STATE OF VERMONT
PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD
Petition of Vermont Transco, LLC, and
Vermont Electric Power Company, Inc.
(collectively, “VELCO”), and Central Vermont
Public Service Corporation (“CVPS”) for a
Certificate of Public Good, pursuant to 30
V.S.A. § 248, for the “Southern Loop Project,”
located in Vernon, Guilford, Brattleboro,
Dummerston, Newfane, Brookline, Townshend,
Grafton, Windham, Andover, Chester, Ludlow
and Cavendish, Vermont, consisting of the
following elements: (1) a new, approximately
51-mile, 345 kV transmission line between
Vernon-Cavendish, to be built parallel to and
within the same utility right-of-way as
VELCO’s existing Vernon-Cavendish 345 kV
line; (2) a new VELCO 345/115 kV Vernon
substation, to be located just north of the
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station; (3) a
new 345/115/46 kV Newfane substation; (4) a
new, approximately one-mile, 345 kV
transmission line loop between the new
Newfane substation and the new VernonCavendish 345 kV line; (5) expansion of
VELCO’s Coolidge substation in Cavendish,
Vermont; and (6) the implementing of
incremental energy efficiency to defer
transmission upgrades in Southern Vermont
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Docket No. ____
PREFILED TESTIMONY OF
JEFFREY DISORDA
ON BEHALF OF
PETITIONERS
November 8, 2007
The purpose of Mr. Disorda’s testimony is to address VELCO’s Transmission Vegetation
Management Program.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................1
2. Overview Right-of-Way Maintenance ...........................................................................2
3. Transmission Vegetation Management Standards ..........................................................5
4. VELCO’s Transmission Vegetation Management Program........................................13
5. Clearing the ROW for the Southern Loop Project .......................................................24
6. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................26
EXHIBITS
Exhibit Petitioners JD-1
Resume of Jeffrey Disorda
Exhibit Petitioners JD-2
VELCO Transmission Vegetation Management Plan
Exhibit Petitioners JD-3
Utility Vegetation Management and Bulk Electric
Reliability Report from the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (September 7, 2004)
Exhibit Petitioners JD-4
NERC Transmission Vegetation Management Reliability
Standard FAC-003-1
Exhibit Petitioners JD-5
Order on Violation Risk Factors, Docket Nos. RR07-12-00
(FERC, June 26, 2007)
Exhibit Petitioners JD-6
ISO New England Operating Procedure No. 3, Appendix C
Exhibit Petitioners JD-7
American National Standards Institute Standard A300
Exhibit Petitioners JD-8
Permit to Conduct Rights of Way Herbicide Treatment
Exhibit Petitioners JD-9
Agency of Natural Resources Department of
Environmental Conservation Notice of Issuance of
Conditional Use Determination #2005-240
Exhibit Petitioners JD-10
Study of the Impacts of Vegetation Management
Techniques on Wetlands for Utility Rights-of-Way in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts (June, 1989)
Exhibit Petitioners JD-11
W.C. Bramble and W.R. Byrnes, Thirty Years of Research
on Development of Plant Cover on an Electric
Transmission Right-of-Way, Journal of Arboriculture 9(3),
March 1983
Exhibit Petitioners JD-12
W.C. Bramble and W.R. Byrnes, Integrated Vegetation
Management of an Electric Utility Right-of-Way
Ecosystem, Down to Earth, Vol 51, No. 2 (1996)
Exhibit Petitioners JD-13
R.H. Yahner, R.J. Hutnik, and S.A. Licinsky, Bird
Populations Associated with an Electric Transmission
Right-of-Way, Journal of Arborculture 28(3), May 2002
Exhibit Petitioners JD-14
Habitat Appraisal VETCO DC Line
Exhibit Petitioners JD-15
ANR Memorandum Regarding Herbicide Applications on
Rights of Way
Exhibit Petitioners JD-16
Coolidge Substation Tree Clearing Plan
(1 sheet, sheet 216-TCP-1)
Exhibit Petitioners JD-17
Newfane Substation Tree Clearing Plan
(1 sheet, sheet NEW-TCP-1)
STATE OF VERMONT
PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD
Petition of Vermont Transco, LLC, and
Vermont Electric Power Company, Inc.
