13
C862-14
C863-1
Franklin, MI
Frank Zaski
C863-2
Frank Zaski
C863-3
Frank L. Vrsek
Metamora, MI
C864-1
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
Some of my neighbors want the pipeline for additional one-time

source of revenue. Why force this across my property? The gas
companies keep saying how safe the lines are, however, in West
Virginia, there have been explosions that have burned homes to
the ground and damaged roadways and property. l now have four
different gas/oil companies on my farm and not a single one of
them are meeting requirements set by the DEP criteria.
Decrease in property values. Possible increase in homeowners
insurance.
Contamination of Riley Lake (Hadley Township). Contamination of
our well water.
Sending gas to Canada for distribution to foreign countries will only
increase prices in this country.
Cutting down of more trees and disturbing wildlife in the area. We
already have power line easment both north and south of us.
Noise during construction.
Possible terror threat.
The price of oil and natural gas has dropped substantially and this
is putting financial pressure on these highly leveraged industries.
These companies are being watched by the financial community
who are concerned there might be production cutbacks, asset
sales and possible bond defaults, all of which could impact the
future of Rover. If shippers cannot fulfill their obligations to Rover,
there will be no need for this pipe.
Thus Energy Transfer faces the possibility that its high debt levels,
when combined with declining cash flows due to sustained low oil
prices, might result in a credit downgrade that raises its future
interest costs substantially.
ET Rover says that they need this pipeline due to capacity
requirements, yet, in late 2013, they sold an existing pipeline to
Enbridge because they, (ET Rover) said they no longer needed the
extra capacity.
Compensation,
safety
RR5, RR11
Property values
RR5
Water quality
RR2
Economic impacts
RR5
alternatives
Noise quality
Safety
Economic impacts
RR3, RR10
Economic impacts,
reliability
RR5, RR11
Economic impacts,
reliability
RR5, RR11
Purpose and need
RR1
167 of 247
RR9
RR11
RR5
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Frank L. Vrsek
C864-2
Frank L. Vrsek
C864-3
Frank L. Vrsek
C864-4
Frank L. Vrsek
C864-5
Frank L. Vrsek
C864-6
Frank L. Vrsek
C864-7
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Also, it is our understanding that there is a Nexus proposal for a

competing pipeline in the works and that Nexus pipeline would use
existing pipeline easements, something that ET Rover refuses to
consider.
Regardless as to whether or not ET Rover uses existing
easements or bullies their way through private property, a 42
inch, high pressure pipe line that would only be 30 to 36 inches
below ground surface is too high of a risk for a residential
community to have to live with.
The impact to wet lands, trees, farm land and residential property
is unconscionable, please understand that while the land in Lapeer
county may be zoned agricultural, anything under 40 acres is
classed as residential, so all this land isn't truly agricultural as most
parcels are in the 1 to 5 acre range.
The communities that this pipeline will go through will not be able
to handle any rupture of the pipeline, I would expect that a rupture
due to bad welds, ground heaving, terrorist attacks or any of a
number of things, make a high pressure line more likely to fail, I
know that ET Rover says that they have many safety measures
that they will put in place but these measures don't seemed to stop
the pipelines from blowing up as the ones near Battle Creak & in
Virginia did.
While my wife & I are not directly in the path of the pipeline, our
home will be within 200 feet of the proposed route. We have lived
in this community for over 35 years and do not look forward to
living next to a time bomb and, of course, we will be unable to sell
our home if the pipeline does go through.
If Rover is truly doing this for the public good, they should be
willing to sacrifice some profit and: 1) use existing pipeline
easements 2) use double-walled pipe as is required in Canada 3)
reduce the diameter of the pipe and pressure of the gas in the pipe
4) bury the pipeline deeper than the proposed 30 to 36", something
like 6 to 8 feet of dirt over the pipe would be more like it, 5) offer to
buy out at least the people within a quarter mile of the pipeline, at
fair market value, (the value before the pipeline was announced)
Alternatives
RR10
Safety
RR11
Wetlands,
vegetation, land use
(ag)
RR2, RR3,
RR8
Safety
RR11
RR5
Alternatives
RR10
168 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/16/2014
Commenter
Sierra Club Michigan
Chapter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Lansing, MI
C865-1

Chapter
C865-2

Chapter
C865-3

Chapter
C865-4

Chapter
Chapter
C865-5
C865-6
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
There is no demonstrated need for additional natural gas capacity

in Michigan or in the region in general, while the impact on the
safety, economic value, and environmental health of local property
owners and communities would be considerable.
Canada and the Eastern US and six new pipelines and pipeline
expansions planned, and a total of 57 new pipelines and
expansions approved or pending flowing in all directions. FERC
should consider the cumulative impact of all of these proposed
pipelines, including both environmental impacts and the rate of
depletion of the resources themselves.
There are a number of proposed and existing pipeline projects that
would fit this definition, including the proposed Spectra Energy
Nexus pipeline, which runs parallel to the proposed Rover pipeline
through Ohio and Michigan, with similar starting points and the
same endpoint, and the TransCanada ANR East project which
makes use of similar terminals. The relative impacts of all of these
projects should be considered together.
Michigan does not need this line. It already has considerable
existing inflow capacity and outflow capacity from existing
pipelines.
Michigan has more than sufficient underground natural gas storage
capacity to lessen any additional need to meet seasonal demands.
In 2013 Energy Transfer and FERC agreed that no additional
pipeline capacity was needed in the Midwest, when ET proposed
abandoning their Trunkline natural gas pipeline (CP12-491-000,
2013). In that order FERC agreed that the company had provided
sufficient evidence that current needs could be met with existing
infrastructure without the continuation of the Trunkline capacity.
FERC further ruled that comments projecting future increased
needs if coal plants were converted to natural gas plants were
merely speculative.
Purpose and need,

safety, economic
impacts
RR1, RR5,
RR11
Cumulative impacts
RR1
Cumulative impacts
RR1
Purpose and need
RR1
Purpose and need
RR1
Purpose and need
RR1
169 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number

Chapter
C865-7

Chapter
C865-8

Chapter
C865-9

Chapter
C865-10

Chapter
C865-11
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Jobs projections are always speculative, and projections for one

project can also be met or exceeded by other projects. The ET
Rovers projection of 3,000 temporary Michigan jobs for pipeline
construction can be met or exceeded by the 100,000 jobs
projected from increasing energy efficiency and renewable
standards, or the jobs created by repairing or replacing our existing
aging pipeline infrastructure.
Given ETs current debt status and current market conditions,
FERC should consider whether ET has the capacity to actually
complete this project.
The EIS should include an analysis of the impacts of all the
alternative routes, including the Spectra Energy Nexus and the
ANR East routes and a no action option, to address the concerns
listed below.
The proposed route crosses through several watersheds in
Michigan, including the River Raisin, the Huron River, the Flint
River, the Clinton River, the Belle River, and the St. Clair River.
The EIS should address the impact on these rivers and their
fisheries, including the health of the watersheds and the potential
impact of invasive species. Of particular note in the proposed St.
Clair River crossing is a fish spawning reef currently under
construction (joint project with Fish and Wildlife Service) and
designed to provide a spawning area for sturgeon (a threatened
and endangered species), whitefish, and walleye. The fisheries in
the St. Clair River are connected by fish migration to both Lake
Huron and Lake St. Clair. The St. Clair River Flats, downstream
from the proposed route, is one of the largest fresh water deltas in
the world.
Depending on the final route, there is potential harm to a number of
important wetland and natural areas in Michigan, including the Irish
Hills area in Lenawee County, Pinckney Recreation area in
Washtenaw and Livingston Counties, and Metamora/Hadley State
Recreation Area, Ortonville State Recreation Area, and Sutherland
Nature Center in Genesee County, among others.
Jobs
RR5
Reliabilty
RR11
Alternatives
RR10
Watersheds, wildlife,
waterways
RR2, RR3
Wetlands,
ecosystem impacts,
recreation
RR2, RR3,
RR8
170 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number

Chapter
C865-12

Chapter
C865-13

Chapter
C865-14

Chapter
C865-15
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Likewise, the EIS should provide an accounting of the acreage of

forests and woodlots that would be affected by the alternatives. A
number of landowners in rural areas have commented on portions
of the route passing through farmland woodlots, orchards,
vineyards, and nurseries, with no opportunity for restoration since
trees cannot be planted within pipeline rights of way. Consideration
should also be given to the potential for the spread of diseases
such as the oak wilt virus if forest and woodlot health is affected.
Rural areas, there has been insufficient consideration of the impact
on farmlands, including farmers access to farm fields during
construction and inadequate restoration of topsoil during
reclamation. Temporary plugging or damage to drainage ditches
and underground tiling could have affects extending beyond the
construction area. Particular attention must be paid to protection
for existing conservation easements, Fish and Wildlife Services
contracts for resource conservation, USDA-NRCS Conservation
Stewardship and Grassland Reserve Programs, and timber stand
improvement contracts.
The alternatives should also be assessed for impacts on state and
federal threatened and endangered species, including a habitat
suitability survey along each route. For Michigan, the Michigan
Natural Features Inventory provides the listings for each of the
counties on the proposed routes.
As part of its environmental review, FERC should estimate the
green house gas impacts from the production, transport, and
usage of the gas, including methane leakage from the production
sites, the pipeline and compressor stations, and the CO2 releases
from increased burning of natural gas. This analysis would be in
line with the Presidents recently announced targets to cut net
greenhouse gas emissions 26-28 percent below 2005 levels by
2025. In addition to methane and CO2 emissions, FERC should
also calculate other emissions, including benzene, VOCs, arsenic,
radium, and other chemicals
Vegetation
RR3
Land use (ag),

conservation areas,
recreation
RR3, RR8
Wildlife
RR3
Air quality
RR9
171 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State

Chapter
C865-16

Chapter
C865-17

Chapter
Chapter
C865-18
C865-19

Chapter
12/15/2014
Comment
ID
Number
Andrew J. Harris
C865-20
Grand Blacn,
MI
C866-1
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
Finally, FERC should consider the potential environmental impacts

of increased use of hydraulic fracturing in the Marcellus region as a
result of the new markets targeted by this and similar projects.
These impacts include: air and water quality; health impacts,
Compendium of scientific, medical, and media findings
demonstrating risks and harms of fracking; and worker safety.
Safety impacts are of paramount concern. The required setbacks
from homes and other buildings are insufficient to account for the
potential impact radius in the event of an explosion. The EIS
should analyze the safety risks posed by the number of residences
within the projected impact radius of the pipeline. Many rural areas
are served by small fire departments backed by local volunteer fire
fighters, which would be stretched thin in the event of a major
explosion or fire.
Local government concerns over the impact of heavy equipment
on local roads and bridges must be addressed.
Individual landowners are rightfully concerned with the impact of
the project on their property values, access to mortgages, and
insurance coverage. Estimates of these costs should be available
from previous pipeline construction projects.
Landowner complaints have arisen during the pre-filing process
concerning the behavior of survey crews and lack of advance
information from the company. Such behavior does little to instill
confidence that the company would follow through properly during
construction, reclamation, and maintenance in the future.
Our property consists of several acres of regulated wetland in
which we requested be delineated prior to us purchasing the
property. Additionally, the property is wooded with thousands of
mature standing timber, mostly oaks, hickories, and maples. Weve
enjoyed hunting, gardening, the wildlife (very often we are blessed
with the presence of the endangered sand hill cranes on our
property), attempting to manage the deer herd, and most
importantly, raising our children to enjoy the nature that this
property provides.
Environmental
impacts, fracking,
safety
RR1, RR3,
RR11
Safety, emergency
personnel
RR5, RR11
Road impacts
RR1, RR5
Property values
RR5
Maintenance
impacts
RR1
Wetlands,
vegetation, wildlife
RR2, RR3
172 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Andrew J. Harris
C866-2
Andrew J. Harris
C866-3
Andrew J. Harris
C866-4
Andrew J. Harris
C866-5
Andrew J. Harris
C866-6
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
To allow ET Rover to clear cut a strip anywhere from 100 to 400

wide through our property would be a travesty to our property, its
value, and potentially to the safety of our family.
Throughout this entire process it has become very clear to me that
ET Rovers strategy was to come in, gather their information and
move on before the property owners were aware of what was
happening. To say that they have been helpful, informative, kind,
or even ethical is a complete understatement. It is my
understanding that your organization requires the applicant to work
with property owners and local officials (order no. 665). They have
clearly failed in meeting that requirement.
There are two questions that continue to weigh on my mind as this
process continues. First, how does this benefit the public and
secondly what is the necessity of this project? Up until just recently
there has been no mention of job creation. However, now they are
claiming this project would create 7,000-10,000 temporary jobs.
When I asked the right of way person about who would be doing
the work he stated pipeline work is specialized and didnt have an
answer to the question. The engineering is being done out of
Texas, the surveys have been primarily performed by a company
out of Ohio.
From what I can understand the proposed route through Michigan
will be a transmission line only to service into Canada. How does
that benefit the public here in Michigan? When I asked the right of
way guy about distribution, again, he didnt have an answer but
said maybe down the road it would be a possibility. Since that time
he has rescinded his words and said there will be two distribution
points but from what Ive read a majority of the distribution would
be for the southern line that is proposed to run into Louisiana.
Therefore, disrupting this many acres of wooded, wetland property
for a transmission line does not benefit the public.
Currently there are two major suppliers of natural gas in Michigan.
From what Ive read, neither supports this proposed pipeline. Nor
do the residents who are currently serviced by those companies.
Simply put, there is no need for our lives to be put at risk with the
potential of a blast when this project is not a necessity.
Property values,
safety
RR5, RR11
FERC Pre-Filing
Process
RR1
Purpose and need,

jobs
RR1, RR5
Benefits, vegetation,
wetlands
RR1, RR2,
RR3
Lack of
buyers/shippers
RR1, RR5
173 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/15/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Andrew J. Harris
C866-7
Andrew J. Harris
C866-8
Michael Verschaeve
Bay City, MI
C867-1
Michael Verschaeve
C867-2
Michael Verschaeve
C867-3
Michael Verschaeve
C867-4
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
If it is deemed by your organization that this project is a necessity

and in the publics best interest than why not require they use an
existing easement already in place somewhere? Why not work with
the Michigan Department of Transportation and allow them to
place it in one of the freeway rights of way? Why not require they
negotiate terms with an electrical distribution company and use
one of their easements.
Why allow ET Rover to potentially take our property, lower our
property values, put the lives of the public in danger, and disrupt
our quality of life? Why not require they exhaust each of these
avenues before granting them permission to take the properties of
hardworking, tax paying landowners?
If the FERC approves the project in its current form it will
undoubtedly have devastating impact on already fragile
ecosystems in Lapeer, Genesee and Oakland counties.
headwaters of a river system that provides primary or back-up
drinking water to over 250,000 people. The proposed route directly
impacts several water resources including sensitive springs,
groundwater, wetlands and headwater regions including 6 subwatersheds: The beautiful areas of Swartz Creek, Thread Creek,
Kearsley Creek, Pine Creek, Farmers Creek, Hunters Creek, and
Flint River South Branch.
The proposed construction project impacts the clearing of forested
areas and other vegetation along the proposed route including
many sensitive animal habitats and will adversely impact water
quality.
The project will disrupt existing land use including agricultural lands
and associated drainage systems which have demonstrated
longstanding positive partnerships to improve water quality through
conservation practices.
Alternatives
RR10
Property values
RR5
Ecosystem impacts
RR3
Waterways, water
use
RR2
water quality
RR2, RR3
Land use (ag), water

quality
RR2, RR8
174 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Michael Verschaeve
C867-5
Michael Verschaeve
C867-6
Michael Verschaeve
C867-7
Michael Verschaeve
C867-8
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
These subwatersheds contain wetland features that provide critical

ecological services, such as floodwater storage, filtration of
sediments and nutrients, and critical and sometimes rare habitat
for aquatic and terrestrial wildlife. Kearsley Creek is the only cool
water stream in the region, and supports a vibrant trout fishery
supported by the Michigan DNR. The South Branch of the Flint
River provides some of the highest quality habitat in our
watershed, and recent water monitoring shows this area is only
improving. At least one tributary of the Flint River South Branch
supports a native brook trout population, which the State of
Michigan Department of Natural Resources been monitoring since
as far back as the early 1970s. On the other end of the spectrum,
Farmers Creek is already a suffering ecosystem, and additional
stresses to the system could prove very detrimental to our effort to
protect and improve all areas of our watershed.
This river basin is in recovery and the cumulative impacts from a
project of this scale, even if minimized, is more than the
environment is able to handle at this time.
There is no public need or purpose for an additional pipeline, nor is
there a public benefit for the people of the State of Michigan and
the residents of the Flint River Watershed. The Rover Project
would use Michigan as a "pass through" to another country, and
does not serve the public good or energy needs of Michigan
residents, let alone those impacted by the pipeline project route.
Michigan has far more underground natural gas storage capacity
than any other state, representing approximately 12% of the
nations overall storage capacity. Michigan supplies natural gas to
neighboring states during the high-demand winter months. In
addition, FERC has already certified that the proposed ET Rover
Pipeline through SE Michigan is unnecessary given that last year
both FERC and the State of Michigan allowed the sale of a
different natural gas pipeline that was deemed unnecessary, and
subsequently allowed modifications to that line for oil
transportation.
Wetlands,
waterways,
ecosystem impacts
RR2, RR3
Waterways,
cumulative impacts
RR1, RR2
Purpose and need,

benefits
RR1
Purpose and need
RR1
175 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Michael Verschaeve
Comment
ID
Number
C867-9
12/8/2014
Kurt and Heidi RoyBorland
Pinckney, MI
C868-1
12/8/2014
William and Laurie

Stoneburg
Metamora, MI
C869-1
William and Laurie

Stoneburg
C869-2
William and Laurie

Stoneburg
William and Laurie
Stoneburg
C869-3
William and Laurie

Stoneburg
C869-5
C869-4
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
If FERC approves the ET Rover Project, that approval conveys

with it the right of eminent domain to a for-profit entity while at the
same time conferring no public benefit along with significant risks
to the people and waters of the State of Michigan.
Have to worry about our children growing up feet away from an
enormous gas line, our property losing significant resale value, the
loss of use of one third of our land, the risk of damaging the
pristine creek across the road, the loss of our "grandfather tree",
and the major disruption to our property.
There are wetlands and areas that support local and migratory
species of birds and wildlife. This galls under the FERC siting
requirements (380.15) that sites these places should be avoided if
possible.
Our home will be 200 feet away, it will go through our wetlands,
under a creek that is 25 feet from the front of our home, running
across the entire property. It will take a 75 foot concrete bridge that
my dad (now dead) and us put in 30 years ago and that's how we
get to our house. Across the street (400 feet) is Riley Lake with 10
homes around it.
Our property value will decrease and the citizens in our township
and county would little to no benefit from it.
This proposed pipeline project is not a public necessity. In energy
transfers 2012 request to FERC, (to abandon the 770 mile stretch
of its TrunkLine pipeline that went through Michigan) it stated that it
had more than enough capacity to meet current and future
demands for natural gas in Michigan
This proposed pipeline project will have little to no benefits to the
citizens of our township, the County of Lapeer, or any area east of
Livingston County MI. Per the Marcellus Drilling News website, the
bulk of this proposed pipeline project is to provide delivery of raw
natural gas to Canada and other interconnects to the Midwest. This
means that we as landowners will be asked to give up property, not
for the greater good, but to allow a large corporation to expand its
profits.
Eminent domain,
benefits
RR1
Property values,
waterways,
vegetation
RR2, RR3,
RR5
Wetlands, siting
RR1, RR2
Wetlands,
waterways, property
access
RR2, RR5
Property values,
benefits
Purpose and need
RR1, RR5
Benefits
RR1
176 of 247
RR1
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/5/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
William and Laurie