(collectively, “VELCO”), and Central Vermont
Public Service Corporation (“CVPS”) for a
Certificate of Public Good, pursuant to 30
V.S.A. § 248, for the “Southern Loop Project,”
located in Vernon, Guilford, Brattleboro,
Dummerston, Newfane, Brookline, Townshend,
Grafton, Windham, Andover, Chester, Ludlow
and Cavendish, Vermont, consisting of the
following elements: (1) a new, approximately
51-mile, 345 kV transmission line between
Vernon-Cavendish, to be built parallel to and
within the same utility right-of-way as
VELCO’s existing Vernon-Cavendish 345 kV
line; (2) a new VELCO 345/115 kV Vernon
substation, to be located just north of the
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station; (3) a
new 345/115/46 kV Newfane substation; (4) a
new, approximately one-mile, 345 kV
transmission line loop between the new
Newfane substation and the new VernonCavendish 345 kV line; (5) expansion of
VELCO’s Coolidge substation in Cavendish,
Vermont; and (6) the implementing of
incremental energy efficiency to defer
transmission upgrades in Southern Vermont
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Docket No. ____
PREFILED TESTIMONY OF
JEFFREY DISORDA
ON BEHALF OF
PETITIONERS
1
1.
Introduction
2
Q1.
Please state your name, occupation, business address, and qualifications.
3
A1.
My name is Jeffrey Disorda. My business address is Vermont Electric Power
4
Company, Inc. (“VELCO”), 366 Pinnacle Ridge Road, Rutland, Vermont 05701.
Southern Loop Project, PSB Docket No. _____
Prefiled Testimony of Jeffrey Disorda
November 8, 2007
Page 2 of 26
1
I am the Supervisor of Right-of-Way (“ROW”) Management at VELCO. I have
2
been in this position for three years. My resume is attached as Exhibit Petitioners
3
JD-1.
4
5
Q2.
Please describe your educational background and work experience.
6
A2.
I have an associates degree in Urban Tree Management from Paul Smith’s
7
College. I have 16 years of experience in Utility Vegetation Management.
8
9
Q3.
Do you hold any professional licenses or certifications?
10
A3.
Yes, I am an International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist and
11
Certified Arborist Utility Specialist.
12
13
Q4.
What is the purpose of your testimony in this proceeding?
14
A4.
I will describe VELCO’s Transmission Vegetation Management Plan (“TVMP”),
15
which is attached as Exhibit Petitioners JD-2.
16
17
2.
Overview Right of Way Maintenance
18
Q5.
Why is transmission vegetation management important?
19
A5.
Vegetation management is important because inadequate vegetation management
20
presents a serious risk to the safety and reliability of the Vermont and
21
interconnected regional and national electric grid. VELCO is responsible for
22
maintaining the integrity and reliability of over 688 miles of high voltage (115 kV
Southern Loop Project, PSB Docket No. _____
Prefiled Testimony of Jeffrey Disorda
November 8, 2007
Page 3 of 26
1
and above) electric transmission lines, which includes managing vegetation on
2
nearly 12,000 acres of ROW which extends throughout the State of Vermont and
3
portions of New Hampshire. As the Transmission Operator (“TO”) of the
4
Vermont high voltage electric transmission network, and TO of a portion of the
5
interconnected regional and national transmission electric grid, VELCO must
6
manage vegetation in its ROWs to prevent contact between its transmission lines
7
and vegetation. Contact between vegetation and conductors can result in
8
sustained transmission system outage and could directly contribute to power
9
system instability, separations, or a cascading sequence of failures.
10
11
Q6.
12
13
Are there examples of system outages that have been attributed to conductorvegetation contact?
A6.
On August 14, 2003, an electric power blackout occurred over large portions of
14
the northeast and midwest United States and Ontario, Canada. The blackout
15
lasted up to two days in some areas of the United States, and even longer in some
16
areas of Ontario. It affected an area with over 50 million people and 61,800
17
megawatts of electric load. See Exhibit Petitioners JD-3, Utility Vegetation
18
Management and Bulk Electric Reliability Report from the Federal Energy
19
Regulatory Commission (September 7, 2004) (“FERC Report”), at 4. On April 5,
20
2004, a joint U.S-Canada Power System Outage Task Force issued a Final
Southern Loop Project, PSB Docket No. _____
Prefiled Testimony of Jeffrey Disorda
November 8, 2007
Page 4 of 26
1
Blackout Report1 (the “Blackout Report”) stating that one of the four primary
2
causes of the blackout was inadequate vegetation management. Specifically,
3
during the hour before the cascading blackout occurred, three FirstEnergy
4
Corporation 345 kV transmission lines failed as a result of contact between the
5
lines and overgrown vegetation that encroached into the clearance zones for the
6
lines. The Blackout Report also compared the August 2003 blackout with seven
7
previous major outages and concluded that conductor contact with trees was a
8
common factor among the outages.
9
10
In March of 2004, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) issued a
11
128-page vegetation management report to supplement the Blackout Report. In it,
12
FERC concluded that the 2003 blackout likely would not have occurred had
13
FirstEnergy’s ROWs been adequately maintained to prevent conductor-vegetation
14
contact. The report also concluded that FirstEnergy’s vegetation maintenance
15
practices were consistent with industry standards, but that industry standards were
16
inadequate.
17
18
1 U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force, Final Report on the August 14 th Blackout in the United
States and Canada: Causes and Recommendations (April 2004).
Southern Loop Project, PSB Docket No. _____
Prefiled Testimony of Jeffrey Disorda
November 8, 2007
Page 5 of 26
1
2
3. Transmission Vegetation Management Standards
Q7.
Have there been any industry or regulatory initiatives undertaken as a result of the
3
findings relating to the role of vegetation management practices in causing or
4
contributing to power system blackouts?
5
A7.
Yes, several. In response to the Blackout Report, the FERC directed all
6
designated TOs to submit reports regarding their vegetation management
7
practices, and the FERC staff worked with the National Association of Regulatory
8
Utility Commissioners’ (“NARUC”) ad-hoc Committee on Critical Infrastructure
9
to analyze the reports and look for significant patterns and potential problems in
10
the vegetation management practices of the electric industry. The FERC issued
11
the FERC Report to Congress on September 7, 2004, summarizing its findings
12
and recommendations. See Exhibit Petitioners JD-3. The FERC Report
13
summarized ten principal recommendations:
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
1) Congress should enact mandatory and enforceable reliability standards;
2) Effective transmission vegetation management requires clear, unambiguous,
enforceable standards that adequately describe actions necessary by each
responsible party.
3) It is important that state and federal regulators continue to coordinate so that
jurisdictional considerations do not impede effective vegetation management.
4) Federal and state regulators should allow reasonable recovery for the costs of
vegetation management expenses.
5) With respect to permitting on federally managed public lands, the FERC
should work with the Council on Environmental Quality and land
management agencies to better coordinate the requirements.
6) Federal, state and local land managers should develop “rush” procedures and
emergency exemptions to allow utilities to correct “danger” trees that threaten
transmission lines, from both on and off documented rights-of-way.
7) Five-year vegetation management cycles should be shortened and the FERC
and states should look at the cost-effectiveness of more aggressive vegetation
management practices.
Southern Loop Project, PSB Docket No. _____
Prefiled Testimony of Jeffrey Disorda
November 8, 2007
Page 6 of 26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
8) Transmission owners should fully exercise easement rights for vegetation
management and better anticipate the permitting process for scheduled
vegetation management.
9) Variances in vegetation management practices may be resolved by NERC or
by a stakeholder process.
10) State regulators and the utility industry should work through NARUC, the
National Conference of State Legislators, and other organizations to help state
and local officials better understand and address transmission vegetation
management.