Stoneburg
C869-6
William and Laurie

Stoneburg
C869-7
William and Laurie

Stoneburg
C869-8
William and Laurie

Stoneburg
C869-9
Barbara S. Dewey
Bowerston, OH
C870-1
Barbara S. Dewey
C870-2
Barbara S. Dewey
C870-3
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
This proposed pipeline project raises serious safety concerns. This

project is requesting a 42 high pressure pipeline. This project will
transport raw natural gas at the minimum rate of 3.2 cubic feet per
day. In the event of a leak or explosion, the minimum area affected
will be an approximate 1100 radius. That is over two tenths of a
mile in any direction, with the potential of eradicating over a half
mile area from ground zero.
Water quality and recreational areas would be impacted. The path
of this proposed pipeline crosses the Flint River Watershed as well
as numerous lakes, streams, tributaries, and wetlands. According
to FERC siting requirements (308.15) that site these places should
be avoided if possible.
The proposed path of this pipeline will disrupt our areas of
agriculture. Construction will compromise soil quality as well as
areas of natural and planned drainage; this aiong with possibility of
contamination will result in ioss of usable land. This will in turn
negatively impact personally and commercially grown food quality,
livestock and future revenue from food production.
There are more viable routes. Part of the proposed new NEXUS
pipeline route follows existing ROWs, limited the environomental
impact of our ecosystem and the effects to landowners. There are
existting power right-of-way lines thru Ohio and Michigan that could
possibly be used.
However, the current plan appears to be a diversion from the
Rover's overall path and instead bending south directly through our
Emergent Herbaceous Wetland (Category III, Ohio EPA) providing
habitat for important plants and animals, two springs that supply
the only water to two households, before curving back north to
resume its westward run.
Safety
RR11
Water quality,
recreation,
watersheds,
wetlands
RR2, RR8
Land use (ag), soil

quality
RR7, RR8
Alternatives
RR10
Wetlands
RR2
Aquifers
RR2, RR6
Alternatives
RR10
The springs that supply two of our houses are part of a perched
aquifer which would be destroyed by any perforation of the clay
layer that supports them.
A shorter northern route would take it through meadows and our
neighbor's aquaculture pond, which he frequendy drains and
scrapes anyway.
177 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Barbara S. Dewey
12/14/2014
Mauren Shoemaker
Comment
ID
Number
C870-4
Hadley Twp, MI
C871-1
Mauren Shoemaker
C871-2
Mauren Shoemaker
C871-3
Mauren Shoemaker
C871-4
Mauren Shoemaker
C871-5
12/16/2014
12/16/2014
Rusty Morris
Dylan Kiol
12/16/2014
Albert Barton
12/16/2014
Paul Moran
Willeyville, WV
St. Clairsville,
OH
Moundsville,
WV
Coolsville, OH
C872-1
C873-1
C874-1
C875-1
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Please do not approve the ET Rover pipeline until its path through
Monroe Township (Harrison County, Ohio) meets FERC policies
and is of minimum disruption to current land uses.
Mr. Husted, as you are aware most of the workers you refer to will
be largely out-of-state transient workers, it is very unlikely that ET
Rover will employ Lapeer County workers.
All summer long I watched in horror as men (with Texas tags on
their pickups) dug the Enbridge line, coming within mere feet of
houses, turning residents yards in a muddy mess, making access
to their homes at times inaccessible, putting up with incredible
noise from trucks and machines.
Ive found no evidence that Brandon and Oxford Township, nor
their businesses, profited from this disruption.
As per your assertion that we strengthen and repair roads Sashabaw and Sherman Roads are not better off now than they
were before construction started, matter of fact, that section is
rather broken, bumpy and dirty.
Let me give you some real-world stats: ET Rover has sent letters
to residents threatening eminent domain. ET Rover has threatened
landowners with lawsuits and walk all over our property without our
permission. ET Rover has consistently misrepresented
themselves. But here is the biggest real-world impact: I bought my
land with money I earned. I pay taxes on my land and now a big
corporation wants to take my land for the greater good, land I can
never use as I feel fit ever again.
This pipeline will create more jobs and a lot more work.
Many local families depend on the skilled trade jobs created by
pipeline projects like the Rover pipeline project.
I think it would be good. Help create more jobs for people and
increase our economy.
Keep all union workers working, while also providing much needed
revenues directly into the communities in which they live.
Land use
RR8
Jobs
RR5
Property access,
noise quality
RR5, RR9
Benefits
RR1
Road impacts
RR5
Eminent domain,
property
RR1, RR5
Jobs
Jobs
RR5
RR5
Jobs, economic
benefits
Jobs, tax revenues
RR5
178 of 247
RR5
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
12/16/2014
Shirley DuRocher
Metamora, MI
C876-1
Shirley DuRocher
C876-2
Shirley DuRocher
C876-3
Shirley DuRocher
C876-4
Shirley DuRocher
C876-5
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Everyone representing ET Rover that I have been in contact with is

from out-of-state. ET representatives at local meetings and those
who have knocked on my door have all been from the south-Georgia, Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana. How is that putting
Michigan people back to work? I assume that ET Rover would hire
locals for some of the construction--but it would be temporary
positions, not full time with livable wages and benefits.
The majority of the gas passing through Michigan will not be
available for use in Michigan. ET Rover has stated that up to 18%
of the gas will remain in Michigan--not a very big percentage for
the destruction that will be caused to our land and the loss of
privacy, large decrease in property value and safety issues that will
be created.
Our house was built in 1974 on 25 acres. Thousands of trees
(mostly pine) were planted along the north and south property
lines; approx. 650 feet back (east) from Pine Creek Road, and
varies from 100 to 150 feet deep towards the center of the
property. There are some maple and oak trees mixed in also. As
you can see from picture A, the 25 acres is slightly less than 50%
heavily wooded.
They will be clearing for the pipeline less than 250' from my home,
and then east next to our large pond and across Pine Creek Drive.
Pine Creek enters our property from the south, enters our pond,
and then exits the pond in the north and continues on. All the trees
on the south edge of the pond will also be removed in this clearing.
This will prevent the wild life from having a safe entry to obtain
water. In the summer there are blue herons and various cranes at
the pond. In the winter there are tracks from every type of animal
using the pond as a source of water, the creek does not usually
freeze over, so there is access all year round.
I currently have three horses on the property-I just purchased a
young colt. The horses are used by me and my children and
grandchildren and we show them competitively. I just purchased a
colt that has the potential to be a super star in the show ring. The
noise and confusion from pipeline construction will adversely affect
the horses, and my dogs.
Jobs
RR5
Benefits, property
values, safety
RR1, RR5,
RR11
Vegetation
RR3
Waterbodies,
RR2, RR3
Noise quality,
RR1, RR9
179 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Shirley DuRocher
C876-6
Shirley DuRocher
C876-7
Shirley DuRocher
C876-8
Shirley DuRocher
C876-9
Shirley DuRocher
C876-10
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
ET Rover will have all the trees cut down to clear for the pipeline.
Then they burn the stumps and brush. The smoke from that is not
only going to seep into my house, leaving residue on curtains,
furniture and everything else, it will scare the heck out of the
animals. I have cats and dogs in the house, heavy smoke could
make them seriously ill. The smoke and noise from the fires will
also terrify the horses-pine trees have a large quantity of sap that
pops and explodes when exposed to high heat. How will they
prevent fire from spreading to any trees left standing, brush and
grass and then onto my house or stable? The loud noise from the
burning will make all the animals terrified, and pose of high degree
of danger for them getting injured.
Let's talk safety. Just googling natural gas pipeline explosions
brought up page after page of horrifying pictures and stories.
Excuse me--they dont factor in FROST when they plan a pipeline-that certainly makes me feel so much safer about having one run
within 200 feet of my home. My husband and I have spent hours
poring over the ET Rover pictures of the projected pipeline.
Nowhere do we see that they are using any existing easements -as they have stated they would be doing.
With all the vacant land in the Hadley area, WHY is a pipeline
running within two hundred feet of my home, my neighbors to the
south home, My neighbor on the east side of Pine Creek Road has
it running on two sides of their home. For safety reasons NO
pipeline should be running that near to any residence.
ET Rover had an existing pipeline two years ago. They sold it to
another company. How did they not know that they were going to
need one in two years? What big corporation does not have a
business plan that goes forward more than two years?
I cannot believe that another pipeline crossing Michigan has any
benefit to anyone outside of ET Rover. It is just a faster way of
depleting our natural resources by sending the gas to foreign
countries and not conserving what we have for the future.
Vegetation, noise
quality
RR3, RR9
Safety
RR11
Alternatives
RR10
Purpose and need
RR1
Benefits
RR1
180 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/16/2014
Commenter
Jeffery and Georiann
Martin
Town, State
St. Clairsville,
OH
Jeffery and Georiann

Martin
12/16/2014
Hugh G. Heuvelhorst
Comment
ID
Number
C877-1
C877-2
Fowlerville, MI
C878-1
Hugh G. Heuvelhorst
C878-2
Hugh G. Heuvelhorst
C878-3
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
This pipeline is routed to cross my property under two existing

pipelines, and very close to a third. I find this a potentially
dangerous situation.
It will also cross into an undisturbed portion of my land. It will leave
my entire farm unable to be developed in the future and effect the
value forever.
I purchased the property with my wife because we wanted forested
acreage for recreation, hunting, and maple sap production. We
enjoy and appreciate the outdoors.
We have been contacted that the E.T. Rover Pipeline is planned to
be installed on our property. It will affect the western 75 to 125 feet
of our property. Rover will remove trees from that portion of our
property. I have questioned the Rover landman why the pipeline is
not planned to be laid along the overhead electrical power line on
which our property borders. Of course, he is not a decision maker
and could not provide an answer to the question. I am not pleased
with the prospect of losing trees on the back edge of my property.
That portion of the property is the highest in elevation and has the
best stand of maple trees for sap collection. The remainder of the
wooded area is dominated by a forested wetland, and use is
limited. I stand to loose approximately 0.85 acre of my 5 wooded
acres.
As I look at the proposed layout of the pipeline, I find that the
pipeline generally parallels the overhead electric line in my
township and adjacent townships. I note that the pipeline crosses
the electrical company property, but then continues on private
lands. The last two sets of topographic maps and aerial photos
show other properties affected by the pipeline. In some instances,
the pipeline is laid out through small residential yards. Garages or
outbuildings will be displaced on properties MI-LI-075-000, MI-LI075-510, and MI-LI-073-540. Of course, these buildings could not
be replaced over the pipeline. Use of that portion of the property
would be lost to any development.
Safety
RR11
RR5
Vegetation,
recreation
RR3, RR8
Vegetation,
wetlands,
alternatives
RR2, RR3,
RR10
Property damage,
future plans to build
RR5
181 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/17/2014
Commenter
Comment
ID
Number
Hugh G. Heuvelhorst
C878-4
Hugh G. Heuvelhorst
C878-5
Fred Townsend
Fred Townsend
Town, State
Hadley Twp, MI
C879-1
C879-2
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
As discussed in your Environmental Impact Statement for the

planned Rover Pipeline Project, land use, socioeconomic
considerations, and cultural resources are factors in the to be
assessed in your review of the proposed pipeline. Additionally, you
acknowledge that clearing of forested areas, impacts on land use,
and impacts on property values and recreation are further
considerations in your review. It is clear to me that all of these
factors would be minimized if the pipeline were adjusted and laid
out on the electric company properties. Those properties are wide
enough to support the existing power lines, a natural gas pipeline,
and a second set of electrical lines if required in the future. Pipeline
construction would then follow a more direct route. Tree and
agricultural crop removal would be reduced. Far less property
owners would be involved. Therefore, overall project cost would be
substantially less.
I cant ascertain the need for the natural gas pipeline. However, I
implore you to consider utilizing the electric company properties for
placement of the pipeline if the project is approved.
In 1998, a 75-acre parcel of land in the S 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of
Section 10 in Hadley Township, Lapeer County, was deeded to the
Lapeer Land Conservancy by Doris Sutherland of the local
Sutherland family to be cared for as a nature sanctuary. The deed
specifies that the land "shall always remain in a natural state, no
improvements or changes of any kind or nature whatsoever shall
occur other than those necessary for ecological preservation of
biological diversity."
The Sutherland Nature Sanctuary includes various types of habitat:
mature oak, hickory, and beech forest (Beech trees are unusual in
being this far south in the state.), a wet forest with Red and Silver
Maples, maturing spruce, Red Pine, and White Pine tracts, cattail
marsh, sedge, dogwood, and willow wetland, 2 ponds, a small
stream, and a small prairie.
Socioeconomic
impacts, vegetation,
land use, recreation,
alternatives
RR3, RR5,
RR8. RR10
Alternatives
RR10
Conservation areas
RR3
Vegetation,
wetlands,
waterways
RR2, RR3
182 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/16/2014
Commenter
Comment
ID
Number
Fred Townsend
C879-3
Fred Townsend
C879-4
Fred Townsend
C879-5
Paul W. Wenk
Paul W. Wenk
Town, State
Chelsea, MI
C880-1
C880-2
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
The mission of the Sanctuary is to provide for the education,

enjoyment, and outdoor nature experience for the public. A
network of over 2 miles of walking trails provides the public access
to the various types of habitat. School groups, photographers,
hikers, and birders frequently visit the sanctuary. I myself have led
hikes at night in the springtime to experience the chorus of calling
frogs. I have led birding hikes and have identified 38 species of
birds in the wetlands, ponds, and forest in the sanctuary.
The construction and presence of a pipeline through the
Sutherland Nature Sanctuary would violate the deed restriction that
the land "shall always remain in a natural state". A pipeline corridor
through the sanctuary land would violate the mission of the
sanctuary to provide nature education, enjoyment, and a natural
experience for the public.
A cleared swath of land through the sanctuary and adjoining land
would fragment habitat and be a corridor for the establishment of
invasive species of plants such as Garlic Mustard, Autumn Olive,
buckthorn, and phragmites. Birds that prefer edge habitat such as
the Brown-headed Cowbird that parasitizes the nests of the Wood
Thrush and Ovenbird would have easier access to the interior
forest.
We already have an existing pipeline crossing this property to
which this route does not follow. The existing pipeline and
proposed pipeline starts near same location on south property line
then separate going north over steep hills ending hundreds of
yards west of current pipeline at north line fence.
This new route takes it through center of the two fifty five acre
parcels and will also effect soil stability on steep hills. This
deviation of route then zig and zags between near and around six
houses at next road crossing then returns very close to the existing
pipeline. Following the existing pipeline will take it near the end of
our farm fields and is not so hilly there and erosion not as likely.
This also can run the pipeline east of these homes at next road but
would involves some wetlands crossing on neighboring property as
existing pipeline dose now.
Recreation, wildlife
RR3, RR8
Conservation areas
RR3
impacts
RR3
Alternatives
RR10
Soil quality,
alternatives
RR7, RR10
183 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/14/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Paul W. Wenk
C880-3
Paul W. Wenk
C880-4
Paul W. Wenk
C880-5
Paul W. Wenk
C880-6
C881-1
C881-2
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
I also have great concerns as to the safety when this pipeline runs
near many home as it goes north there is a proposed church sight
it will cut across, also will run through state recreation areas in
Washtenaw and Livingston county 42 Gas Transfer pipeline has
no business near homes and businesses and people in general.
If a pipeline is really needed please reject this route as I am sure
they can come back with a better and safer route later.
I also have a problem with eminent domain as the main use of this
natural gas transfer pipeline is for export use or would not be 42 in
size. A 42natural gas transfer pipeline capacity greatly exceeds
the need of Michigan users in this area. As an American I believe it
is not warranted use of eminent domain.
Also there is already an existing utility easement not 1/2 mile from
this property that could possibly be used for this pipeline project.
These are but a few of my reasons that we oppose this proposed
pipeline and hope you will take this into your consideration in this
process.
That shows that a minimum of 53.8% of the gas coming into
Michigan is going to Canada. A far cry from the "any gas not
delivered to Michigan" which makes the Dawn hub appear as an
afterthought to store what is not needed in Michigan.
The Michigan Market segment is clearly a pipeline to transport the
gas to Dawn and the proposed Michigan interconnects are a poor
attempt to show a public benefit. The pipeline in no way benefits
the people of Michigan. Given Rover's own facts, I request that the
Michigan Market segment of the Rover pipeline be denied. If FERC
cannot deny a portion of the pipeline, then I request the entire
pipeline be denied and Rover can resubmit an application with the
Michigan Market segment removed. Rover has misrepresented
data during the entire prefiling and should not be rewarded for this
behavior.
Safety
RR11
Safety
RR11
Eminent domain
RR1
Alternatives
RR10
Benefits
RR1
Benefits, Purpose
and need
RR1
184 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
12/16/2014
Douglas M. Gault
Parkersburg,
WV
C882-1
12/16/2014
Howard P. McCauley
Mineral Wells,
WV
C883-1
12/16/2014
Carl Reynolds
Mineral Wells,
WV
C884-1
12/16/2014
Cody Stimpert
Lewisville, OH
C885-1
12/16/2014
Ross McPherson
C886-1
12/16/2014
James Wethington
Mineral Wells,
WV
Red Lion, PA
C887-1
12/16/2014
Esci Gonzalez
Allentown, PA
C888-1
12/16/2014
12/16/2014
Aaron M. Klump
Michael T. Carrell
Wind Gap, PA
Pen Argyl, PA
C889-1
C890-1
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
As a local resident I support Rover pipeline. I am aware that union

workers will be doing the work. I support the union workforce. They
go through extensive training and are skilled laborers. This pipeline
will generate jobs, long term jobs and will stimulate the economy. I
am confident the landscape will be returned to the same or better
condition. All while being performed with strict safety standards
and practices by drug-free union memebers.
Will provide good wages for workers who will spend money on food
and lodging for each town. Will help the towns economy. Workers
will be highly trained and safe. Brings in tax revenues which will
help the areas the pipeline goes through.
The Rover pipeline is a good project for our economy because it
will create good paying jobs and bring more economic growth to
the community.
Creation of 10,000 jobs would be great for the United States
especially when all you hear is US jobs going overseas to other
countries.
Please let the Rover pipeline happen it means good jobs for local
people in our state.
This Rover pipeline would be good for local residences by
providing lower cost energy to the area. The community would
benefit by having good paying jobs for the citizens. I am for this
project because these jobs cannot be outsourced to foreign
countries. The highly trained and safety skilled workforce in this
region would benefit greatly and have less injuries and complete
the project on time and correctly done. This pipeline would provide
long term energy reliability.
I think in construction this project will provide more work for our
community and others and provide long term energy reliability. I
think in doing and making this project happen will provide and
outcome where many will benefit if not all.
Good luck, I support this project.
Good luck, I support this pipeline if it will bring jobs to local union
workers.
Jobs, economic
benefits
RR5
Jobs, tax revenues
RR5
Jobs, economic
benefits
RR5
Jobs
RR5
Jobs
RR5
Jobs, economic
RR5, RR11
Jobs, economic
RR5, RR11
Support
Jobs
RR1
RR5
185 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Bath, PA
C891-1
Berwick, PA
C892-1
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Many construction workers are out of work and this job would help
greatly.
It would be beneficial for our community and it would stimulate a lot
of good paying jobs.
I believe its good for community bringing good jobs to the area and
to union workers and good wages to the workers.
It will be good for our community. More work. Brings us closer to
energy independence.
Jobs
RR5
Jobs, economic
benefits
Jobs, economic
benefits
Jobs
RR5
RR5
Its about time that we source energy solutions that do not include
the funding of middle eastern countries that only seem to be
interested in funding the radical ideals of militant muslim groups.
Moving us closer to energy independence.
It would be great if the pipeline went through PA. Create jobs for a
lot of men who are struggling to support their families. Create some
disposable income to stimulate local economy and more tax
dollars.
I have been a local resident of the Lehigh Valley for 34 years. I
believe that the pipeline is going to bring more jobs to the Lehigh
Valley and surrounding area. It will also help making the
environmrnt a lot cleaner by not burning coal for fuel.
The economy can't keep growing if projects like this one are not
started. Let's do this!
Keep Ohio working.
Economic benefits
RR5
Jobs, economic
benefits, tax
revenues
RR5
Jobs
RR5
Economic benefits
RR5
Jobs
RR5
Support
RR1
Jobs, economic
benefits
Economic benefits
Jobs
Jobs
RR5
12/16/2014
Ryan George
12/16/2014
Zachary S. Zaloga
12/16/2014
Scott Personette
Hamburg, PA
C893-1
12/16/2014
Jose A. Molina
C894-1
12/16/2014
William Miller
East
Stroudsburg,
PA
Allentown, PA
12/16/2014
Scott Heffelfinger
Emmaus, PA
C896-1
12/16/2014
Corey L. Escher
Bath, PA
C897-1
12/16/2014
Ken Meridieth
Cincinnati, OH
C898-1
12/16/2014
Jim Stevens
C899-1
12/16/2014
Mark Taylor
New Richmond,
OH
Otway, OH
12/16/2014
Denver Williams
Peebles, OH
C901-1

Rover Pipeline.
Jobs would help economy.
12/16/2014
12/16/2014
12/16/2014
Kevin B. Estep
Warren Jones
Kevin Kirk
Milford, OH
Seaman, OH
Georgetown,
OH
C902-1
C903-1
C904-1
Economy.
We need work.
Put work in Ohio.
C895-1
C900-1
186 of 247
RR5
RR5
RR5
RR5
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Cincinnati, OH
C905-1
Winchester, OH
C906-1
12/16/2014
Adam Colwell
12/16/2014
Nanette L. Knechtly
12/16/2014
Mark Woodruff
Blanchester,
OH
C907-1
12/16/2014
Cory Price
C908-1
12/16/2014
12/16/2014
12/16/2014
12/16/2014
Larry Ezsol
Jason Conley
Shawn Barrett
Jeffery K. Blythe
12/16/2014
Gregg Harless
New
Philadelphia,
OH
Hamilton, OH
Batavia, OH
Augusta, KY
Manchester,
OH
Hillsboro, OH
12/16/2014
Larry Holmes
Huber Heights,
OH
C914-1
12/16/2014
Jason Rigsby
Peebles, OH
C915-1
12/16/2014
Terry J. Reed
Xenia, OH
C916-1
12/16/2014
12/16/2014
Kevin Hogge
Kenneth Reynolds
Peebles, OH
Dayton, OH
C917-1
C918-1
C909-1
C910-1
C911-1
C912-1
C913-1
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1