Id. at 3-4.
12
13
Q8.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
What did the FERC Report state regarding recommendation no. 8, that utilities
should fully exercise their easement rights?
A8.
The FERC Report stated that:
“In general, if a utility has a wider right-of-way, well documented easement
rights, and exercises those rights fully, it will be more successful in avoiding
vegetation-line contact than a utility that maintains narrower rights-of-way. A
narrow right-of-way increases the risk of contact with vegetation that is outside of
the right-of-way and adjacent to the transmission line. Expert Commentary
included in the CNUC Final Vegetation Report stated, “[m]ost tree/power line
contacts occur when trees fall onto lines from outside the rights-of-way. Utilities
are slow to act to address this issue due to the perception of increased costs and
the pressure from landowners etc. to leave the trees standing.’”
Id. at 8.
28
Q9.
Did the FERC Report address clearances between conductors and vegetation?
29
A9.
Yes. The FERC Report concluded that the maintenance of sufficient vertical
30
clearances between conductors and vegetation is “essential” because direct
31
physical contact is not necessary for a line outage to occur. An electric arc can
32
occur between a part of a tree and a conductor without sufficient clearance.
Southern Loop Project, PSB Docket No. _____
Prefiled Testimony of Jeffrey Disorda
November 8, 2007
Page 7 of 26
1
Id. at 10. The FERC Report also identified a number of recommended good
2
utility vegetation management practices, including establishment of a wire zone –
3
border zone, which the FERC stated is both effective and environmentally
4
friendly in ensuring reliability. This method involves creating a low-growing
5
vegetation environment directly under transmission lines, which physically
6
prevents dangerous vegetation from encroaching into energized transmission
7
facilities. As I discuss below, this is the approach VELCO employs in its TVMP.
8
9
Q10.
10
11
Have reliability standards governing transmission vegetation management been
developed?
A10.
Yes, both federal and regional standards have been developed. On August 8,
12
2005, Congress passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005), which
13
requires FERC to certify an Electric Reliability Organization (“ERO”) to develop
14
mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, subject to FERC review and
15
approval.
16
17
On February 3, 2006, FERC certified the North American Electric Reliability
18
Council (“NERC”) as the Electric Reliability Organization, and in April and
19
August of 2006, NERC submitted 107 proposed Reliability Standards, including a
20
Vegetation Management Reliability Standard -- FAC-003-1 -- for FERC approval.
21
FERC, Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System, 117 FERC
22
¶61,084, ¶380 (Oct. 20, 2006) (Docket No. RM06-16-000).
Southern Loop Project, PSB Docket No. _____
Prefiled Testimony of Jeffrey Disorda
November 8, 2007
Page 8 of 26
1
2
On March 16, 2007, FERC adopted the NERC Transmission Vegetation
3
Management Reliability Standard, FAC-003-1 (Exhibit Petitioners JD-4), subject
4
to the requirement that NERC subject the standard to its development process to
5
extend the applicability of the standard to lower voltage facilities that have an
6
impact on reliability. FERC Order No. 693, at 201.
7
8
Q11.
Please describe the NERC standard.
9
A11.
The stated purpose of the NERC Transmission Vegetation Management
10
Reliability Standard is:
“To improve the reliability of the electric transmission systems by
preventing outages from vegetation located on transmission rightsof-way (ROW) and minimizing outages from vegetation located
adjacent to ROW, maintaining clearances between transmission
lines and vegetation on and along transmission ROW, and
reporting vegetation-related outages of the transmission systems to
the respective Regional Reliability Organizations (RRO) and the
North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC).”