Rover Pipeline.
I believe these jobs would help the local economies in the
proposed area of this project and is much needed opportunity for
jobs.
My opinion is that this would be a job that hopefully would lower
fuel prices, help put a lot of people back to work. All and all help
boost the economy.
This would be great for the workers in Ohio. I definitely support the
pipeline.
Support
RR1
Jobs, economic
benefits
RR5
Jobs, economic
benefits
RR5
Jobs
RR5
Economic benefits
Jobs
Economic benefits
Support
RR5
RR5
RR5
RR1
Support
RR1
Jobs
RR5
Economic benefits
RR5
Economic benefits,
jobs
RR5
Jobs
Jobs
RR5
RR5
Our economy has issues and we need this to boost the economy.
Job will help the growth of surrounding areas.
I think it would be a great job for the economy.
Rover Pipeline.
Rover Pipeline.
If the ET Rover pipeline is approved it will create jobs as well as
help the economy. Politicians are always promising things while
running for office. For once so something for someone other than
yourself.
It will bring business to commmunities and jobs that Ohio
desperately needs, not only to pipeline but surrounding areas that
are travelled to and supply lodging. It will support a better life for
many Ohioans and surrounding states.
To bring more employment for the area and to bring the rate of
crime down. There are many local places that could use
improvement as far as business and residential areas.
We need work.
If in fact its going to bring employment to our union workers and to
Ohio I am willing to work.
187 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
12/16/2014
Dylan Lemaster
12/16/2014
Ronald D. Carter
12/16/2014
John Freels
12/16/2014
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Williamsport,
OH
Springfield, OH
C919-1
Dayton, OH
C921-1
Robert W. Johnson
New Lebanon,
OH
C922-1
12/16/2014
Elizabeth Woods
New Madison,
OH
C923-1
12/16/2014
Kyle Newman
Piketon, OH
C924-1
12/16/2014
Raymond Collins
C925-1
12/16/2014
Kimberly Allen
12/16/2014
Rick Napier
Bloomingburg,
OH
Waynesville,
OH
Lewisburg, OH
12/16/2014
David Gayheart
Urbuna, OH
C928-1
12/16/2014
Corey A. Rowland
Warren, OH
C929-1
12/16/2014
James D. Dunbar
C930-1
12/16/2014
Joesphine L. Taylor
Leavittsburg,
OH
Youngstown,
OH
C920-1
C926-1
C927-1
C931-1
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
I think it is a good idea because it will give more people a job and
bring in more money for the community.
I would like for it to be approved because it would mean more work
for the unions and it would be good for the economy.
I think it should be approved. It could provide many jobs for those
unemplyed, therefore making it possible to spend into other
businesses. It would help the economy.
I have three sons and a daughter, any work coming to this area is
need to stimulate our economy to keep our families working and
making a good wage so yes I'm in support of this project.
Please take into consideration that this pipeline would generate
jobs and income for other within the area of this line. Hotels and
restaurants and other business will generate more revenue so
please put this plan in motion.
It would deeply help our workforce and would give us a lot of work.
I would really like to see this go through.
I support the pipeline. Its giving jobs in my area would be all
around. I have never worked pipeline but would give it a chance.
I support the pipeline. Great work for the community.
Economic benefits,
jobs
Economic benefits,
jobs
Economic benefits,
jobs
RR5
Economic benefits,
jobs
RR5
Economic benefits,
jobs
RR5
Jobs
RR5
Jobs
RR5
Benefits
RR1
I support the pipeline because it brings a lot of work to the

communities it comes through.
I am all for the pipeline to come to Ohio. We need to work here in
Ohio.
I feel it is important. It will supply jobs, union/non-union, for many
many years to come. Also it will keep us nondependent on foreign
fuel plus it will be cleaner than fossil fuel.
Jobs!
Jobs
RR5
Jobs
RR5
Economic benefits,
jobs
RR5
Jobs
RR5
Jobs
RR5
Our area needs the pipeline and we need local workers on the job.
I'm a labor of local 935 and I need the work. We also need to train
our men and women for the job. This will be a future for our grand
kids.
188 of 247
RR5
RR5
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
12/16/2014
Blythe Caban
12/16/2014
12/16/2014
12/16/2014
Maurice Harbin
Tim Brown
Brian Palmer
12/16/2014
12/16/2014
LC Williams
Ypatia Giakolemas
12/16/2014
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Jobs
RR5
Jobs, tax revenues

Jobs
Jobs, economic
benefits
RR5
RR5
RR5
Jobs
Jobs, economic
benefits
Jobs, economic
benefits
RR5
RR5
Jobs, economic
benefits
Economic benefits
RR5
RR5
Youngstown,
OH
Warren, OH
Warren, OH
Youngstown,
OH
C932-1
For work to help the area. To help us.
C933-1
C934-1
C935-1
Warren, OH
Mt. Vernon, OH
C936-1
C937-1
Nancy Sowders
Howard, OH
C938-1
12/16/2014
Brandon Milner
Akron, OH
C939-1
12/16/2014
Cody Dole
C940-1
12/16/2014
12/16/2014
Robert Hines
Travis Crigan
C941-1
C942-1
This will support local unions and their members.

I support the local union for jobs.
Jobs
Jobs
RR5
RR5
12/16/2014
Raymond Wright
Columbiana,
OH
Grove City, OH
Pickerington,
OH
Barnesville, OH
Bring jobs to union and non-union. Taxes for county.

Work for myself and others. This brings good work to our area.
It will bring more good paying union jobs to the area. The local
economy will flourish, hotels, gas stations, food stores. And its long
term work that we need in the area.
Brings jobs to Warren, Ohio.
Pipeline will be a good source of jobs which in turn will help our
economy.
I believe the pipeline to be a 'win' on many varied levels. It will
bring jobs to the proposed areas - good paying jobs to stimulate
the economy, both on a local/state and national levels. The
pipeline will bring energy to the surrounding areas making us
independent of foreigh energy sources.
I completely support the pipeline. The pipeline will boost the local
economy and bring thousands of jobs.
Pipeline = money.
C943-1
Jobs
RR5
12/16/2014
Bobby Hupp
Sandusky, OH
C944-1
Jobs
RR5
12/16/2014
Clayton Shepherd
Bethesda, OH
C945-1
Pipelines create numberous jobs for years to come. Processing

plants, compressor stations, new roads, etc. We need these jobs!
I would like to see this get approved, it will open better
opportunities.
I personally have worked pipeline now for 3 years and have saw
nothing but positive things come to the local people who have to be
around these jobs when they come through our state. Roads are
now being fixed. New buildings (hotels, school, businesses) are
being built. The local union halls for once in many years are empty,
every member is out to work, which means th union halls are
growing bigger with new members every year.
Jobs, economic
benefits
RR5
189 of 247
RR5
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Columbus, OH
C946-1
Hilliard, OH
C947-1
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
Jobs, economic
benefits
RR5
Jobs, economic
benefits
RR5
Jobs, economic
benefits
RR5
Jobs, economic
benefits
Jobs, economic
benefits, tax
revenues
RR5
Jobs, economic
benefits, tax
revenues
RR5
Jobs, tax revenues
RR5
Tax revenues
Jobs
RR5
RR5
Jobs
RR5
12/16/2014
Robert Williams
12/16/2014
Alex Stemor
12/16/2014
Laura Stevens
Mcarther, OH
C948-1
12/16/2014
Raymond Spears
C949-1
12/16/2014
Gregory Blake
Martinsburg,
WV
Adena, OH
C950-1
12/16/2014
Valeen Snider
Tiltonsville, OH
C951-1
12/16/2014
William Davis
Belpre, OH
C952-1
12/16/2014
12/16/2014
Debbie Blake
Tom Gram
McMechen, WV
Dillonvale, OH
C953-1
C954-1
12/16/2014
Mark Henry
C955-1
12/16/2014
12/16/2014
Michael Carr
Derek Dempewolf
C956-1
C957-1
Create good paying jobs.

Jobs
Jobs
RR5
RR5
12/16/2014
Heather Dempewolf
St. Clairsville,
OH
Bridgeport, OH
New
Martinsville, WV
New
Martinsville, WV
If living in the pipeline area will allow me to work on the project it

will be good for me and my familiy. I need the work and it will be
good for Ohio.
I support the pipeline in Ohio because it would be a good boost for
our local economy and all of the little mom and pop stores by the
cities it is going through. It would also be a good opportunity for
many workers in the unions throughout Ohio.
Bringing this to Ohio will ensure many jobs and more money for the
community. The laborers will be spending money in that area. Two
wonderful benefits right there!
Good for the community and in the creation of jobs. Local resident
that I would like to see this come to fruition.
The Rover pipeline will create 10,000 good paying jobs for locals
like mysele. Also will be good for our local economy and
communities with the revenues it will generate. As well as bringing
us closer to energy independence.
I am a local resident in support of the Rover line. This creates jobs
and revenues for my area. The pipeline company works with the
utmost respect and safety measures. I am confident the land and
residents will be treated well and the property will be restored to
the same or better appearance/standards.
Create jobs that will provide a good living for the community and
taxes to upgrade our schools.
Taxes to help fund school systems.
Build it union. Create jobs for local residents that provide pensions
and health care.
C958-1
Pipelines create numerous jobs for years to come. Processing

plants, compressor stations, new roads, etc. We need these jobs!
Jobs
RR5
190 of 247
RR5
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Jobs, tax revenues
RR5
Jobs
RR5
Jobs
RR5
Jobs
RR5
Jobs
Economic benefits
RR5
RR5
Jobs
RR5
Jobs
Jobs
RR5
RR5
Economic benefits,
jobs
Jobs
RR5
RR5
Jobs
RR5
Economic benefits,
jobs
RR5
12/16/2014
Taylor Hood
Wellsburg, WV
C959-1
12/16/2014
Justin T. Gray
Wheeling, WV
C960-1
12/16/2014
Mark Henry
C961-1
12/16/2014
David Swingley
C962-1
Union job support.
12/16/2014
12/16/2014
Brian Hanson
Greg Ferguson
St. Clairsville,
OH
Bellefontaine,
OH
Marietta, OH
New
Philadelphia,
OH
Build it union. Create jobs for local residents that provide pensions
and health care.
Will bring a lot of new construction and jobs.
C963-1
C964-1
12/16/2014
Arthur S. Franklin
12/16/2014
12/16/2014
I support local union jobs for local unions.

Because I would like to see you break ground before the 36" line.
And only if the majority of the people are working are from Ohio.
Ohio needs to put money back in Ohio. You have changed your
route twice and I hope you can figure out what you need. Just go
the extra mile and spend the money to find a safe route.
I am supporting this is particular for the jobs it will open up for the
community.
Give me a job. Drill it!
With my people falling on hard times in this day and age I feel a
project like this has the potential to better many lives and families.
This will be a vital resource to the local economy. Creates more
work for everyone.
I support the pipeline because it creates more jobs and it will help
keep the unions working strong.
I support this job to go through and be a good project job for our
union workers to work a long season.
Because this is a way we make a living its a great opportunity for
future work. Plus its a great way for our economy to make some
money.
Columbus, OH
C965-1
Joseph McHale
Mark Presutto
Bellevue, KY
Canton, OH
C966-1
C967-1
12/16/2014
Rachel Shaffer
Cargington, OH
C968-1
12/16/2014
Zach Rutherford
C969-1
12/16/2014
Ed Schulte
12/16/2014
Joshua P. Busch
Berlin Heights,
OH
Strongsville,
OH
Windsor, OH
C970-1
C971-1
191 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Aurora, IN
C972-1
12/16/2014
Dennis Underwood
12/16/2014
12/16/2014
12/16/2014
Alex Guillard
Cole Dutton
Dan McFaul
Galena, OH
Macksburg, OH
Euclid, OH
C973-1
C974-1
C975-1
12/16/2014
Joe Chinchar
Painesville, OH
C976-1
12/16/2014
David Sheppard
Marengo, OH
C977-1
12/16/2014
Frankie Longworth
Franklin, OH
C978-1
12/16/2014
Joseph Rocco
C979-1
12/16/2014
Dana D. Martini
West Chester,
OH
Dennison, OH
12/16/2014
Gerald Ransom
12/16/2014
12/16/2014
C980-1
Steven J. Groom
Canal Fulton,
OH
Columbus, OH
C981-1
C982-1
Thomas L. Guinther
Coshocton, OH
C983-1
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
As the training director for the Ohio Laborers Training Center, I

have the opportunity to meet a lot of laborers within the state of
Ohio, and I have found that some of there people are barely getting
a 1000 hours eaach years. At their rate of pay, that is $26,000 to
28 or $29,000 per year. The gov't (state and federal) is concerned
about spending money on public assistance programs but yet is
apprehensive about approving a project that could help so many
people without spending gov't money.
I think it would be great to have 10,000 new jobs around the state.
I think it would be great for local communities and families.
I am all for creating union jobs for skilled union workers in Ohio
regardless of what type of work it is. It's good for the economy and
it's good to have skilled workers on a jobsite to ensure quality work
is performed.
This will be a great skillful job opportunity for union workers. It will
bring money into Ohio and the economy. I would come work if this
pipeline is approved.
I support the Rover pipeline, it would be good for the economy. Put
people to work. Help people support their families.
Rover Pipeline.
Lets do it.
Jobs
RR5
Jobs
Jobs
Economic benefits,
jobs
RR5
RR5
RR5
Economic benefits,
jobs
RR5
Economic benefits,
jobs
Support
RR5
RR1
Support
RR1
Bring taxes and revenues, 10,000 jobs to locals, good for the local
communities.
My family need this.
Tax revenues, jobs
RR5
Jobs
RR5
Possible revenues to support local schools. This will give my fellow

union workers continued employment. We dont need overseas oil
and gas anymore. We will have more ability to provide, store, and
produce our own fuels. USA jobs + USA workers - USA dollars.
Union job for Ohio's union.
Tax revenues, jobs
RR5
Jobs
RR5
192 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
12/16/2014
Robert R. Meese
12/16/2014
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
C984-1
I support the ET Rover pipeline for a better living and a more better
living and a more better economy.
Economic benefits
RR5
Odell Brown
New
Philadelphia,
OH
Hartville, OH
C985-1
Economic benefits,
jobs
RR5
12/16/2014
Michael L. Beavers
Canton, OH
C986-1
Economic benefits,
jobs
RR5
12/16/2014
Megan Dolly
C987-1
Corey Dornon
C988-1
Economic benefits,
jobs
Economic benefits,
jobs
RR5
12/16/2014
Mineral Wells,
WV
Jerusalem, OH
12/17/2014
Elaine Goetz
Athens, OH
C989-1
Permission to
Survey
RR1
12/11/2014
Robert DeMil
This is what Ohio needs. With our jobs our children have no future,
and no life goals, no chance for college, better standard of living
and our communities will not grow.
The economic windfall for the surrounding communities will help
revive slow or stagnant local economies. I have seen how they
grow with an influx of good paying jobs. This part of the country
can use more of that.
It will be a benefit to our community by providing better paying
jobs.
Because of these closures our communities have suffered greatly
over the past 2 decades of job loss. The resurgence of the oil and
gas Industry and the creation of jobs from projects like the Rover
pipeline are changing these communities where we live. These
new jobs have helped restore the hope these communities have for
a brighter future. Through local apprenticeship opportunities many
of the displaced workers from the previously mentioned industries
have found work as a direct result of projects like the Rover
Pipeline. These jobs have helped restore the self-image of many of
these workers and the pride of our families In our local area. As a
resident of this area and a proud union member who has benefitted
from other pipeline projects.
The proposed Rover Pipeline appears to travel across the western
edge of our Ohio University Eastern Campus. By policy and statute
we do not and will not allow the proposed Rover Pipeline to be on
or under Ohio University lands.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission needs to focus on
renewable energy and not fracking. This is short term and is
certainly not renewable, the fall out of water being polluted for
years to come can only hurt our families, livestock and crops.
Fracking
RR1
C990-1
193 of 247
RR5
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/17/2014
Commenter
Comment
ID
Number
Robert DeMil
C990-2
Robert DeMil
C990-3
Robert DeMil
C990-4
Robert DeMil
C990-5
Robert DeMil
C990-6
Robert Sargent
Robert Sargent
Town, State
Metamora, MI
C991-1
C991-2
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
This pipe line will destroy our woods and wetlands. The trees that
are standing now in our woods have been there for hundreds of
years and our nature balance will be disrupted. We have wetlands
that support our drainage system for the heavy spring rains that will
protect our homes, farms and roads. It also will disrupt the wildlife
that lives in these areas.
The soil over the existing pipe lines that are already in have proven
to dry out and the crops have a hard time growing if at all. The
fields that are tiled are disrupted and dont function as well.
You cannot build over the pipe lines or the easements on either
side of the pipe lines. This devalues our land! What about the leeks
in the pipe line? What long term effects will occur from them? No
one wants to live next to a pipe line, do you? Reminds me of the
true story of Erin Brockovich offering the chemical company a
glass of water from the polluted farm water that they created.
When she told them where it came from they put their glass down
and refused to drink it.
Companies like Rover, which is a private corporation, profiting
them have no right to use intimidating tactics such as eminent
domain and having large organizations like the union to scare us
into giving up our rights as US citizens.
In closing, we already have five major pipe lines running through
our state. We do not need more. This corporation is out to make
money for themselves and do not care about destroying our farm
lands, wetlands and woods that we so love. We want to preserve
what we have left.
This project will not only negatively impact my sanctity of my home,
but it will cause a significant drop in property value, risk the safety
of my family, and disruption to the wildlife living on my property.
The negative impact to sanctity of my home would be as follows: 1.
Construction noise and disruption will last for months 2. Burning of
stumps and debris 3. Relief valve noise will be audible outside and
inside my home 4. Pipeline maintenance will continuously result in
trespassing on my property.
Vegetation,
wetlands, wildlife
RR2, RR3
Soil quality
RR7
Property values,
safety
RR5, RR11
Eminent domain
RR1
Purpose and need
RR1
Property values,
wildlife, safety
RR3, RR5,
RR11
Noise quality, air

quality,
maintainence
impacts
RR1, RR9
194 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/17/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Robert Sargent
C991-3
Robert Sargent
C991-4
Robert Sargent
C991-5
Shirley Kautman-Jones
Goodrich, MI
C992-1
C992-2
C992-3
C992-4
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
Significant drop in property value has been proved for these

reasons: 1. Over 5000 incidents involving pipelines have taken
place 2. Destruction of natural landscape lowers property value
Safety risks to all people surrounding the pipeline have been
proven: 1. Pipeline explosions have occurred 2. Gas will be
released into the air and will cause contamination and possible
heath risks to humans and wildlife.
Disruption of the wildlife living on my property would be as follows:
1. Disrupting the soil, eco-system would affect these animals
environment and water supply a. Deer, rabbits, pheasants, quail,
salamanders, frogs, toads, song birds, squirrels
I am requesting their application be denied and ask that they
reroute following the I-69 corridor as they make their route to
Canada for this project.
The planned route will disturb many acres of sensitive wetlands
and land that has been preserved as natural areas for many, many
years in Atlas Township. Many species of wildlife live and flourish
here. How many people can say they can hear owls at night? See
deer, turkey, coyotes and an occasional "large" cat where they
live? They exist here because we do not disturb them. Many
communities has seen the decline of frogs in their surroundings, as
frogs are an indicator species. We have a healthy population of
frogs because of the natural habitat.
I do not see the need for this pipeline as it is currently planned.
Canada will be receive the major benefit of the gas that this
pipeline will carry, while disturbing almost zero percent of their land
mass.
Rover has sited safety concerns as to why they will not follow the I69 corridor right of way. How can it be safe to travel near homes in
our community but not follow the large, wide ROW that I-69 has
available?
Safety, property
values
RR5, RR11
Safety, wildlife
RR3, RR11
Ecosystem impacts,
wildlife
RR3
Alternatives
RR10
Wetlands, wildlife
RR2, RR3
Purpose and need,

benefits
RR1
RR10, RR11
195 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
C992-5
C992-6
12/16/2014
12/16/2014
Rob Reiners
Christina Mccloy
Okeana, OH
Parkersburg,
WV
Woodsfield, OH
C993-1
C994-1
12/16/2014
Bradley Davis
12/16/2014
12/16/2014
Cornelius Wiley
Eric Hall
Wheeling, WV
St. Clairsville,
OH
C996-1
C997-1
12/16/2014
12/16/2014
Joey Hendershot
Derek T. Pomaranski
Powhatan, OH
Wheeling, WV
C998-1
C999-1
12/16/2014
Douglas A. Lucas
Wheeling, WV
C1000-1
12/16/2014
Jason Stollings
C1001-1
12/16/2014
Tony Presley
Parkersburg,
WV
Mineral Wells,
WV
C995-1
C1002-1
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Our Township has supported a rural living atmosphere (3-acre

minimum) so that we may live in a peaceful, clean, natural way of
life - short of sewers and overgrowth of land mass. Following
ordinances to govern how property is developed,observing
wetlands and natural features, trees, vegetation. This proposed
pipeline goes against everything that we have supported and lived.
This pipeline will be an intrusion and an encumbrance to private
property for many, many years. Disturbed property can never be
restored to what it was, despite claims and promises made by
Rover.
We need work to help the economy.
I think this would be a good job to bring us closer to energy
independence.
This is something that will create 10,000 or more jobs. It would be
every good and benefit our community as well. Rover pipeline
would help out every worker across the country.
Good for the economy.
This pipeline would create a lot of jobs for the area. It needs to
happen. If it doesn't happen, then obviously someone doesn't like
money.
Local resident.
I am in support of this proposed project as a means of creating
more local jobs.
The Rover pipeline would have many benefits to the United States.
It will bring us closer to energy independence. It will create 1000s
of jobs and stimulate many states and communities in the process
of building it and maintaining the pipeline and processing plants.
Working on the pipeline and building plants requires a trained and
skilled workforce. Will provide long-term energy reliability and a
potential new source of domestic energy.
This is vital for our state as well as communities to bring
employment and long term energy source.
Local resident.
Aesthetics,
RR2, RR3,
RR8
Property damage
RR5
Economic impacts
Benefits
RR5
RR1
Jobs, economic
benefits
RR5
Economic benefits
Jobs
RR5
RR5
Support
Jobs
RR1
RR5
Jobs, reliability
RR5, RR11
Jobs, reliability
RR5, RR11
Support
RR1
196 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
12/16/2014
George Kiley
Mineral Wells,
WV
C1003-1
12/16/2014
Cody Charriere
Belmont, OH
C1004-1
12/16/2014
Joshua Black
Toronto, OH
C1005-1
12/16/2014
Jeffery Billeter
C1006-1
12/16/2014
Donald R. Keeton
New
Martinsville, WV
Vinton, OH
12/16/2014
Zachariah Whisler
Moundsville,
WV
C1008-1
12/16/2014
Duane Ogilbee
C1009-1
12/16/2014
Kenneth S. Ice
12/16/2014
Zach Marty
Powhatan Pt,
OH
New
Martinsville, WV
Woodsfield, OH
12/16/2014
Cody Rhodes
12/16/2014
Mark Doubar
Powhatan Pt,
OH
Rayland, OH
C1007-1
C1010-1
C1011-1
C1012-1
C1013-1
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
Our country has been striving for fuel independence and the Rover
pipeline is one more part of that freedom. Jobs will be created, tax
revenues to rebuild our communitiies. Its a win, win situation.
Approve this pipeline means you are ready to inprove thousands
way of life and our state.
I strongly believe that the Rover pipeline is a major step in the right
direction. To open up jobs and open our market will induce a great
impact on our economy nation wide. Not to mention all the small
local areas that will see a big boost in revenue allowing for a better
standard of living. This is exactly what we need to get a better
more stable way of life. The cost of power will drop and it will
reduce our impact on the environment.
Produces money for the local economy and provides good paying
jobs.
Local resident. Good for our community. Brings good work.
Jobs, economic
benefits
RR5
Economic benefits,
revenues
RR5
Economic benefits,
jobs
Economic benefits,
jobs
Economic benefits,
jobs
RR5
We need this so it will help the union craft with work. It will also
help the community with economic growth and money for
businesses in the community.
workforce. New source of domestic energy. Long term reliable
energy. Vital to local economy.
Will be good for all locals and the community. Will create jobs for
people. Vital for the economy.
Local resident. Good for the community.
This job could really help the people and workers around the area.
It will supply good wages to workers which in turn will be spent at
local businesses.
It would create work for the working class to feed their family and
help the economy thrive.
Be nice to have the work to the area and to build the local
economy.
197 of 247
RR5
RR5
Economic benefits,
jobs, reliability
RR5, RR11
Economic benefits,
jobs
Economic benefits
RR5
RR5
Economic benefits,
jobs
RR5
Economic benefits,
jobs
Economic benefits,
jobs
RR5
RR5
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
New
Martinsville, WV
St. Clairsville,
OH
Parkersburg,
WV
Tad, WV
Comment
ID
Number
12/16/2014
James T. Eddy
12/16/2014
Scott A Conley
12/16/2014
Dillion Davis
12/16/2014
Eddie Bias
12/16/2014
Tony Tyler
Martins Ferry,
OH
C1018-1
12/16/2014
Jill Thomas
Salesville, OH
C1019-1
12/16/2014
Zachary Orum
Barnesville, OH
C1020-1
12/16/2014
Kathryn A. Tallman
Parkersburg,
WV
C1021-1
12/16/2014
Debra A. West
C1022-1
12/16/2014
Timothy Huffman
Mineral Wells,
WV
Clarington, OH
12/16/2014
Erika Davidson
Shadyside, OH
C1024-1
12/16/2014
Grace Wineman
St. Clairsville,
OH
C1025-1
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Jobs, reliability
RR5, RR11
Economic benefits
RR5
C1014-1
Local work. Provide long term energy.
C1015-1
Good for the community. Brings us closer to energy independence.
C1016-1
Good for our local workers.
Jobs
RR5
C1017-1
Many people in this area depend on jobs like this. It would create
many jobs that people need it.
I think the pipeline coming through is a good thing for this area. It
will bring a lot of work and opportunities for local people and the
economy.
I believe this would be great for us union workers not only for us
but for the local communities. It will help small business pople in all
areas.
I feel the Rover pipeline would be great for our area. Basically what
it comes down to is local jobs for local people. The positive impact
in my opinion outways any potential minimal risks.
I think this would be a great prospect for the future of our country, it
would create jobs. It would provide a long-term energy reliability. It
could provide a lot of economic stimulus for our area and
surrounding areas.
Local resident, this would be good for our community. It will provide
good jobs and increase economic stimulus to our area.
I think that putting in the Rover pipeline would be great for our area
and local communities. With the loss of so many jobs in our area
now, this would be a good way to get back on tract and provide for
our families. We area goood workforce and do things that right
way so why not let us take on this job.
Estimated creation of 10,000 good paying jobs. Brings us closer to
energy independence. Highly skilled and trained workforce.
I belive anything thats going to bring jobs and money into the
valley is good. As long as its a union workforce and not out of
state wokrers taking our jobs and money.
Jobs
RR5
Economic benefits,
jobs
RR5
Economic benefits,
jobs
RR5
Jobs
RR5
Jobs, reliability,
economic benefits
RR5, RR11
Economic benefits,
jobs
Economic benefits,
jobs
RR5
Jobs, benefits
RR1, RR5
Jobs
RR5
C1023-1
198 of 247
RR5
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Would provide work for thousands of employees and would brings

in tax revenue for local commmunities.
I work in the union and it would be nice to have the work.
Jobs, tax revenues
RR5
Jobs
RR5
Jobs
RR5
Benefits
RR1
Benefits
RR1
12/16/2014
Ashley Clinton
Sardinia, OH
C1026-1
12/16/2014
Josh Trissel
C1027-1
12/16/2014
Taylor Sing
12/16/2014
Michael S. Criner
Lewis Center,
OH
Canal Fulton,
OH
Mineral Wells,
WV
C1029-1
Local jobs for the union. I'm down to do the work call me up good
look.
Good for our community.
12/16/2014
Michael S. Criner
Mineral Wells,
WV
C1030-1
Good for our community.
12/16/2014
Terrie M. Kiley
Mineral Wells,
WV
C1031-1
The Rover pipeline will bring much needed economic stimulus to

many areas, as well as thousands of good paying jobs. As the
mother whose son works pipeline and the sisters of a brother who
works pipeline I ask that you approve this project right away.
Jobs, economic
benefits
RR5
12/16/2014
Duane Pearson
Mineral Wells,
WV
C1032-1
A job like this using trained loaborers would be outstanding for our
members and their families. With this kind of work creating so
many jobs would pump money into our community and this area
would really benefits from this kind of resource. Using properly
trained apprentice and journey man is the only way to go with this
kind of work. Our members got the best training available from
book work in classroom to hands on training by qualifie instructors.
Jobs, economic
benefits
RR5
12/16/2014
Matthew S. Milhoan
Long Bottom,
OH
C1033-1
Not only good for the states this pipeline will go through it will boost
the economy in each county this line will run through. By using
union workers you get the best workers in the country, with best
equiptment made to make the work get done as efficient as
possible and as safe as possible.
Jobs, economic
benefits
RR5
12/16/2014
Tony Tyler
Martins Ferry,
OH
C1034-1
Jobs, economic
benefits
RR5
12/16/2014
Daniel Mitchell
Dillonvale, OH
C1035-1
Jobs, economic
RR5, RR11
12/16/2014
Tamara Marriner
Moundsville,
WV
C1036-1
I think the pipeline coming through is a good thing for this area. It
will bring a lot of work and opportunities for local people and the
economy.
Local resident. Vital to our areas economy. Good for our
community. Will provide long term energy reliability. Highly skilled
and trained workforce.
Union workforce go through schooling. Union workers live in these
communities.
Jobs
RR5
C1028-1
199 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
12/16/2014
Glenda Ellis
Bethesda, OH
C1037-1
12/16/2014
Elaine Keith
C1038-1
12/16/2014
Chris Wolford
Mineral Wells,
WV
Howard, OH
12/17/2014
Freedom Twp,
MI
C1045-1
C1046-1
C1046-2
C1046-3
C1046-4
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
The Rover pipeline project would significantly help our state and all
local residents. I am a LIUNA worker and we are trained, skilled to
do the job.
Energy independence is very important to our country and we
should do everything we can to achieve this!
I believe all safety and hazards will be monitored. I believe and
support economic growth not only jobs, but also tax revenues for
schools that is much needed. I believe and support that this is a
win win situation for everyone involved. To bring us closer to
energy independence is a huge plus. No brainer 10,000 jobs
10,000 less on assistance.
We are requesting that the route of the pipeline which currently
dissects our 21 acres, and runs through our woods, wetlands and
streams, be moved to a point further north on our property. We
have outlined, in balded black, the area we are referencing on the
attached photograph. We make this request in an attempt to
redirect the damage as far away from the environmentally sensitive
areas of our property, and our home, as we can .
There is no true necessity for Michigan or this region for this
pipeline. We already have eight pipelines supplying us and more
than enough underground storage capacity for reserves. Two other
pipelines are proposed that will be much less destructive.
Rover is not following the siting requirements as set forth by FERC.
They are planning a path that traverses woods, wetlands and
sensitive environmental areas with little regard in Michigan as seen
through the various comments filed.
No evidence is visible that existing corridors have even been given
serious consideration in our area. Even though there is a power
line corridor 2 miles east of our property as well as the Sunoco
Panhandle Eastern natural gas pipeline corridor 1.25 miles east,
this is now owned by Energy Transfer, parent company to Rover.
They are looking for the cheapest and easiest path.
Jobs, benefits
RR5
Benefits
RR1
Jobs, tax revenues
RR5
Wetlands,
Vegetation,
alternatives
RR2, RR3,
RR10
Purpose and need
RR1
FERC pre-filing
process
RR1
Alternatives
RR10
200 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/17/2014
Commenter
Jeffery D. Smrz
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Westland, MI
C1047-1
Jeffery D. Smrz
C1047-2
12/18/2014
Fred Brautigan
McMelhen, WV
C1048-1
12/18/2014
Kevin Lewis
McDermott, OH
C1049-1
12/18/2014
Tom Underwood
Newton Falls,
OH
C1050-1
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
In the press, discussions and arguments I have heard, there have

been many numbers thrown around. A majority of them are being
described as temporary jobs. Over the past 25 years of my life I
have been a construction worker in one capacity or another. I have
been a non-union residential/commercial builder to a union
industrial Laborer. During this time every one of the jobs has been
temporary. As far as being a construction worker goes, that is how
it is supposed to work. A whole lot of temporary jobs make up the
career of a trade labor unionist. These temporary jobs have
allowed me to provide for my family, they have allowed me to be
able to purchase homes, cars, take vacations, and be an active
member in my communities for the better part of my life.
Along with providing jobs for construction workers, other workers
are provided jobs by the construction workers spending the money
earned. So in essence thousands of other permanent workers'
lives would be impacted by these positions provided by the ET
Rover pipeline project. If the project employs the estimated 10,000
jobs, and each employee makes at least 25 dollars an hour, and
each employee spends just 10% of their earnings in the
communities that they are working in on things like meals, gas and
entertainment, this would mean a 52.50 per hour influx into the
economy from every one of the workers. So no matter how you
look at it, that is a fair amount of money influencing the local
economies of communities this line is expected to impact.
Eminent domain. I believe this to be a threat to all landowners as
indicator that the rights of ownership can be and will be
disregarded, and big business is much more powerful than
property owner rights. This is a done deal and the property owners
are damned.
I look forward to the jobs this pipeline will bring. I am a member of
the LIUNA. I have worker on pipelines in the past and look forward
to this one.
I am a 35 year LIUNA. Laborers in our area are trained and skilled.
Above any other non-union contractors anywhere in the USA/ It will
be an honor to have our members perform. Not only the pipeline
but pump station from start to finish.
Jobs
RR5
Jobs, economic
benefits
RR5
Eminent domain
RR1
Jobs
RR5
Jobs
RR5
201 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
12/18/2014
Yancy Show
Westerville, OH
C1051-1
11/17/2014
Evan Scurti, Executive

Director
Jefferson County Port
Authourity
Wintersville, OH
C1052-1
12/18/2014
Commenter

Director
Authourity
C1052-2

Director
Authourity
C1052-3
Suzanne Bade
Pinckney, MI
C1053-1
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
I am a member of LIUNA. This pipeline will create many good

paying jobs to be completed and also create revenue for all local
towns schools, etc.
I am writing to issue my strong support for the proposed Rover
pipeline project (PF-14-14-00). My area continues to struggle with
unemployment above the state average, as well as local
government revenues struggling to keep pace with infrastructure
and other public investments. The Rover project is an extremely
important investment that will significantly address both needs.
First, the project is expected to create between 4,500-6,500
temporary construction jobs.
Secondly, analysts project that the investment will lead to a total of
more than $200 million paid to various taxing jurisdictions
throughout the State of Ohio. This is the type of economic impact
that our State, especially the Appalachian areas, cannot afford to
lose.
From an economic development standpoint, the potential of the
Rover pipeline to serve as a catalyst for much-needed
manufacturing growth is very exciting. Our area of the State
continues to strive to reinvent itself as historic industries like coal
mining and steel production no longer serve as major employment
centers. However, our future looks bright as many research reports
are pointing to the same conclusion - the Ohio Valley is poised for
a manufacturing renaissance as future facilities will want to locate
in close proximity to abundant and cheap natural gas and oil
reserves. Thus, the ability of the Rover to bring energy reserves
directly back to our area is perhaps Jefferson County's most
impactful economic development opportunity in recent decades.
The pipeline proposed buffer zone in Washtenaw city includes
Silver Lake along Dexter Townhall Road. That lake is springfed
and a clean and healthy lake housing an abundance of panfish,
migratory waterfowl and native birds, mammals and other natural
life. It also supports a state park well known for clean swimming
water. The pipeline presents a direct and dangerous threat to this
beautful and precious natural resource.
Jobs, economic
benefits
RR5
Jobs, tax revenues
RR5
Tax revenues
RR5
Economic benefits,
jobs
RR5
Waterways, wildlife,
safety
RR2, RR3,
RR11
202 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/18/2014
12/18/2014
Commenter
Ted Briggs
Comment
ID
Number
Wayne, MI
C1054-1
Ted Briggs
C1054-2
Ted Briggs
C1054-3
Ted Briggs
C1054-4
Dan Fedewon
Dan Fedewon
Town, State
Eaton Rapids,
MI
C1055-1
C1055-2
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
As a member of the local community, I support the Rover Pipeline

Project and the benefits it will bring to my community and to
Michigan.
our economy.
natural gas means lower energy costs for consumers, more
made locally.
local construction jobs. In addition, 76% of the pipe will be
manufactured in the United States, along with all compression
assembly and packaging. Once operational, the pipeline will
provide more than $150 million in tax revenue each year, for states
and counties along the route.
I attended the scoping meeting today to support the Rover Pipeline
Project and the benefits it will bring to my community and my
family.
For my community, this pipeline is as essential to daily life as other
basic infrastructure, like power lines, sewers, and roads. A the first
and largest direct connection for our state to the massive shale gas
reserves of the Marcellus and Utica region, the pipeline will supply
clean, natural gas to power our economy and heat our homes.
That means lower electricity and heating bills, greater opportunity
for manufacturing and energy intensive industries, and a valuable
raw commodity used in the construction of plastics, cars, and other
products made here.
Benefits
RR1
Purpose and need,

economic benefits
RR1, RR5
Reliabilty, economic
benefits
RR5, RR11
Economic benefits,
jobs
RR5
Benefits
RR1
Purpose and need
RR1
203 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/17/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Dan Fedewon
C1055-3
Dan Fedewon
C1055-4
Harley B. Rider
Dexter, MI
Harley B. Rider
12/17/2014
Comment
ID
Number
Phil Knierim
C1060-1
C1060-2
Wheeling, WV
C1061-1
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
The Rover pipeline project is important to me personally, because

of the benefits it will provide to the construction industry. This
project will be built with local workers, creating 10,000 immediate
area construction jobs and providing $4.3 billion of investment into
our economy.
The decision to use local, labor workers is also an important safety
consideration as you review the pipeline. Committing to skilled
trade construction, ensure the work is done the right way. The
skilled trades responsible for pipeline construction, pride ourselves
on having the most advanced training. We demand, and deliver, a
safe workplace. We are committed to operating with minimal
disruption or impact to landowners. And most importantly, we want
this project done right, because we live here too.
In industrialized areas there is little direct negative impact on the
populace. However, in areas such as Dexter Township, the impact
on those who live here for the rural atmosphere and peace and
tranquility of a rural community can be enormous and can entirely
change the character of the community.
I urge FERC to carefully consider the ET Rover application in light
of the significant negative impact on the rural communities as
weighed against the minimal, if any, benefit that will be provided by
this project to those citizens whose property and way of life will be
irrevocably changed if this project is approved as presented.
My complaint is not with the pipeline idea itself, but with the attitude
of the rover organization. I have no idea if or how much of my
property may be in play. My only contact has been three letters the
first headed dear sir or madam. Each requested the signing of an
enclosed form. All letters suggested that if I did not cooperate with
their request they have other options available. The second and
third letters mentioned eminent domain. I feel that in person
contact should be required with a full explanation of the project to
landowners not a dear sir or madam letter and the threat of
eminent domain. Many of the landowners are senior citizens and
possibly overwhelmed by the concept.
Economic benefits,
jobs
RR5
Jobs
RR5
Aesthetics
RR8
Benefits
RR1
FERC pre-filing
process
RR1
204 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/17/2014
Commenter
Frank Zaski
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Franklin, MI
C1062-1
Frank Zaski
C1062-2
Frank Zaski
C1062-3
Frank Zaski
C1062-4
Frank Zaski
C1062-5
Frank Zaski
C1062-6
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
FERC must measure the cumulative emissions of Rover including

fracking, transport and usage of the gas National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) requires it.
FERC should calculate the total CO2 emissions created by the
utilization of the gas to be carried in the proposed Rover pipeline
FERC should calculate the total methane emissions created by the
extraction, piping and utilization of the gas to be carried in the
proposed Rover pipeline.
FERC must consider that Rover would enable the SAME GHG
emissions as Keystone XL President Obama said he would only
approve the [Keystone XL] pipeline if it "doesn't significantly
exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution." They [experts] found
that Keystone XL would create pollution equal to that from 50-57
coal plants, and that crucial pollution offset technology and
practices were too undeveloped to compensate.
From above, Rover would enable the emissions of 192 million tons
of CO2 annually, the emissions equivalent of 55 COAL PLANTS
and the SAME GHG IMPACT at the proposed Keystone XL
pipeline.
FERC should consider that Rover will require up to 300 new gas
wells be fracked each year The average Marcellus estimated
ultimate recovery (EUR) per well is 5.2 Bcf and Utica is 2.5 Bcf for
an average of 4 Bcf. It will take 300 new wells be drilled each year
to keep Rover filled. (3,250,000,000 cu ft. / da divided by
4,000,000,000 = .81 x 365 = 300 new wells a year) This will require
considerable water, sand, infrastructure and waste injection wells
to maintain it. Plus, consider a large percentage of these wells will
leak years after they are abandoned and pollute aquifers and
release methane and other pollutants into the air.
Cumulative impacts
RR1
Air quality
RR9
Air quality
RR9
Air quality
RR9
Air quality,
cumulative impacs
RR1, RR9
Water use, water