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Exhibit Petitioners JD-4, NERC Standard FAC-003-1 at ¶ A.3. The standard
21
establishes two primary reliability requirements. Requirement R1
22
requires a transmission owner to develop a transmission vegetation management
23
program, and Requirement R2 requires a transmission owner to implement the
24
program and to document its implementation. Each program must be designed
25
for the geographical area and specific design configurations of the transmission
26
owner’s system. FERC Order No. 693, at 198. The NERC Standard requires a
Southern Loop Project, PSB Docket No. _____
Prefiled Testimony of Jeffrey Disorda
November 8, 2007
Page 9 of 26
1
transmission owner to define a schedule for and the type (aerial or ground) of
2
ROW vegetation inspections. In addition, it requires a transmission owner to
3
determine and document the minimum allowable clearance between energized
4
conductors and vegetation before the next trimming. Id. The minimum clearance
5
distances must be “sufficient to prevent outages due to vegetation management
6
practices under all applicable conditions.” FERC, Mandatory Reliability
7
Standards for the Bulk-Power System, 117 FERC ¶61,084, ¶380 (Oct. 20, 2006)
8
(Docket No. RM06-16-000).
9
10
Q12.
11
12
Has VELCO prepared a Transmission Vegetation Management Plan in
accordance with the NERC Standard?
A12.
Yes. It is attached as Exhibit Petitioners JD-2.
Q13.
Does the NERC Transmission Vegetation Management Reliability Standard apply
13
14
15
16
to the Southern Loop Project transmission lines?
A13.
Yes. The NERC standard is mandatory, and applies to all transmission lines
17
operated at 200 kV and above and to any lower voltage lines designated by the
18
Regional Reliability Organization (“NPCC”), as critical to the reliability of the
19
electric system in the region. Exhibit Petitioners JD-4, NERC Transmission
20
Vegetation Management Standard FAC-003-1 at ¶ A.4.3. The NERC standard
21
applies to the existing Vernon to Coolidge 345 kV line (the “340 line”), the
22
proposed new Vernon to Coolidge 345 kV line (the “360 line”), and to the
Southern Loop Project, PSB Docket No. _____
Prefiled Testimony of Jeffrey Disorda
November 8, 2007
Page 10 of 26
1
proposed Newfane Loop 345 kV line, since they are at voltages above the 200 kV
2
threshold. I would note that the 200 kV threshold adopted by NERC in FAC-003-
3
1, is a topic of continuing discussion. In its recent Order No. 293, FERC
4
instructed NERC to revise the standard through NERC’s Reliability Standards
5
development process, “with the expectation that the applicability of this
6
Reliability Standard will expand to include additional facilities that impact
7
reliability that currently are not covered by this Reliability Standard.” FERC
8
Order No. 293, at 202.
9
10
Q14.
What is the consequence of non-compliance with the NERC standard?
11
A14.
Under the Federal Energy Policy Act of 2005, NERC is empowered to impose
12
economic fines for non-compliance up to $1 million/day. While NERC’s
13
authority to impose fines was only recently enacted, it is likely that the level of
14
fines imposed will be determined by the severity of non-compliance which is
15
established by several factors, including the nature of the tree contact (e.g., a
16
grow-in from under the line is more serious than a fall-in from within the
17
corridor) and the adequacy of the utility’s Vegetative Management Plan. Just
18
recently, FERC affirmed NERC’s assignment of a “high” Violation Risk Factor to
19
Requirements R1 and R2 of the NERC Vegetation Management Reliability
20
Standard (development of a vegetation management program and implementation
21
of the program). NERC has defined three levels of Violation Risk Factors that it
22
will assign to its Reliability Standards: (1) high risk requirement; (2) medium risk
Southern Loop Project, PSB Docket No. _____
Prefiled Testimony of Jeffrey Disorda
November 8, 2007
Page 11 of 26
1
requirement; and (3) lower risk requirement. The Violation Risk Factors are used
2
by NERC and Regional Entities in determining financial penalties for violating
3
the Reliability Standards. FERC, Order on Violation Risk Factors, Docket Nos.
4
RR07-12-00, at 4 (June 26, 2007) (Exhibit Petitioners JD-5). In approving
5
NERC’s assignment of a “high” Violation Risk Factor to the vegetation
6
management standards, FERC stated that the assignment is appropriate because
7
“vegetation management presents a serious risk of sustained transmission outage
8
and could directly cause or contribute to Bulk-Power System instability,
9
separation, or a cascading sequence of failures. Both planning and
10
implementation are critical to vegetation management.” Id. at 4. The assignment
11
of a “high” Violation Risk Factor to a violation of the NERC Vegetation
12
Management Reliability Standard confirms that NERC expects transmission
13
owners to take vegetation management programs very seriously, and that any
14
violation could result in serious penalties.