quality, soil quality
RR2, RR7
205 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Frank Zaski
12/17/2014
Martin Saltiel
Comment
ID
Number
C1062-7
Atlas Twp, MI
C1063-1
Martin Saltiel
C1063-2
Martin Saltiel
C1063-3
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
FERC should consider the needs of the final gas users and not the
goals of shippers in determining the need for new pipelines Rover
has stated that US natural gas production is forecast to increase
by 44% by 2040. This is what the industry would like to sell and
not what the market demands. The EIA forecast predicts only a
20% US consumption increase by 2040 including exports. There
are other forecasts that predict even lower US gas demand
because of greater energy efficiency, renewable energy, building
codes, substitution and better industrial processes. Natural gas use
is actually declining in Michigan. The amount delivered to
consumers in Michigan has declined each decade since the 1990s.
So far this decade, it is down 17% from the 1990s.
We are opposed to the pipeline with respect to safety and
environmental concerns to the community as well as the impact it
will have on our property value.
The proposed pipeline route runs under Thread Creek which
borders the back of our property. We are concerned of the
environmental impact that construction will have on the Flint River
Watershed that the creek is part of. What is the impact of silt in the
watershed to macro and microscopic aquatic life? What would
happen if there was a gas leak and explosion with respect to
impact on the environment? What is the potential for oil to be run
down the pipeline years from now instead of gas and what would
happen if there was an oil spill? The Flint River Watershed is
currently the source of drinking water for the city of Flint and
surrounding areas. After many years of industrial pollution, the Flint
River is finally making a comeback and many communities on the
river are benefiting.
The State of Michigan was hit hard by the recession. Many jobs
have left the state. The risk of damage to our environment far
outweighs the few temporary jobs created by the pipeline. Fresh
water is a resource Michigan has to draw people and businesses
back to the state and we should not put our water quality at risk.
Purpose and need
RR1
Safety, property
values, environment
RR3. RR5,
RR11
Waterways,
environmental
impacts
RR2, RR3
Jobs, economic
benefits
RR5
206 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Martin Saltiel
C1063-4
Martin Saltiel
C1063-5
Martin Saltiel
C1063-6
Martin Saltiel
C1063-7
12/18/2014
Patrick Carney
Putnam Twp,
MI
C1064-1
12/18/2014
Mark Cornwell
Holly, MI
C1065-1
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
The question is not if a catastrophic event will happen, but when

will it happen. The Berrien county pipeline rupture is a case in
point. I have worked in the automotive industry for over 37 years
and I know that preventative maintenance is often one of the first
areas cut when trying to control costs. While safety gets a lot of lip
service, it too falls victim to profitability as evidenced by recent
automotive recalls and lawsuits. I see no evidence that the natural
gas industry is any different, as like the automotive industry, their
main goal is to make a profit.
Our other concern is how the pipeline will affect the value of our
property. We purchased this property many years ago as an
investment with the intention of some day splitting the property and
selling it for profit. Over the years property in Atlas Township has
increased in value and today is one of the most desirable areas to
live in Genesee County. Given a choice of buying property with a
pipeline or not, I am sure buyers will choose property without the
pipeline.
We do not feel the pipeline is in the public interest of the people of
Michigan and only serves to make the natural gas industry
profitable at our expense.
If we need to have a pipeline, why run it through the most valued
real estate in Genesee County? Why not run it along the
expressway systems, particularly I-69 that goes to Canada. I
suspect the reason is safety, yet Rover assures us the pipeline is
safe.
I personally object to the project because the proposed route is
against my property line and within 50 ft. of my house. I have not
been contacted personally by Rover but have talked to their
representatives because of my position as Putnam Township
Treasurer.
This pipeline proposal has the appearance of circumventing state
and federal wetlands ordinances for the benefit of a private
concern with the assistance of the over reach of the federal
government. How can we remain a nation of laws when people's
rights are being trampled in this manner?
Safety
RR11
Property values,
RR5
Purpose and need,

benefits
RR1
Alternatives
RR10
Property, FERC prefilinf process
RR1, RR5
Wetlands, benefits
RR1, RR2
207 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Mark Cornwell
12/18/2014
12/18/2014
John Kuschell
Comment
ID
Number
C1065-2
Adrian, MI
C1066-1
John Kuschell
C1066-2
John Kuschell
C1066-3
John Kuschell
C1066-4
John Kuschell
C1066-5
Rita A. Berzin
Ramsey, NJ
C1067-1
Rita A. Berzin
C1067-2
Rita A. Berzin
C1067-3
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Please reject this proposal and promote alternative energy

programs and improvements in energy efficiency...not more
consumption.
Such pipelines pose a serious threat to the general welfare of
residents because of the inherent risks of leaks and ruptures which
can result in explosion, fire, environmental contamination, property
damage, personal injury and death.
These pipelines require additional property tax revenue to pay for
emergency medical and accident training, equipment and
personnel required for evacuations and for emergency response in
the event of explosion, fires or other accidents.
The pipelines will not benefit Lenawee County residents with
natural gas supplies and will merely just transfer this gas through
the county without providing any utilitarian public benefit.
The pipelines diminish the desire to reside near the vicinity of the
pipeline route which results in the inability to sell real property or in
lower property values and subsequent loss of fees and property tax
revenue.
Lenawee County remains a top producer in agriculture. This
proposed project only adversely affects that status.
I am writing to protest the ET Rover Project and the current route
that is now planned. This project is not a public necessity. Its
purpose is not to improve the lives of the people who live around
this route.
As a matter of fact, it has the potential to cause great harm. Should
this pipeline explode as has happened in other locations, the
results will be devastating to the people who live in the area, the
environment and the natural resources.
In addition, this project has the potential to allow for seepage into
the nearby creek and the land which could contaminate them both.
The cleanup and aftermath based on past experiences has taken
years and can never restore the property and natural resources to
what they once were. My property in particular is used for farmland
and there is an additional potential for contamination of the food
supply through the contaminated soil.
Alternatives
RR10
Safety, evironment,
property
RR3, RR5,
RR11
Economic impacts
RR5
Benefits
RR1

property values
RR5
Land use (ag)
RR8
Purpose and need
RR1
Safety, environment
RR3, RR11
Waterways, water
quality, land use
(ag)
RR2, RR8
208 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/18/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Rita A. Berzin
C1067-4
Rita A. Berzin
C1067-5
Michael S. Sessions,
Clerk
City of Morenci
Morenci, MI
Michael S. Sessions,
Clerk
City of Morenci
12/18/2014
Comment
ID
Number
Andrew and Catherine

King
C1068-1
C1068-2
Tipton, MI
C1069-1

King
C1069-2

King
C1069-3
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
I purchased this property as an investment and as a future home

for retirement. This project will devalue the property significantly. In
addition, I am hesitant to build a home so close to a pipeline that
not only has the potential to contaminate the land and water supply
but may even result in an explosion with devastating health effects.
It has negative effects on the safety of the public and has the
potential to have devastating effects on the environment and safety
of the population.
After reviewing the proposed pipeline route, the Morenci City
Council has concerns that with the current route of the pipeline it
comes within a quarter-mile of the city limits of the municipality.
This concern is due to safety and the fact that our municipality has
over 2,000 people that would have to be evacuated in the event of
a natural gas disaster.
With that said, the Morenci City Council is requesting that the
pipeline be moved at least one (1) mile from the city limits of the
municipality. This would ease concerns that our municipality has,
and would ensure that that the whole community would not have to
be evacuated in the event of a natural gas disaster.
The proposed ET Rover natural gas pipeline is currently
engineered to traverse through a portion of our front woodlands.
Should this go through, we will lose hundreds of trees which are
irreplaceable.
About a year and a half ago we moved to this property with the
dream of establishing a sanctuary here. Among the only remaining
parcels which has not been cleared and conventionally farmed, our
property with its woodlands, ponds and meadows is a sacred
space. We inherited several trails throughout the property and
have added several others without destroying any trees.
In 2015, it is our plan to add a labyrinth, gazebo and outdoor
pavilion with the expectation of opening our property to be enjoyed
as a place of respite and natural beauty by eco-therapy groups,
non-profit social services agencies and others. It is our dream to
share this holy place and space with others that they may
experience healing.
Future plans to
build, water quality
RR2, RR5
Safety, environment
RR3, RR11
Safety, population
RR5, RR11
Alternatives
RR10
Vegetation
RR3
Vegetation,
waterbodies
RR2, RR3
Recreation, property
use
RR5, RR8
209 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/18/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number

King
C1069-4

King
C1069-5
Dan and Trudy Brewer
Fenton Twp, MI
C1070-1
C1070-2
C1070-3
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
Additionally, we are working toward a cooperative sustainable

community within our property boundaries, inviting others with
likeminded interests and values to share infrastructure and vision
with us. Not only does the proposed pipeline do irreparable
damage to many of our trees, it cuts a swath through our walking
trails, limiting the scope of our retreat offering. Additionally, the
natural gas pipeline project itself is in direct opposition to our
ideological values. We support a move away from fossil fuel based
energy sources. We heat our home through a woodburning boiler
located on our property. The pipeline literally robs us of our fuel
source. If the pipeline must proceed, we urge ET Rover to route
around our property.
Regarding compensation, who will decide the appropriate value for
lost: beauty of scarred forest, life in non-contiguous forest, life and
structure in forest soil, potential for timber value in forest, property
value, serenity during construction period, serenity for ongoing
maintenance periods, perennial forest food production potential in
scar, security of singular access point, peace of mind due to
potential leaks, opportunity to attract potential community members
due to inconsistency with ideology, or sense that we own the
property.
It is unnecessary when an existing right of way could be accessed
for the project.
It is un-conscionable & very wrong to lose our beautiful natural
surroundings, forests and wetlands that are vital to wildlife and
forever wear a huge visible scar and vital farmland that may never
bear good crops again.
Also their is the potential harm and contamination of ground water.
We in Michigan have the privilege of living surrounded by fresh
water and we need to fervently protect every drop. We cannot live
without water.
Property use,
vegetation,
alternatives
RR3, RR5,
RR10
Compensation
RR5
Alternatives
RR10
Aesthetics,
vegetation,
wetlands, wildlife,
farmland
Water quality
RR2, RR3,
RR8
210 of 247
RR2
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
C1070-4
Climate change is becoming a serious concern for the world. As

we have recently seen it can have devastating effects on people.
Shouldn't we be aggressively pursuing alternative sources of
renewable energy so we can stop using fossil fuels and the release
of CO2 gases into our atmosphere.
Air (green house

gas)
RR9
Support
RR1
12/18/2014
Zane Hubbard
Lansing, MI
C1078-1
I urge the support of this pipeline construction.
12/18/2014
Julie Norwood
Chelsea, MI
C1081-1
My concern is my property is in the kill zone/blast zone. Even

though the pipeline is not going through my property but behind it,
putting my home in the blast zone. If the pipeline goes through I
deserve compensation since I will be living in a danger zone so I
have the opportunity to move with out loosing the value of my
home.
Safety,
compensation
RR5, RR11
Marvin and Marlene

Rosander
Manchester, MI
C1082-1
The pipeline will take 150ft of our woods and we already have an
easement for a power line. We love the woods, walk the dog twice
a day and heat our house with wood. The trees that are planted
after the pipeline will not benefits us in our lifetime. It makes me
very sad to think of the loss of our beautiful woods.
Vegetation
RR3
Karen and Don

Distelrath
Columbus, MI
C1083-1
We are primarily focusing on the conservation of pollinators and

their habitats. Pollination is a keystone process in both human
managed and natural terrestrial ecosystems. It is crucial for our
food production and our livelihood. Currently, we are working with
the NRCS by participating in the honey bee pollinator initiative that
President Obama signed on 6/20/2014. As the federal government
is aware, our pollinators are in rapid decline in our nation as well as
around the world. Pollinators provide an essential ecological
service to over 90 percent of worlds wild and cultivated flowering
plants and an estimated one-third of the food consumed by
humans. With the construction of the ET rover pipeline on our
property, this would greatly hinder our efforts. Forage areas
consisting of native trees, shrubs and plants currently existing and
planted for our honeybee colonies would be negatively impacted.
Due to our unique situation, any consideration regarding the
omission of our land for the E.T. Rover Pipeline would be greatly
appreciated.
Conservation,
wildlife, vegetation,
ecological impact,
alternatives
RR3, RR10
8/17/2014
Comment
ID
Number
211 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
11/20/2014
Commenter
Comment
ID
Number
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
C1084-1
The reason for this is that our area of Washtenaw County is a "well
first" designated area. What this means is that water is very hard to
get in some areas, and before a home can be built, it must be
determined that there is enough water to adequately supply that
home and its occupants with water. We barely made the required
flow rate. Many other homes have faced this same situation and
had to have wells re-drilled because the Aqua-fir ran dry and they
had to have a new well drilled often going much deeper.
Water quality, water

use
RR2
Erik and Mary Hansen
C1084-2
This pipeline is going to pass within several hundred feet of Mill

Creekwhich is a main tributary of the Huron River. To the east of
Mill Creek on the east and west side of Lima Center Rd. lies a very
large water re-charge area. This is a very large wet land and is
located north of 1-94 and south of Trinkle Rd. This water re-charge
area stretches all the way to Mill Creek and beyond. This water recharge area supplies the water to many of the aqua-firs that supply
water to the homes in our area.
Waterways, water
use
RR2
C1084-3
From the map it is clear that the pipeline is going to disrupt the
western end of the re-charge area. I am concerned about the
environmental impact on this area and the effect it could have on
wells and wildlife that use this end of the re-charge area.

use
RR2
C1084-4
A few years ago when the Enbridge pipeline went through they
went through on the eastern end of the re-charge area and they
had to go down 50 feet in order to hit stable soil for the oil pipeline
that was installed. 50 FEET. Remember there is a home that has a
well at about 49 feet not to far from this water re-charge area. The
re-charge area is less then 1/8th mile to a 14 mile away. They can
not put this heavy of a pipeline in without hitting firm soil as did
Enbridge. Will they once again have to go down 50 feet?
Soil quality,
alternatives
RR7, RR10
Town, State
Dexter, MI
212 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/18/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
C1084-5
If the pipeline is going to go through our area why not use the
existing right of way that was used by Enbridge which is called the
Panhandle Eastern Pipeline that runs from south to north through
the area. ET Rover already has a right of way in this area. This
would lessen the environmental impact on the wet land area that
supplies water for the aqua-fir re-charge area by keeping all of the
pipeline construction on the east.
Alternatives
RR10
C1084-6
It does not make any sense for ET Rover or any other company to
disrupt more farm land, more wetlands, wildlife and a watershed
area and the possibility of disrupting at some point in the future
homes in the area because they will not use their existing right of
way 3/4's of a mile or so to the east. Water is becoming very
precious and we must learn to use what we have wisely.
Farmland, wetlands,
wildlife, alternatives
RR2, RR3,
RR8, RR10
C1084-7
Another problem with the proposed existing pipeline location is that

it will impact a new Washtenaw Countv park called the Baker
Preserve and several other parks in our county. The Baker
Preserve which is about 76 acres in size is located on Trinkle rd.
just a 1/4 mile or so west of Lima Center Rd. This park was just
finished and the trees on the east side of the park will be impacted
by the proposed right of way.
Recreation
RR8
C1084-8
I ask you to either have the pipeline moved back down the road to
the
east to the Panhandle Eastern Pipeline easement to keep
environmental damage to a minimum or to deny it because of ET
Rover stating in their request to abandon the Trunk-line pipeline
that there was excess capacity to meet all future anticipated needs.
If there is suddenly now a need for this new pipeline, it should be
sited on the existing right of way. I understand that ET owns this
right of way. Why build an entirely new pipeline using a different
route when they already own an existing easement through our
area.
Alternatives
RR10
C1085-1
Do you plan on requiring top soil (A horizon of the soil profile) to be

remvoed and stock pil before installing pipe? Also do you plan on
placing the top soil back over pipeline and construction area?
Soil quality
RR7
James Waynekerr
Cadiz, OH
213 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/18/2014
12/18/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Land use (ag)
RR8
Soil quality, geology
RR6, RR7
Jobs, economic
benefits
RR5
Economic benefits
RR5
Tax revenues
RR5
Safety
RR11
Compensation
RR5
James Waynekerr
C1085-2
What are you going to require when crossing prime agriculture and
wetlands? Do you use survey maps in planning and locating prime
agriculture land?
James Waynekerr
C1085-3
Do you have certified soil scientists on your staff? Do you require

extra conservation measures on moderate, steep and very steep
slopes?
C1086-1
In the short term, the Rover pipeline will create up to 10,000

construction jobs in the region, generate $100 million in direct
payments to landowners, and generate significant additional
benefit to Ohio companies building the pipeline components
themselves.
Jimmy Stewart
C1086-2
Long-term, the pipeline will provide affordable and reliable gas

supplies for electricity, heating, and other manufacturing uses right
here in Ohio, through take off points in the Northwest portion of the
state. That means lower energy costs for consumers, more
opportunity for Manufacturers and businesses, and a valuable raw
input used for construction of plastics, cars, and other important
products made across the state.
Jimmy Stewart
C1086-3
Rover will also generate more than $150 million in tax revenue
yearly for states and counties along the route- the majority of that
revenue benefiting Ohio.
Jimmy Stewart
C1086-4
Last, I'd like to close by commenting on the safety of Ohio's

pipeline network and Rover in particular. Pipelines across Ohio and
the U.S. have an excellent safety record. Rover will be built
according to the latest technology in the industry, with 24-hour
monitoring, thorough and proven construction practices, and
remote shut-off procedures.
Jimmy Stewart
Thomas Shaw
Dublin, OH
C1087-1
After a one time payment there is no money.
Thomas Shaw
Belmont, OH
C1087-2
After pipeline is installed you can't sell upper coal seams.
Thomas Shaw
C1087-3
Thomas Shaw
C1087-4
Economic impacts
RR5
Only counties and other agencies get annual money. Land owners
get nothing.
Benefits
RR1
Any water lines on other line will be very coastly or not allowed to
happen to corss ROW pipelines.
Water use
RR2
214 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Comment
ID
Number
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Property use
RR5
Thomas Shaw
C1087-5
After pipeline is installed the use of the property next to nothing

and no use.
Thomas Shaw
C1087-6
Privacy of my property is gone.
Property
RR5
Thomas Shaw
C1087-7
Unless landownders get annual money there is not benefits to

property owners.
Benefits
RR1
Thomas Shaw
C1087-8
If our property values goes down will property taxes go down?
Property values
RR5
12/18/2014
Carolyn Harding
Bexley, OH
C1088-1
It will negatively impact our #1 industry - farms. If there is a spill it

will pollute water, air, and soil. The insurance companies will not
insure land that is fracked, will they insure a pipeline-farmers are
dependent on insurance, and will the value on property fall? I think
3-4 feet below surface is not safe and I'm afraid that like
Oklahomas seismic incident becasue of fracking and injection
wells.
Land use (ag),

property values,
safety
RR5, RR8,
R11
12/18/2014
Leatra Harper
Grand Rapids,
OH
C1089-1
There is no reason now to be fracking at the current rate. The

environmental and human health impacts have not been adequetly
studied in the rush to frack. Why? The gas is not going anywhere.
The industry wants to stay ahead of the emerging science that
shows it is the toxic and radioactive industry that it is.
Fracking, safety
RR1, RR11
12/18/2014
Nancy L. Shiffler
Ann Arbor, MI
C1090-1
This pipeline is part of an attempt by the natural gas industry to find

a market for its over production in the Marcellus play in
Pennsylvania. There are at least eight existing pipelines crossing
between Canada and the Eastern US and six new pipelines and
pipeline expansions planned. The strategy seems to be to throw as
many proposals as possible against the wall and see which ones
stick.
Existing pipelines,
purpose and need
RR1
C1090-2
Michigan does not need this line. It already has existing inflow
capacity as well as more than sufficient underground natural gas
storage capacity to lessen any additional need to meet seasonal
demands. In 2013 Energy Transfer and FERC agreed that no
additional pipeline capacity was needed in the Midwest, when ET
proposed abandoning their Trunkline natural gas pipeline.
Purpose and need
RR1
Nancy L. Shiffler
Town, State
215 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Nancy L. Shiffler
C1090-3
This proposal does not meet the FERC criteria for "public
convenience and necessity" - it does not meet unserved public
demand or eliminate any known bottlenecks; it only meets the
profit objectives of the shippers and the pipeline companies to
compensate for their own mistakes in overproducing their
resource.
Lack of
buyers/shippers
RR1, RR5
Nancy L. Shiffler
C1090-4
The proposed route crosses through several watersheds in

Michigan, including the River Raisin, the Huron River, the Flint
River, and the Clinton River.
Watersheds,
waterways
RR2
Nancy L. Shiffler
C1090-5
Depending on the final route, there is potential harm to a number of

imoortant wetland and natural areas. including the Irish Hills area
in Lenawee County. Pinckney Recreation area in Washtenaw and
Livingston Counties, and Metamora/Hadley State Recreation Area,
Ortonville State Recreation Area, and Sutherland Nature Center in
Genesee County.
Wetlands,
recreation,
conservation
RR2, RR3,
RR8
Nancy L. Shiffler
C1090-6
Safety impacts are of paramount concern. The required setbacks

from homes and other buildings are insufficient to account for the
potential impact radius in the event of an explosion. Many rural
areas are served by small fire departments backed by local
volunteer fire fighters, which would be stretched thin in the event of
a major explosion or fire.
Safety, emergency
personnel
RR5, RR11
Nancy L. Shiffler
C1090-7
Individual landowners are rightfully concerned with the impact of

the project on their property values, access to mortgages, and
insurance coverage. Landowner complaints have arisen during the
pre-filing process concerning the behavior of survey crews and
lack of advance information from the company. Such behavior
does little to instill confidence that the company would follow
through properly during construction, reclamation, and
maintenance in the future.
Property values,
FERC pre-filing
process
RR1, RR5
216 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/18/2014
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
C1091-1
With all the Fracking thats being allowed here in our country and
all the natural gas wells being found. Is FERC going to allow these
companys such as ET Rover run new pipelines where and when
ever they feel like? In my opinion and Im pretty sure many other
people feel the same way, I think we should maybe keep all or
most of these fossil fuels being found in the United Sates here
instead of depleting our supplies and sending these precious fuels
over seas or to other countrys such as Canada. Do we really want
to depend on other countries for our energy sources? When we
have all the energy sources here.
Fracking, benefits
RR1
Fred Kamradt
C1091-2
With the fossil fuel prices dropping dramaticly here in the US is

there really that great of a need for more natural gas pipelines?
Purpose and need
RR1
Fred Kamradt
C1091-3
FERC allowed ET Rover to sell a pipeline 2 years ago because

Rover said there wasnt enough demand. Now here 2 years later
all of a sudden theres a need for more natural gas. Where in
Canada? What do we get here in Lapeer County MI.? Nothing but
a money grubbing company that wants to steal our land for their
profits. To me allowing Rover to sell their pipeline 2 years ago
because there wasnt enough demand, warrants a big denial from
FERC to file for a new pipeline set to run through Michigan
because they found some natural gas by fracking, and now the just
have to sell it as fast as they can. This pipeline is not for public use
or nessecity here in Michigan east of Livingston County we get
absolutly nothing out of this pipeline therefore Eminant Domain can
not or should not be used against us land owners.
Purpose and need,

eminent domain
RR1
Fred Kamradt
C1091-4
If FERC is going to allow this pipeline to be installed I urge you to

make them {Rover} use existing easements. Or deny ET Rover the
nessesary permits to build this pipeline.
Alternatives
RR10
Commenter
Fred Kamradt
Town, State
Goodrich, MI
Comment
ID
Number
217 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/17/2014
Commenter
Theodore Berger
Town, State
Lapeer, MI
Theodore Berger
Comment
ID
Number
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
C1092-1
I am writing to suggest a new route for the Rover Pipeline. Many of

us have asked why the pipline couldnt more closely follow the high
tension power lines that run east to west about a mile north of
where the pipeline currently runs in Lapeer Twp., MI. These lines
are believed to be owned by ITC. When many of us have asked
the representatives from Rover why this route hasnt been used we
are told they are negotiating that with ITC. Many of us wonder why
Rover would negotiate this possibility with ITC but not negotiate
with us as to whether or not we want this pipeline on our property.
Alternatives
RR10
C1092-2
They really dont care what we the property owners think because
in the end if they get their certificate of public necessity and
convenience they will have ultimate negotiating power. FERC
however can reroute the line to the ITC lines corridor and issue the
certificate for that property. Below you will find pictures of a
proposed route that would use the ITC power line corridor to pass
completely through Hadley, Elba and Lapeer Townships in Lapeer
County, Michigan. It seems to me that this would have the lowest
impact on the residents of this county. The maps tie in to the
current route at mile marker 149 and 164. The route in between
these points runs completely along the power lines.
Alternatives
RR10
12/17/2014
Michael A. Laquatra
Sarver, PA
C1093-1
This project will be good for the community by creating thousands

of great paying jobs. It will provide a much needed economic
stimulus to suurounding areas during construction while providing
a potential source of domestic energy.
Jobs, economic
benefits
RR5
12/17/2014
Mark Ferrari
Cranberry Twp,
PA
C1094-1
This is a project which can provide long term energy reliability

while bringing is closer to energy independence. The estimated
10,000 good paying jobs will be vital for the community while
bringing tax revenues that will boost the infrastructure and schools.
Jobs, reliability,
economic benefits
RR5, RR11
12/17/2014
Andrew Nicopuios
Pittsburg, PA
C1095-1
This project will bring more jobs to this area and help our economy
get back to where it needs to be.
Jobs, economic
benefits
RR5
12/17/2014
Mark Cur
C1096-1
I think it will provide economic stimulus to surrounding areas during

construction. Also it will provide long term energy reliability.
Economic benefits,
reliability
RR5, RR11
12/17/2014
Tim Hawthorne
C1097-1
Tax revenues
RR5
Cadiz, OH
218 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
12/17/2014
Leah N. Robinson
Wellsburg, WV
C1098-1
Create more jobs that will provide a good living for the community
and taxes to upgrade our school. These jobs keep me, as a single
mother, working. Im trying to give my son the best life I possibly
can.
Jobs
RR5
12/17/2014
Bobbi Higgins
New
Martinsville, WV
C1099-1
Build it union. Jobs for local residents that provides pension and
health care.
Jobs
RR5
12/17/2014
Robert W. Hammond
Bellaire, OH
12/17/2014
Thomas Mellott
Bridgeport, OH
C1100-1
Will bring a lot of new construction and jobs to local residents.
Jobs
RR5
C1101-1
Jobs
RR5
12/17/2014
Aaron Bennett
Woodsfield, OH
C1102-1
12/17/2014
David Drake
Cameron, WV
C1103-1
Great paying jobs.
Tax revenues
RR5
Jobs
RR5
12/17/2014
Frank Terlosky
Moundsville,
WV
C1104-1
Jobs, tax revenues
RR5
12/17/2014
Dani Beck
Zanesville, OH
C1105-1
Pipeline creates numerous jobs for years to come. Processing

plants, compressor stations, new roads, etc.
Jobs
RR5
12/17/2014
Pete Wodrough
Bridgeport, OH
C1106-1
health care.
Jobs
RR5
12/17/2014
Joshua Beck
C1107-1
Great paying jobs.
Jobs
RR5
12/17/2014
Hunter Kelch
Wheeling, WV
C1108-1
Great paying jobs.
Jobs
RR5
12/17/2014
Alex Blake
Adena, OH
C1109-1
Jobs
RR5
12/17/2014
Todd Long
Triadelphia, WV
C1110-1
Jobs
RR5
12/17/2014
James Wittenbrook
Marietta, OH
C1111-1
Jobs, tax revenues
RR5
12/17/2014
Archie Angus
Bellaire, OH
C1112-1

Jobs
RR5
12/17/2014
William Davis
Belpre, OH
C1113-1
12/17/2014
Johnny M. Davis
Woodsfield, OH
C1114-1
12/17/2014
Marianne Hepe
Belmont, OH
C1115-1
12/17/2014
Dale Holcomb
Smithfield, OH
C1116-1
Jobs
RR5
Jobs, tax revenues
RR5

Jobs
RR5
Great paying jobs.
Jobs
RR5
219 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Tax revenues
RR5
12/17/2014
Johnathon Johnson
New
Martinsville, WV
C1117-1
12/17/2014
James Mickey
Cameron, WV
C1118-1
health care.
Jobs
RR5
12/17/2014
Steven P. Buffalo
Leechburg, PA
C1119-1
I'm all for this, thank you for providing work to families and local
businesses. Its good for everyone, jobs, hopefully fo years to
come.
Jobs
RR5
12/17/2014
Alan Roe
Connellsvile,
PA
C1120-1
Estimated creation of good paying jobs and for the skilled workers.
Jobs
RR5
12/17/2014
Timothy M. Luther
Stoystown, PA
C1121-1
It is a very important project for the different trade union and

petroluem prices in our area. The money that would be generated
in the work areas alone would not only help the employees of the
project but would also trickle into rentals hotels and mercantile
businesses in these areas the money is not only wanted but
needed in some of these depressed areas.
Economic benefits
RR5
12/17/2014
Frank Prim
St. Michael, PA
C1122-1
It would be a great boost to the area, create a lot of jobs that you
can live on not minimum wage.
Economic benefits,
jobs
RR5
12/17/2014
Randy E. Gary
Hollsopple, PA
C1123-1
Make it go for the work. Jobs for me to feed my familty. It will help
build the economy, motels, food, gas, clothing, etc.
Economic benefits,
jobs
RR5
12/16/2014
Joe Arnold
Shiloh, OH
C1124-1
Think it would be good for Ohio.
Benefits
RR1
12/16/2014
Corey Fabricius
Parma, OH
C1125-1
I am a local resident who is lookind to the income and revenue this

pipeline will bring my city and the local economy.
Economic benefits,
jobs
RR5
12/16/2014
Alvin Murray
Hillsdale, MI
C1126-1
I support the pipeline going in. It will be good for our economy here
in Ohio where I work.
Economic benefits,
jobs
RR5
12/16/2014
Darrick Hargrove
Alcron, OH
C1127-1
I stand by LIUNA in all its efforts to provide work for Ohio families
in the union trades. Please do not let this opportunity pass us by!
We need these jobs!
Economic benefits,
jobs
RR5
12/16/2014
Sanasha Adelman
Willard, OH
C1128-1
As an Ohio resident I am all for bringing in more tax revenue and

more higher paying jobs for Ohio residents.
Jobs, tax revenues
RR5
12/16/2014
Colton Han
West Harrison,
IN
C1129-1
Good idea.
Support
RR5
220 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
12/16/2014
Joe Alvis
Follansbee, WV
C1130-1
Im a local of the community and I think this will be a great thing.

With all the money and jobs affects economy.
Economic benefits
RR5
12/16/2014
Grahm Gouvnor
Cortland, OH
C1131-1
I support the Rover pipeline. The project will bring in billions of

dollars to the local economy. The pipeline will supply new sources
of energy and bring in another source of income for local workers.
Economic benefits,
jobs
RR5
12/16/2014
Michael Denman
Cortland, OH
C1132-1
I support the pipeline. It will be a huge boost for our economy and
put an estimated 10,000 people to work.
Economic benefits,
jobs
RR5
12/16/2014
Michael Holcomb
Jefferson, OH
C1133-1
I support this. It would be a great gain for our local area jobs. It will
help the community.
Economic benefits,
jobs
RR5
12/16/2014
O'Brian Goliday
Warren, OH
C1134-1
I think this would be a great job opportunity for my area. We need

these jobs for the economy.
Economic benefits,
jobs
RR5
12/16/2014
Robert F. Chatterson
Danville, OH
C1135-1
The delivery of clean reliable energy is important to the continued

economic recover of our region. The Rover pipeline will not only
help the region by delivering this needed energy but by providing
an estimated 10,000 jobs. These are high paying jobs that will
provide a much needed boost to the local economy. Construction
of the Rover will impact construction, but also local suplliers, steel,
equiptment and , just as important, the local tax base to support
schools and infrastructure projects. The infusion of money from this
project will impact our cities and towns from police and fire
department, hospitals, and local governments down to the mom
and pop grocery stores and restaurants.
Economic benefits,
jobs, reliability
RR5, RR11
12/16/2014
Melissa Wheeler
Ashtabula, OH
C1136-1
I am a local resident and it would be good for the community.
Benefits
RR1
12/16/2014
Molly Hardesty
Cleveland, OH
C1137-1
I am in the union and it would be nice to have the work.
Jobs
RR5
12/16/2014
Adam Witt
West
Portsmouth, OH
C1138-1
I am in support of the Rover pipeline to help my union brothers and

I to keep union work in the state of Ohio. With this project will help
the surrounding cities and also keeping right to work out of our
great state.
Economic benefits,
jobs
RR5
12/16/2014
Michele Davis
Danville, OH
C1139-1
I support union jobs for local union workers.
Jobs
RR5
12/16/2014
Logan C. Pepper
Lore City, OH
C1140-1
Local jobs for local union members.
Jobs
RR5
12/16/2014
Adam Chafin
Newbury, OH
C1141-1
Local jobs for local union members.
Jobs
RR5
12/16/2014
Mark Hopkins
Lyndhurst, OH
C1142-1
I support having local union jobs whenever they are in our area.
Jobs
RR5
12/16/2014
Danielle Saunders
Bedford, OH
C1143-1
I support local union jobs.
Jobs
RR5
221 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
12/18/2014
Susan Ruvido
12/18/2014
James P. Lusty
12/18/2014
Laura Douglas
Town, State
Metamora, MI
Ortonville, MI
Comment
ID
Number
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
C1144-1
I would like to go on record as not allowing ET Rover or it's

contractors or surveyors onto my property. I have geothermal
piping that goes underground from my house to my property line
which is within feet of where said company is proposing to dig to
install a gas pipeline. This geothermal piping provides heating and
cooling for my house and cannot be disturbed.
Permission to
Survey
RR1
C1145-1
If the pipeline is located where it is proposed, the environmental

impact on my parcels portion would be great. This area is currently
all wildlife habitat. A reasonable alternative to the proposed
pipeline placement would be to follow property owners property
lines. If the proposed pipeline would follow my south property line,
the environmental impact would be less because it consists of
mostly brush versus mature trees, including deciduous and
evergreen. The proposed pipeline would also disrupt my ability to
farm a portion of my property. But if it followed the property lines,
there would not be any disruption. I feel it would be less
burdensome if the pipeline followed as many property lines as
possible. One last comment, is it possible that the pipeline follow
an easement along I-75 and I-69 interstates?
Environmental
impacts, alternatives
RR3, RR10
C1146-1
Michigan is like a sponge afloat in the great lakes. Our land is bogs
and many lakes and rivers and after spring thaw, I'll find rocks the
size of softballs "coughed up" onto my yard from below. We, unlike
OH or PA use wells for our drinking water! Or land is like walking
on a waterbed! How can you even hope to keep that stable? I
understand that whole "shortest distance between two points"
thing, but how can you assure our water purity? Do you have
pressure sensors? How far apart?
Water quality
RR2
222 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Comment
ID
Number
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Water quality
RR2
12/18/2014
Philip A. Nichol
St. Clairsville,
OH
C1150-1
As presently projected, the pipeline route will intersect a recently

coal strip-mined area just to the west of my property. In this path
are several OEPA, ODNR, and ACOE stream areas and pond
mitigation areas. These streams and pond are coming from a
designated water mitigation area and feeding into the Crabapple
Creek Watershed. The pond area is in the form of a water retention
site as designated by the mining company, Cravat Coal Company.
The northern most area stream is an underground aquifer and has
very good water quality. This information is shown upon the ODNR
mining final permit map D-2087. During the mining of this area,
utmost care was taken to preserve the water quality by the
previous mentioned entities. Let it therefore be stated and that it
will be expected that FERC will continue to hold E. T. Rover to the
same high standards that were used to ensure the water quality of
this area and to safeguard the water quality during this project at all
times.
12/8/2014
Renee L. Crowley
Goodrich, MI
C1151-1
This is not a public necessity! The dangers and harards to

residents, natural resources and our environment are great. I
would find it difficult to believe that a regulatory commission was
not already aware of tbe documented factual proven damage that
projects such as this cause.
Purpose and need,

safety
RR1, RR11
C1151-2
Although both our sons received both their primary education and
4yr degrees in Michigan they had to leave to find employment. As
a family we have planned in a few years they would be able to find
employment bere in the state, and their houses would be built on
this land.
Future residential
plans
RR8
Renee L. Crowley
Town, State
223 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/17/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Renee L. Crowley
C1151-3
Every human is born with a protective barrier covering and

protecting the brain. I unfortunately was not. Because of this I have
suffered many episodes of a series of mini strokes. I am 56 yrs old
and each episode leaves irreversible damage to the brain tissue. I
know with the HIPPA laws in effect it is difffcult lo find proof of this.
I would be happy to furnish any info you require after my several
stays with the Mayo clinic. You have only to ask and I will provide
whalever you need. This is what I mean when I say this land
sustains my life. Over many many years we have gone to great
financial lengths to ensure that our home and land stay as pure
and organic as possible.
Safety, health
impacts
RR5, RR11
Renee L. Crowley
C1151-4
This has not been easy as we already have an existing pipeline

running along side of the back of our property. We have also had
to take measures for my protection due to the already existing high
tension towers and power lines. We have geo thermal heating,
skylights, special insulation, electrical work etc...
Existing pipelines,
health impacts
RR1, RR5
Renee L. Crowley
C1151-5
We have a very large creek that runs thru our whole parcel of land.
So in touch with our land are we that my youngest son chose to be
married by the water to honor his Native American heritage. We
grow our vegetables here to ensure organic benefits. Springtime
we will be growing organic botanicals to supplement our income for
an all natural, organic skin care company I am involved with.
Waterways, cultural
impacts, loss of
income
RR2, RR4,
RR5
Renee L. Crowley
C1151-6
The distance this pipeline will be from our actual house is

unthinkable. A 36 to 42 inch pipe buried 42 inches-when all
Michigan residents know the frost line is 42 inches in it of itself is
equally frightening. They have other options available to them. We
do not. Even if we had the financial resources to move, which we
do not, we would not be able to find another home protected
enough to ensure my health.
Siting, safety
RR1, RR11
C1152-1
I am writing this letter because I am very concerned about pipeline

and location of it on our farmland. We already have a gas pipeline
going through the land (fields), and this one will go through another
location, right through the middle of the field that is farmed.
Farmland, existing
pipelines
RR1, RR8
Irene Poley
Brooklyn, MI
224 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Issue/Concern
Subject
property values
RR5
Irene Poley
C1152-2
We also believe it would keep us from selling this farm, which is for
sale because of my mothers death. Our hopes are to sell it to
someone who would like to build in this area. We feel this would
greatly depreciate the value of the farm.
Irene Poley
C1152-3
Our thought would be if you would follow exising gas pipeline this
would be a little easier to except then in the middle of the field.
Alternatives
RR10
Fracking, safety
RR1, RR11
12/17/2014
Robert J. Simpson
Flint, MI
C1153-1
The state of Michigan, along with several others nation wide, has
become a focus of those who want to use deep hydrolic fracturing
or "Fracking" as a method to capture natural gas. This practice in
Oklahoma and Ohio has been rather convincingly shown to be a
cause of earthquakes. These areas have gone from earthquakes
as a rare event to literally hundreds over a similar time period as
occured before the practice of fracking became common.
12/10/2014
Ted Stanley
Holly, MI
C1154-1
Everyone who has visited has commented on the beauty of the

property, even the people who surveyed the property. The area is
home to deer, turkey, turtles, snakes, birds, etc, The survey is
marked off about 30' behind my barn. All of this area is covered in
mud and water and has been since I lived here. It is adjacent to the
Lost Lake Nature preserve, a 500 acre preserve.
Aesthetics, wildlife,
conservation
RR3, RR8
Ted Stanley
C1154-2
My land rised gradualy away from the swamp to a drier area. I am

not an engineer, but it seems to me that if the gas pipeline were to
be moved north (about 100 yards) you could bury the pipe causing
less environmental impact. It would be away from my property
enabling me access. At present the survey is a few feet from an
access gate. If it were farther back I would be able to use it.
Alternatives
RR10
Ted Stanley
C1154-3
If you should decide to go ahead with this project, please consider

the impact it would have on the wildlife.
Wildlife
RR3
225 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/18/2014
12/4/2014
Commenter
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Subject
C1155-1
I strong opposed the proposed ET Rover 42" pipeline route thru

Hadley Township for the following reasons. Less that two years
ago Energy Transfer claimed there was no need for existing
amount of natural gas capacity in Michigan and sold its north/south
transmission line to Enbridge Energy. The ET Rover proposed
pipeline does NOT supply natural gas beyond the Michcon delivery
point in Livingston County and Hadley Township is just a "pass
through". Furthermore it is NOT in the common good of Michigan
residents beyond Livingston County.
Purpose and need,

benefits
RR1
Chris Tippen
C1155-2
The construction of he proposed pipeline would not only be

potentially devastating to the environmental aesthetics of our
woodlands, farms and meadows but would also put at risk the
preservation and conservation our two state parks and nature
center. Hadley Township contains numerous meadows, creeks,
streams and this proposed pipeline would negatively impact the
watershed functions and watershed management.
Environmental
aesthetics,
waterways,
watersheds,
recreation
RR2, RR3,
RR8
Chris Tippen
C1155-3
The proposed 42" pipeline would adversely affected local Hadley

Township government with increase cost in fire and police
additional training cost. Additional cost to local government with
road repair and maintenance for this 42" pipeline. Respectfully
request to move the proposed pipeline to existing easements:
Detroit Edison or Enbridge Energy or ITC Electric.
Road impacts,
alternatives
RR5, RR10
C1156-1
While the pipeline does not directly affect our property now, it is
proposed to be within 1 1/2 miles from us and therefore within a
disaster area. It is not now affecting our property but mention has
been made that ET Rover may be considering the use of high
power transmission line easements. We have two towers on the
back 20A, which is approximately 1/2 mile from our buildings and
home.
RR10, RR11
C1156-2
The size (36-42" dia.) of the pipe and the depth at which it will be
buried (3-4') the amount (3.2 cu.ft/day) of unscented gas and
pressure at which it will be transmitted; the effect of a breach in the
pipe on wells, natural streams and creeks, woods, and wetlands
(we have two plus a stream on our property alone)
Safety, vegetation,
waterways,
wetlands
RR2, RR3,
RR11
Patricia and Kenneth

Gale

Gale
Comment
ID
Number
Issue/Concern
Chris Tippen
Town, State
Goodrich, MI
Goodrich, MI
226 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Property values
RR5

Gale
C1156-3
The probable decrease in property values, possibly making many

unsaleable.

Gale
C1156-4
The duplication from the same gss source; plus, the fact that it will
NOT supply any natural gas beyond Shiawassee County
(Michigan). It will be a transport only from that point to Canada and
eventually to countries around the world, therefore of no benefit to
the aeneral population in this area and minimum elsewhere.
Purpose and need,

benefits
RR1

Gale
C1156-5
With the nation's increasing concern with terrorism, volatile natural

gas lines of this size could be an opportunity to create a monstrous
disaster.
Safety
RR11

Gale
C1156-6
There are two State Recreation areas in the Township. The 5400A
Ortonville State Recreation park (some of which abuts our back
20A), consisting of mostly woods encompassing walking and
horseback riding trails, and widely used by State and out-of state
game hunters and Trail riders. And, the Hadley-Metamora State
Park with woods, a natural lake and a campground, again, used by
many State and out-of-staters. The Township is also home of the
Sutherland Nature Center with its unique species of trees and
other native plants, etc., a wetland, a variety of birds, reptiles, etc.
Recreation,
RR3, RR8

Gale
C1156-7
Disturbing any of the areas within these Parks and Nature Center
would be devastating to the eco systems and natural habitat of
many creatures and wild life; e.g., pheasant, grouse, wild turkeys,
deer, sand hill cranes, quail, rabbits, Canada geese, amphibians,
migratory birds and wildlife, to name just some. There are many
properties with acres of woods as well as many residences near or
within these Parks and Nature Center; some within a short
distance as well. Our businesses rely on customers from these
Parks and the Nature Center.
recreation
RR3, RR8
227 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1

Gale
C1156-8
Being rural, what do we have for handling a major disaster. A small

volunteer fire department. A breach occurring during a weekday, it
is at minimum manpower, some being senior citizens, the younger
members at work up to 20+ miles away. Will Rover recruit and pay
the extra costs to train existing and new Firefighters and First
Responders to properly respond to a pipeline-associated disaster.
We are a community of approximately 4600 residents (includes
children), many farmer and middle-class senior citizen retirees on
who Rover would be forcing this additional expense.
Emergency
personnel (lack of)
RR5

Gale
C1156-9
Furthermore, the Township encompasses the Flint River

Watershed. This Pipeline is proposed to cross three creeks feeding
this watershed no less than three times, and one creek feeding the
Clinton River Watershed and Paint Creek Sub-Watershed. A
pipeline rupture would be devastating to the entire Flint River
Watershed, eventually flowing into the Great Lakes via Lake
Huron. Needless to say, all creeks, streams, rivers in Michigan will
eventually end up in the Great Lakes.
Watersheds,
waterways
RR2

Gale
C1156-10
As mentioned, the Township, as weil as Lapeer County, has both

large and small acreage farms, and there are many farmers who
will be directly affected by this pipeline. They face possible damage
to the land their ancestors and they have prepared over many
decades (specifically, over a century and 1/4) to grow crops.
Disturbing the infrastructure of farmland caused by excavation to
install this (unnecessary) pipeline; it will take many decades to
bring this land back to its current productivity.
Land use (ag)
RR8

Gale
C1156-11
Such as the composition of the soil these farmers spent years

planting, cultivating, fertilizing to make it produce their crops for
quality and maximum yield. Compaction of the land by trucks,
machines, and man; the introduction of foreign weeds, should dirt
be brought in from another area as fill, the possible breakage of tile
that the farmer paid thousands of dollars to make his land usable
for crops.
Soil quality,
RR1, RR7
228 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Property values
RR5
Alternatives,
purpose and need
RR1, RR10

Gale
C1156-12
Not to mention the buried pipeline could possibly severely

decrease the land's value. Farms are not the only properties
affected. There are many residences, a small subdivision and the
community of Hadley within an explosion area. We and our
neighbors, being within 1 1/2 miles from the pipeline, could also
experience decreases in value and unsaleability.

Gale
C1156-13
DTE's Nexus pipeline is in the Pre-Filing process with FERC to be

incorporated with the Vector pipeline going through Michigan from
Joliet, Illinois and will supply Gas to distributors in Michigan.
Energy Transfer Partners of Texas (parent company of E.T. Rover)
sold an existing pipeline to Enbridge two years ago stating the
capacity wasn't needed. If it wasn't needed two years ago, what
justifies the need for the pipeline now? That pipeline could have
been used, or replaced, along the existing route. The Enbridge
pipeline will originate from the Marcellus Shale Gas in
Pennsylvania to be incorporated with the Nexus-Vector lines in
Michigan. Is there really a need for a duplicate natural gas line
from the same origin to the same destination??

Gale
C1156-14
The route shown for the Nexus line appears less invasive to
people's property. They state on their website "ongoing
communications process with stakeholders to develoo a viable
route that mitigates impacts to landowners and the environment It
further states, "The pipeline route will utilize existing corridors and
infrastructure for most of its length in order to minimize
environmental and local impacts."
Alternatives
RR10

Gale
C1156-15
If this pipeline is so essential, could they not find a less invasive

route such as going straight North from Defiance, Ohio along the
western edge of Lenawee County, Michigan up to the northern
edge of Shiawassee County, then along the extreme northern edge
of Genesee, Lapeer and St.Clair Counties, dropping down to the
Port Huron terminus in the United States using easements along 194 From there to their destination in Sarnia, Ontario, Canada. Or,
there are easements along the I-69 corridor that could be used
from the western edge of Shiawassee CO to Port Huron to Sarnia,
Canada.
Alternatives
RR10
229 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/16/2014
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
C1157-1
The proposed pipeline is going to be within 150' of an oilfield waste

injection well. This injection well is not shown on either the ET
Rover aerial or the ET Rover topographic maps. This well is
located In Section 29 of Wooster Township on 15 acres at the
corner of Batdorf Road and West Tolbert Road. One of these
injection wells, in the Youngstown, Ohio area, has been
determined to be the cause of several small earthquakes in the
past several years. These earthquakes were the result of the
heavy use of the well due to the large amount of waste being
generated by oil and gas production activities. We understand that
the two 42" lines are going to have cross pipes connecting them
every so often to keep the pressure equalized in both lines. An
earthquake could compromise the integrity of the welds connecting
the two pipes.
Fracking, safety
RR1, RR11
Roger and David

Maurer
C1157-2
There is a housing development within 300 feet of the proposed

pipeline. What happens to those homeowners in the case of a
pipeline explosion?
Siting, safety
RR1, RR11
Roger and David

Maurer
C1157-3
Our neighbor has land 900 feet from the proposed pipeline that he
has enrolled in the Federal Wetland Reserves program. There was
a pair of nesting Sand Hill cranes on this wetland this past
summer. This species is considered to be endangered in Ohio.
Wetlands, wildlife
RR2, RR3
Roger and David

Maurer
C1157-4
The proposed pipeline route goes through our property. We bought

it about 30 years ago. The property was not in the best shape
when we purchased it. We have put a lot of time and money into
making this property very productive farmland. We have installed
tile drainage, sod waterways, and have no-tilled the land since
purchasing the property. In half a day with a bulldozer and heavy
trucks, ET Rover will destroy everything we have worked so hard
to build over the past 30 years.
Drainage tiles,
waterways,
RR1, RR2,
RR8
Roger and David

Maurer
C1157-5
We grow fruit, vegetables, and grain. Fruit and vegetables require

soils with excellent structure and undisturbed subsoil. The subsoil
will be disturbed and the soil structure will be destroyed by ET
Rover's pipeline construction activities. The above facts preclude
us from ever growing fruit and vegetables on land affected by the
pipeline construction.
Soil quality
RR7
Commenter
Roger and David
Maurer
Town, State
Wooster, OH
Comment
ID
Number
230 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/18/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Roger and David

Maurer
C1157-6
We understand that FERC approval of the ET Rover pipeline gives

ET Rover the right of Eminent Domain. Eminent Domain is the right
to appropriate private property for public use. It follows that a
project for public use should be located on public lands if public
lands are available in the area of the project.
Eminent domain
RR1
Roger and David

Maurer
C1157-7
ET Rover has an opportunity to place approximately 2 miles of

their proposed pipeline on public land owned by the State of Ohio
in Franklin and Wooster Townships, Wayne County, Ohio. The
pipeline from the east should come to the intersection of Prairie
Lane and West Messner Road and then head west on the south
side of Messner Road to Valley Road; under Killbuck Creek; and
then head northwest through State of Ohio land to State Route
226. This land is wasteland. There are few Impediments or
buildings along this route thus avoiding many of the issues referred
to above.
Alternatives
RR10
C1158-1
Our property is bounded by woodlands on all sides of our property.

These are old, large trees (oak, maple, beech, etc.) 50 to 60 feet
tall. The typical ROW of 125-150', as well as the lesser ROW of 7595', would decimate the woodlands. Pipeline construction would
destroy this wildlife inhabited forest. Deer, turkey, raccoons and
other wildlife are resident in these woods. Also many species of
birds make their home here and on adjacent land, including
migratory birds such as geese, ducks, and sand hill cranes. In
general pipeline construction here will be detrimental to this rural
woodlands and wildlife.
RR3
Mary Jo Patel
C1158-2
We have a Dog training business on the property and the woods

are used for certain types of dog training. The wooded area, also,
protects our neighborhood from the potential noise of barking dogs.
Loss of business
RR5
Mary Jo Patel
C1158-3
Our drinking water is from an artesian well at low depth. Pipeline

installation would disrupt the soil with potential contamination of the
well water system. We are not aware of any protective measures
planned by Rover.
Water quality
RR2
Mary Jo Patel
Metamora, MI
231 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Mary Jo Patel
C1158-4
The adjoining property on one side is a farm field with flowing wells
and surface run off. The field is tiled and the run off is collected at
two points on our property. At both points the water is controlled
and channeled to the opposite side of the property. Were
concerned that pipeline construction in this area would cause
surface water flooding to areas that could impact our home,
business and barn.

impacts
RR2
Mary Jo Patel
C1158-5
Access to our property to the main road is by a long narrow

driveway. The driveway is bounded by trees on each side and
butts up to the neighbors properties on each side as well.
Interruption to our access by pipeline construction activities would
"land lock" our property and block access to our home and
business.
Property access
RR5
Mary Jo Patel
C1158-6
Dog training business is on the property daily. Pipeline construction

would make access to the property for clients difficult. This creates
a likelihood of losing clients and business.
Loss of business
RR5
Mary Jo Patel
C1158-7
The proposed pipeline project raises serious safety concerns in the

event of a leak of explosion. Given the volume of gas transported,
an explosion could eradicate a half mile area from ground zero.
Leaks and fires due to pipe erosion has occurred in the past and is
of grave concern here. See Detroit Free Press, Front Page
12/17/14, Enbridge leak in U.P. raises fears for Straits. There is a
high potential that, whether the pipeline traverses the property or is
in near proximity, the resale value of this property will decrease
significantly.
Safety, property
values
RR5, RR11
Mary Jo Patel
C1158-8
There is no benefit to our community or property owners for the

disruption of the pipeline. The ET Rover pipeline does not supply
natural gas to Hadley Township. The Township is simply a "passthrough" to Canada. The pipeline does not assist the common
good for Hadley.
Benefits
RR1
232 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
C1158-9
Rover already abandoned its Oakland County plans based on

similar concerns. Rover should consider alternate routes that have
less environmental, community. business and residential impact.
Follow the Nexus pipeline and use existing right of ways and
easements granted them. Use high voltage power line easements,
especially in Lapeer County and move away from landowner
properties. Use public easement along 1-69 highway directly to
Canada.
Alternatives
RR10
C1159-1
To allow passage and right of way for both construction and

maintenance, it would mean deconstructing a stock fence that
contains our security dog as well as any other livestock we may
own, as well as tearing out a hand-built stone wall which is
adjacent to an iron locked gate. This would in effect annex a major
portion in the front of the property to be no longer usable for our
purposes. We have recently obtained city water hook-up which
could enable us to utilize this field in farming on a small scale.
Property damage,
property access
RR1, RR5
Michail and Michele

Dolgovskij
C1159-2
The value in terms of personal enjoyment as well as potential

resale value to future generations lies in the layout of our farm. We
purchased our farm forty-six years ago for the primary purpose of
privacy and country living. The entire element of privacy would be
removed with right of way maintenance and provision to open
access for this purpose. No amount of financial reimbursement
through the condemnation of property takes this into account.
Property values,
compensation
RR5
Michail and Michele

Dolgovskij
C1159-3
With regard to soil erosion, in the last forty-six years of being on

this property, we have found that the hill behind our home has
regular erosion and water drainage. This has happened with
minimal tree removal for construction of our home. It is our belief
that the width of tree removal to place the pipeline would further
destabilize that hill at a greater rate. The roots of existing trees are
what holds the hill in place.
Soil quality,
vegetation
RR3, RR7
Commenter
Town, State
Mary Jo Patel
12/18/2014
Michail and Michele

Dolgovskij
Glen Dale, WV
Comment
ID
Number
233 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/18/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Michail and Michele

Dolgovskij
C1159-4
They have contacted us for permission to survey on our property.

We repeatedly told them no. In September, a survey crew showed
up in front of our locked gate. We verbally told them that they did
not have permission to enter upon our property. At a later time,
when we came home from a trip to town, I noticed that there were
colorful survey ribbons on our interior fence as well as in the woods
on the hill behind our house. On another date, we stopped a
survey crew as they were climbing over our fence. They
respectfully left when we asked them to, and told us that they had
never been informed that we had not signed permission forms for
their ingress.
Permission to
Survey
RR1
Michail and Michele

Dolgovskij
C1159-5
ET Rover Pipeline LLC representatives have verbally informed us

that all of the pipeline is Eminent Domain. It leads us to believe that
in no way would they be considerate to the needs of landowners
for pipeline placement in a way to minimize property damage and
take in to account the very real concerns of property owners.
Eminent domain
RR1
C1160-1
The Environmental impact of this pipeline not to mention the

negative financial impact of this on my property value and those
that live in this area is too great a cost when there is no public
convenience and necessity for it.
Environmental
impacts, property
values
RR3, RR5
Susan Snethkamp
C1160-2
If not now, when will you stop allowing the further polluting of our
air and the ravaging of our natural resources for big corporate
profits. Are you paying attention to the greenhouse gas issues and
clean water issues? We need someone to take a stand for the
little man I want to protect our waters and resources for those that
come after us.
Air quality
RR9
Susan Snethkamp
C1160-3
I can site the dangers... but you know them - pipes do fail Marshall 2010 is just one example. More gas being released into
the air is not good either. Canada has plenty of natural reserves.
Let them ravage their land. Better yet, work together to help save
our planet and invest in other clean energy forms that may help
save our planet.
Safety
RR11
Susan Snethkamp
Metamora, MI
234 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/17/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Susan Snethkamp
C1160-4
I already have an electric tower going through my land, I need to

sell my home and that alone will make it hard, but another
easement would seal my fate. Please dont let them put this
pipeline on my other easement or my land.
Existing easements,
RR1, RR5
Susan Snethkamp
C1160-5
Besides all the other dangers that I will be living with, I need to
mention that the big gravel trucks frequently go down Wilder Road
from the gravel pits to the expressway during each day. I can feel
my earth moving when I am riding my horse when one goes by. I
think this ground is not stable enough to keep a pipeline from
suffering underground impacts.
Noise quality,
RR1, RR9
Multiple (135)
Commenters (Form
Letter)
C1161-1
As a member of the local community, I support the Rover Pipeline

Project and the benefits it will bring to my community and the state
of Ohio.
Multiple (135)
Commenters (Form
Letter)
C1161-2
our economy.
Economic benefits
RR5
Multiple (135)
Commenters (Form
Letter)
C1161-3
Natural gas Is playing an important role in supporting an American

natural gas means lower enemy costs for consumers, more
made locally.
Reliabilty, economic
benefits
RR5, RR11
Multiple (135)
Commenters (Form
Letter)
C1161-4

local construction jobs. In addition, 76% of the pipe will be
manufactured in the US, along with all compression assembly and
packaging. Once operational, the pipeline will provide more than
$150 million in tax revenue each year, for states and counties
along the route.
Economic benefits,
jobs, tax revenues
RR5
235 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/17/2014
12/17/2014
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Multiple (172)
Commenters (Form
Letter)
C1162-1
I am writing in support of the proposed Rover Pipeline which is to

transport natural gas through several states from the Utica and
Marcellus shale. This 800-mile project would supply domestically
produced natural gas to manufacturers, utilities and distributors to
generate heat and electricity for homes and businesses in the
Midwest, specifically the State of Michigan. The project will
increase supplies of natural gas for Ohio residents, who are the
eighth largest consumers of the fuel, and for Michigan residents,
who are the ninth largest consumers of natural gas in the nation.
Economic benefits
RR5
Multiple (172)
Commenters (Form
Letter)
C1162-2
The project owner, Energy Transfer Partners, estimates the

pipeline would inject $4.3 billion of investment into state and local
economies, with $1 billion in direct wages for 10,000 construction
workers. The pipeline would be built by LIUNA members whose
organization has more than a century of experience safely building
pipelines in virtually every stats and province of the U.S. and
Canada. LIUNA invests nearly $100 million a year in skills training
for construction workers through more than 70 training centers
across the nation - with three in Michigan (Wayne, Perry, and Iron
Mountain). Most importantly, LIUNA has pipeline-specific
instruction and courses to ensure that the construction of pipelines
is salis for workers, property owners, and the environment.
Tax revenues, jobs
RR5
Multiple (119)
Commenters (Form
Letter)
C1163-1

Rover Pipeline. The pipeline project will create jobs, supply
Americans with domestically produced energy, and be built to bestin-class standards that protect the environment and local
communitics.
Jobs, economic
benefits
RR5
Multiple (119)
Commenters (Form
Letter)
C1163-2

thc United States. Pipelines are the safest and most efficient way
Purpose and need
RR1
Multiple (119)
Commenters (Form
Letter)
C1163-3

Jobs
RR5
236 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/18/2014
12/15/2014
Commenter
Comment
ID
Number
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Multiple (119)
Commenters (Form
Letter)
C1163-4

of construction workers are from the local community. Therefore,
Jobs, economic
benefits
RR5
Multiple (119)
Commenters (Form
Letter)
C1163-5
I urge you to consider the thousands of hard-working Americans

who will have access to lower energy costs and quality careers
because of the pipeline.
Jobs, economic
benefits
RR5
C1165-1
This location is near the point where the Rover Pipeline will go
under Route 2 and head for the Ohio River. Route 2 is the main
road through New Cumberland. A concern is the outside lane of
Route 2 has been gradually sinking and giving way. Additionally,
as soon as the pipeline clears Route 2 it is no longer underground.
There is a steep hillside there with no room even for a guardrail. It
would seem this is a poor location for a 36" pipeline. The
configuration of Route 2 through New Cumberland has always
been a problem and with the increased truck traffic the redirection
of Route 2 is being seriously discussed. The proposed path of the
pipeline will most likely intersect the new road construction area.
Construction
impacts
RR1
Lawrence Binkoski
C1165-2
We live in a residential area. In addition to public safety other

issues are: how close to our home will the pipeline be; the
devaluation of our property; the use of eminent domain; quality of
life and more.
Safety, property
values, eminent
domain
RR1, RR5,
RR11
Lawrence Binkoski
C1165-3
Rover Pipeline LLC would be much better served if the pipeline

were moved a quarter mile south near the entrance to New
Cumberland where all of these issues could be avoided.
Alternatives
RR10
C1166-1
We chose this property because it is serene, rural, and peaceful.

Our property consists of several acres of regulated wetland and
1000s of mature standing timber. To allow ET Rover to clear cut
astrip through our property would be devastating to our property,
its value, and potentially to the safety of our family.
Aesthetics,
vegetation,
wetlands, property
values
RR2, RR3,
RR5, RR8
C1166-2
We were first approached by the Right of Way person from ET

Rover back in August, 2014. We had several questions, which he
could not answer, but still requested we sign the easement form to
allow a survey of our property. We did not.
FERC pre-filing
process
RR1
Lawrence Binkoski
Kendra Knieper
Kendra Knieper
Town, State
New
Cumberland,
WV
Grand Blanc,
MI
237 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Kendra Knieper
C1166-3
In September we received a certified letter implying that according

to Michigan Law, ET Rover and/or its affiliates had the right to
come on ourproperty without our permission. We contacted a
lawyer to determine the validity of the law and was informed that
ET Rover does not have the legal right to come on our property for
any reason until after the application is approved by FERC. By
stating a law that is in existence but doesnt apply to them, ET
Rover is misleading people into believing their company and/or its
affiliates have the right to come onto our properties and to survey
our land regardless of our wishes. I, myself, think this is a form of
bullying and certainly doesnt warrant working with the property
owners (required in order no. 665).
Permission to
Survey
RR1
Kendra Knieper
C1166-4
To say that ET Rover has been helpful, informative, kind, or even

ethical is a complete understatement. It is my understanding that
your organization requires the applicant to work with property
owners and local officials (order no. 665). They have clearly failed
in meeting that requirement.
FERC pre-filing
process
RR1
Kendra Knieper
C1166-5
If it is deemed by your organization that this project is a necessity

and in the publics best interest than why not require they use an
existing easement? Why not work with the Michigan DOT and
allow them to place it in one of the freeway rights of way? Why not
require they negotiate terms with an electrical distribution company
and use one of their easements. Why allow ET Rover to take a
portion of our property, lower our property values, potentially put
our lives in danger (as they have told us that if an explosion were
to occur, anything within 900 feet would be destroyed), and disrupt
our quality of life? Why not require ET Rover to exhaust each of
these avenues before granting them permission to take and using
a portion of our properties?
Alternatives
RR10
238 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/18/2014
Commenter
Comment
ID
Number
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Kendra Knieper
C1166-6
My husband and I spent a lot of money when we purchased our

property. It was the perfect property, located near the expressway,
yet had the wooded acreage for my husband to enjoy his hunting.
We built our dream home on this property and have since had two
beautiful children. The thought of having my children within 900
feet of this pipeline is terrifying. I absolutely want no part in it and
would certainly consider selling my house and its property to keep
my family safe regardless of the chances. I am not taking ANY
chances when it comes to the safety of my children.
Recreation, safety
RR8, RR11
Kendra Knieper
C1166-7
Furthermore, this project would destroy the habitat that he has

worked so hard at making inviting for the wildlife. Why should any
ET Rover be have the right to subject our family to danger or to be
able to take a portion of our property for their own use?
Wildlife, safety
RR3, RR11
C1167-1
Energy Transfer has a perfectly good 770-mile pipeline that it used

to use to transport gas through Michigan. Energy Transfer,
themselves, admitted less than 2 years ago that the 770-mile
pipeline was not needed in the state of Michigan. The demand for
gas was not there to support this line and there were plenty of
other lines available to take care of all the demand in Michigan.
Michigans governor Snyder, Senators Stabenow and Levin,
Consumers Power Co. and a host of other people disagreed with
Energy Transfer. They persisted, however, and only a short year
ago, they were permitted, by FERC, to abandon this line. They
immediately turned around and sold the 770-mile pipeline, that
they did not need, to one of their Canadian friends, Enbridge.
Purpose and need
RR1
C1167-2
This is ridiculous. What has changed in Michigan in the last year to

support the need for this new line when Energy Transfer said we
didnt need the old one? Nothing has changed that drastically in
this state that warrents a new pipeline!
Purpose and need
RR1
Carol Bilot
Carol Bilot
Town, State
Bruce Twp, MI
239 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/17/2014
Commenter
Comment
ID
Number
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Safety
RR11
Carol Bilot
C1167-3
I fear for the safety of my family and myself if this pipeline is

allowed to be placed on my property or on the property of someone
I care about, friends and family. While Energy Transfer claims that
the pipelines are safe, I beg to differ. There was a breach just
recently where the explosion was heard and felt miles away.
Imagine if that breach was in a residential area. Hundreds of lives
would have been lost!
Carol Bilot
C1167-4
Many of us are on wells and contamination is always on our minds.
Water quality
RR2
Carol Bilot
C1167-5
Our property values, the thing we work so hard to maintain

because it gives us a little bit of financial security, would be greatly
reduced. We would not even be able to sell our property if we
wanted to or had to! Who would buy my home with a pipeline
running next to my front door? No one!
Property values
RR5
Carol Bilot
C1167-6
If Energy Transfer really needs this line, they should be made to

buy the homes and/or land, at a premium, of anyone who would be
affected by this line. ET stands to make a lot of money on this line,
they need to be fair to the United States/Michigan citizens who will
suffer losses because of them.
Compensation
RR5
C1168-1
We are not opposing this pipeline in concept and understand the

importance of energy transmission to our national infrastructure;
however, we feel it must be appropriately placed as to do the least
damage to the communities it intersect.
Siting
RR1
C1168-2
The Great Lakes National Veterans Cemetery on Belford Road is

2000 feet south of the proposed pipeline route and runs parallel to
the proposed pipeline for approximately one mile. It would appear
from a discussion with a representative of E. T. Rover that it is not
aware of the existence of the Great Lakes National Veterans
Cemetery and the serious implications the proposed pipeline
construction would have upon its operation. This myopic view
would have disturbing consequences.
Siting, construction
impacts
RR1
Holly Township Board

of Trustees

of Trustees
Town, State
Holly, MI 48442
240 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1

of Trustees
C1168-3
Americas Greatest Generation and other military veterans deserve

dignified burials and our North Holly Road is extremely busy with
funeral traffic. It averages 20 burials per day, with a maximum of
24, many having funeral processions, and most coming south from
I-75 at Exit 108 and crossing the proposed pipeline route. Being
within 2000 feet of an active National Cemetery demands having
and keeping a respectable quiet zone during those burials, which
our residents carefully respect and our veterans demand.
Noise quality,
RR1, RR9

of Trustees
C1168-5
Forested parcels generally require 2-3 months of active

construction to complete, per pipeline mile. This means there
would be a noise and construction traffic disruption that not only
would last a significant amount of time, but would also be of the
worst type, involving the extensive use of chainsaws and heavy
equipment. We cant imagine why E. T. Rover would choose a
route so close an active Veterans Cemetery and it must be
reminded that any pipeline construction activity cannot restrict any
funeral traffic, as they are closely scheduled, or create any
noticeable noise.
Noise quality,
RR1, RR9

of Trustees
C1168-6
Our 11,000 resident, 36 square mile township has little industry

and is primarily a bedroom community. Our businesses are not
solely able to depend on our resident population to support them.
Many of our businesses only thrive because of our tourist based
economy. Our township motto is Up North in Oakland County and
an Up North reference in Michigan denotes being a recreational
playground with multiple opportunities and the subsequent dollars
that flow with them.
Recreation
RR8
241 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1

of Trustees
C1168-7
We promote our townships capacity for biking, hiking, kayaking,

skiing and other outdoor pursuits. We worked for years to assure a
538 acre piece of remarkable property retained its nearly virgin
status, so that it could be preserved along with its extensive
woodlands and two lakes. The Southeast Michigan Land
Conservancy ultimately purchased the property and placed it within
a conservation easement with the Six Rivers Land Conservancy to
protect it forever. The effort to preserve this property was shared
by multiple counties, multiple townships and spearheaded by the
Oakland County Parks Department. The successful formation of
the Lost Lake Nature Preserve was the culmination of years of
effort by multiple agencies and many residents.
Recreation,
conservation areas
RR3, RR8

of Trustees
C1168-8
Instead E. T. Rover decided to decimate a wooded nature preserve

and other significant woodland areas in Holly Township that will
never recover in our lifetimes and subsequently diminish our local
economy and eradicate years of preservation efforts. Holly
Township already has a natural gas pipeline within its borders.
Vegetation,
economic impacts
RR3, RR5

of Trustees
C1168-9
There is an existing north-south Consumers Energy line that runs

the length of the township. The proposed E.T. Rover pipeline will
intersect that line within the Holly Township borders. This proposed
intersection has significant implications for Holly Township and its
residents.
Existing easements
RR1

of Trustees
C1168-10
We are served by the North Oakland County Fire Authority

(NOCFA) as our fire department. It is a small department, operated
by a citizen board that serves both Holly and Rose Townships.
NOCFA has only 2 full time employees, the rest being volunteers,
who are otherwise employed and are not always available. We
also do not have a public water supply. All firefighting water would
have to be tanked into the site along the entire length of the
pipeline. Adding these new miles of pipeline and most importantly
a pipeline crossing, adds significantly to our exposure for a
devastating incident for which we cannot adequately respond.
Emergency
personnel, safety
RR5, RR11
242 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1

of Trustees
C1168-11
Certainly the E. T. Rover Company should be assuring our

residents that it will be providing sizeable funding for both training
and appropriate equipment as may be needed to protect the
pipeline crossing area and the pipeline as a whole. NOCFA would
also require at a minimum two water sources for public and
firefighter safety. Our recommendation would be two wells capable
of providing 400 gallons per minute at 30 pounds per square inch
pressure, continuous. For security reasons each well will need to
be within a 10 foot by 12 foot locked enclosure. The best locations
would be at or near the corner of Fish Lake Road & Belford Road
and Belford Road & Furbush Road.
Emergency
personnel, water
use
RR2, RR5

of Trustees
C1168-12
Holly Township residents should in no manner be responsible for

any financial obligations thrust upon it by outside businesses for
which there are no direct benefits such as increased property
taxes.
Property values
RR5

of Trustees
C1168-13
All NOCFA ambulances and all Village of Holly emergency

services ambulances must travel on North Holly Road or be
subjected to a 13 miles detour to the west or a 9 mile detour to the
east. Lives can be lost during that delay. Because of our bedroom
community status most of our residents commute to work and most
go north to our closest major city, Flint. Having only one paved
north/south road requires that it have extraordinary accessibility, a
circumstance noted by the Michigan State Police, NOCFA and the
Road Commission for Oakland County. North Holly Road cannot
be restricted or closed at any time and the pipeline must be done
completely underground within this important roadway. Holly
Township believes we should be provided with an Emergency
Management Plan that will cover every contingency that we have
to respond to both during the construction and when the new
pipeline is in service.
Road impacts,
alternatives
RR5, RR10
243 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State
Comment
ID
Number
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1

of Trustees
C1168-14
Along with the above noted loss of a remarkable recreational asset

some of the property chosen for the pipeline route has
development potential that will be lost. Both our current zoning
map and the Zoning Master Plan have denoted certain areas within
the township for future growth. Those areas are determined by a
criterion that includes access to roadways, utilities, and ground and
water resources. Our residents have private wells and septic tanks
for their personal use. We note that within all of the E. T. Rover
filings we have read that the location of all residential septic tanks
and wells has not been given any consideration regarding the
proposed routing. This must be done before any construction was
to begin on any residential property.
Recreation, siting,
water quality
RR1, RR2,
RR8

of Trustees
C1168-15
The roads that would be used for staging routes within Holly
Township are dirt roads that require constant upkeep. All of the
roads along the proposed pipeline route and intersecting the route
are secondary residential roads. We know that there will be
substantial long term damage to our roads from the excessive
heavy traffic, in both quantity and volume. It is our understanding
that the roads would be re-graveled at the close of the project. That
would be an insufficient conclusion for our dirt roads. With the road
base being crushed by the truck traffic it would be appropriate that
the roads be rebuilt and paved at the end of construction to assure
they remain viable in the future.
Road impacts
RR5

of Trustees
C1168-16
Part of the resentment of the proposed pipeline from our affected

residents is that they may have a major natural gas pipeline laid on
their property, but do not have any access to any natural gas. With
the proposed disruptions in their lives and land it would be
appropriate that the E.T. Rover company would see that northern
Holly Township residents, particularly those directly within the path
of the proposed project, would receive at no cost to themselves,
natural gas to their homes. Those natural gas residential service
lines could be extended from the north, west, or south. We
understand that it would not come directly from the proposed
pipeline. We hope you appreciate the dichotomy of having natural
gas that close, but having to use another energy source for your
home.
Benefits
RR1
244 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
Commenter
Town, State

of Trustees
12/18/2014
Comment
ID
Number
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
Alternatives
RR10
Safety
RR11
Property values
RR5
Safety
RR11
C1168-17
We would like to suggest consideration of a sensible and

reasonable alternative that would eliminate many of the
disadvantages the current route has provided. Reusing existing
utility right of ways within Holly Township would create far fewer
disruptions and none of these are near the Great Lakes National
Cemetery or complicate providing continuous north-south access
on North Holly Road. This co-location of utilities would also seem
to be the most efficient use of property and resources.
C1171-1
Safety in the event of a pipeline failure.
Ronald Kardos
C1171-2
Decreases in property values. Potential for increased homeowner

insurance. Negative potential for issues relating to mortgages.
Ronald Kardos
C1171-3
Health issues in the event of a pipeline failure.
Ronald Kardos
C1171-4
Negative impact to wetlands. Negative impact to farmland. Loss of

forested areas. Negative impact on wildlife.
Wetlands,
vegetation, wildlife,
farmland
RR2, RR3,
RR8
Ronald Kardos
C1171-5
That there is no proven necessity (Purpose and Need).
Purpose and need
RR1
Ronald Kardos
C1171-6
The negative impact on crossing waterways.
Waterways
RR2
Ronald Kardos
C1171-7
The negative impact to the soils on the roughly 180 miles of

pipeline (no matter how much a pipeline company would like you to
believe that "they will restore the soil to the way it was" it does not
happen).
Soil quality
RR7
Ronald Kardos
C1171-8
FERC needs to examine the impacts of those activities that would

NOT occur if the project did not go ahead. If the purpose is to
increase natural gas delivery to Canada, then FERC should be
considering the effects of the increased USE of the gas that would
otherwise not be used. That would include the specific impact of
burning that fuel, leakage, etc., on adding greenhouse gases to the
atmosphere. Or the impact of additional power plants that are
designed to burn that gas.
Benefits, cumulative
impacts
RR1
Ronald Kardos
Fenton, MI
245 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
11/20/2014
Issue/Concern
Subject
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
C1172-1
The pipeline will generate tens of thousands of jobs from 3 sources

during construction. Even more important are the thousands of
jobs the completed pipeline will support.
Jobs
RR5
C1172-2
Once the pipeline begins operating, it will deliver an assured

supply of lower-cost natural gas to millions of consumers and
thousands of businesses. With less costly energy and feedstocks,
many more firms in Michigan will become or remain competitive,
spurring still more construction activity. These benefits will show up
both in locations directly served by the pipeline, among electricity
customers throughout the service area of power companies using
the gas for generation, and across the state and beyond when
customers and businesses flex their enhanced spending power.
Economic beneftis
RR5
C1173-1
BMF opposes the Rover pipeline because it will facilitate and

enable fracking and other forms fossil fuel development in the
Marcellus region, which will exacerbate the world's - and
consequently Michigan's - current trajectory toward catastrophic
global warming.
Fracking, air quality
RR1, RRR9
Ellis Boal
C1173-2
Energy Transfer's 11/14 fact sheet says the Rover pipeline will
accomplish exactly the opposite. Rather than leaving fossil fuel in
the ground, the line "is being designed to transport 3.25 billion
cubic feet of natural gas per day."
Air quality,
cumulative impacts
RR1, RR9
Ellis Boal
C1173-3
The fact sheet claims the pipeline will bring environmental benefits,
arguing that the 44% increase in US natural gas production by
2040 which is forecast by the US Energy Information
Administration "supports cleaner air." But natural gas production
does just the opposite.
Air quality
RR9
Ellis Boal
C1173-4
Additionally of course there will be methane leakage from

compressor stations and the line itself, phenomena of which FERC
is no doubt already cognizant.
Air quality
RR9
Commenter
Kenneth D. Simonson
Town, State
Chelsea, MI
Kenneth D. Simonson
12/18/2014
Ellis Boal
Charlevoix, MI
Comment
ID
Number
246 of 247
January 2015

Date Letter
Recorded
on Docket
12/17/14
Commenter
Multiple (160)
Commenters (Form
Letter)
Town, State
Multiple

Resource Report 1
Project Description
Resource Report 2
Resource Report 3
Resource Report 4
Cultural Resources
Resource Report 5
Socioeconomics
Resource Report 6
Comment
ID
Number
C1174-1
Issue/Concern
Subject
Writing to support the Project creation of jobs, economic

stimulus, source of tax revenues, and new source of energy supply
for region.
Jobs, economic
benefits
Resource Report 7
Resource Report 8
Resource Report 9
Resource Report 10
Resource Report 11
RR Where
Comment
Addressed1
RR5
Soils
Alternatives
Notes: Duplicate comment letters have been deleted, resulting in gaps in the Comment ID numbers.
247 of 247
January 2015
Document Content(s)
Public-Final Rover Transmittal_01_02_15.PDF...........................1-1
Rover Scoping Mtg Summary _Adrian MI
(01-01-15).final.PDF............2-16
Rover Scoping Mtg Summary _Cadiz OH (01-01-15).final.PDF..............17-22

Rover Scoping Mtg Summary _Chelsea MI
(01-01-15).final.PDF...........23-36
Rover Scoping Mtg Summary _Defiance OH (01-01-15).final.PDF...........37-47

Rover Scoping Mtg Summary _Flint OH (01-02-15).final.PDF..............48-70
Rover Scoping Mtg Summary _Navarre OH (01-01-15).final.PDF............71-79
Rover Scoping Mtg Summary _New Wash OH
(01-01-15).final.PDF..........80-85
Rover Scoping Mtg Summary _Paden WV (01-01-15).final.PDF..............86-91

Rover Scoping Mtg Summary _Rich MI
(01-01-15).final.PDF..............92-113
Rover Scoping Mtg Summary _Toronto OH (01-01-15).final.PDF............114-118

Rover Scoping Comment Letter Summ (12-31-14).final.PDF................119-365

Rover Pipeline Public Comments

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Rover Pipeline Public Comments

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

20150102-5234 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 1/2/2015 4:30:42 PM

Dear Ms. Bose:

Ms. Kara Harris, Office of Energy Projects

1300 Main Street Houston, TX 77002

Scoping Meeting Held in Adrian, Michigan on December 1, 2014

Comment ID Number / Comment Summary

20150102-5234 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 1/2/2015 4:30:42 PM

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT

Scoping Meeting Held in Adrian, Michigan on December 1, 2014

Comment ID Number / Comment Summary

20150102-5234 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 1/2/2015 4:30:42 PM

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT

Scoping Meeting Held in Adrian, Michigan on December 1, 2014

Comment ID Number / Comment Summary

20150102-5234 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 1/2/2015 4:30:42 PM

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT

Scoping Meeting Held in Adrian, Michigan on December 1, 2014

Comment ID Number / Comment Summary

20150102-5234 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 1/2/2015 4:30:42 PM

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT

Scoping Meeting Held in Adrian, Michigan on December 1, 2014

Comment ID Number / Comment Summary

20150102-5234 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 1/2/2015 4:30:42 PM

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT

Scoping Meeting Held in Adrian, Michigan on December 1, 2014

Comment ID Number / Comment Summary

20150102-5234 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 1/2/2015 4:30:42 PM

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT

Scoping Meeting Held in Adrian, Michigan on December 1, 2014

Comment ID Number / Comment Summary

20150102-5234 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 1/2/2015 4:30:42 PM

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT

Scoping Meeting Held in Adrian, Michigan on December 1, 2014

Comment ID Number / Comment Summary

20150102-5234 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 1/2/2015 4:30:42 PM

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT

Scoping Meeting Held in Adrian, Michigan on December 1, 2014

Comment ID Number / Comment Summary

20150102-5234 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 1/2/2015 4:30:42 PM

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT

Scoping Meeting Held in Adrian, Michigan on December 1, 2014

Comment ID Number / Comment Summary

20150102-5234 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 1/2/2015 4:30:42 PM

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT

Scoping Meeting Held in Adrian, Michigan on December 1, 2014

Comment ID Number / Comment Summary

20150102-5234 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 1/2/2015 4:30:42 PM

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT

Scoping Meeting Held in Adrian, Michigan on December 1, 2014

Comment ID Number / Comment Summary

20150102-5234 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 1/2/2015 4:30:42 PM

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT

Scoping Meeting Held in Adrian, Michigan on December 1, 2014

Comment ID Number / Comment Summary

20150102-5234 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 1/2/2015 4:30:42 PM

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT

Scoping Meeting Held in Adrian, Michigan on December 1, 2014

Comment ID Number / Comment Summary

20150102-5234 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 1/2/2015 4:30:42 PM

ROVER PIPELINE PROJECT

Scoping Meeting Held in Adrian, Michigan on December 1, 2014

Comment ID Number / Comment Summary

1 Resource Report (RR) where comment is addressed:

20150102-5234 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 1/2/2015 4:30:42 PM