15
16
Q15.
Are there any regional transmission vegetation management standards?
17
A15.
Yes. ISO-New England, Inc. (“ISO-NE”) recently adopted a standard, ISO-NE
18
Operating Procedure (OP) 3, Appendix C - ISO New England Right-of-Way
19
Vegetation Management Standard (February 1, 2005) (Exhibit Petitioners JD-6)
20
(the “OP3 Standard”). The stated objective of this standard is to “achieve and
21
maintain a high degree of reliability for the New England Transmission System.”
22
Id. at 1. The OP3 Standard applies to transmission voltages of 69 kV and above,
Southern Loop Project, PSB Docket No. _____
Prefiled Testimony of Jeffrey Disorda
November 8, 2007
Page 12 of 26
1
and therefore applies to all VELCO ROWs. ISO-NE’s Vegetation Management
2
Standards Task Force is currently in the process of revising line standard. I am a
3
member of this Task Force. Based upon discussions to date, I would anticipate
4
the new ISO-NE OP3 Standard to look very much like the NERC Standards,
5
although the ISO-NE Standard will apply to all Pool Transmission Facility
6
(“PTF”) portions of the New England transmission network.
7
8
Q16.
9
10
Has the VELCO TVMP been developed to meet the requirements of the NERC
and ISO-NE transmission vegetation management standards?
A16.
Yes. In addition, we looked to the American National Standards Institute
11
(“ANSI”) Standard A300 – Standard Practices for Tree, Shrub and Other Woody
12
Plant Maintenance (Integrated Vegetation Management - Electric Utility Rights-
13
of-Way) Exhibit Petitioners JD-7. I expect that the VELCO TVMP will be
14
revised from time to time as both the NERC and ISO-NE standards continue to
15
evolve.
16
17
Q17.
Please describe the ANSI standard.
18
A17.
ANSI A300 Part 7 standards are intended as guides for federal, state, municipal,
19
and private authorities, including property owners, property managers, and
20
utilities in the drafting of their vegetation management practices. The ANSI
21
standard calls for Integrated Vegetation Management designed to promote
22
sustainable plant communities that are compatible with the intended use of the
Southern Loop Project, PSB Docket No. _____
Prefiled Testimony of Jeffrey Disorda
November 8, 2007
Page 13 of 26
1
utility corridor, and discourage incompatible plants that may pose concerns,
2
including safety, security, access, fire hazard, electric service reliability,
3
emergency restoration, and other requirements. Exhibit Petitioners JD-7. NERC
4
FAC-003-1 cites to the ANSI standard as “an industry best practice.” Exhibit
5
Petitioners JD-4, at n.1. The “wire zone – border zone” concept endorsed by
6
FERC was developed and is more fully explained in the ANSI Standard.
7
VELCO’s TVMP utilizes a wire zone – border zone approach to vegetation
8
management.
9
10
4. VELCO’s Transmission Vegetation Management Program
11
Q18.
Please describe VELCO’s Transmission Vegetation Management Plan or TVMP.
12
A18.
VELCO’s “TVMP”, Exhibit Petitioners JD-2, describes VELCO’s Transmission
13
Vegetation Management Program. The goal of VELCO’s TVMP is to prevent
14
physical contact between transmission lines and nearby vegetation that could
15
cause a transmission line to fail. In accordance with the NERC and ISO-NE
16
standards, VELCO’s TVMP includes minimum clearances and an approach to
17
vegetation management intended to preserve those clearances.
18
19
VELCO utilizes a system of vegetation management that manages plant
20
communities in which compatible and incompatible vegetation are identified,
21
action thresholds are considered, control methods are evaluated, and selected
22
control(s) are implemented. Choice of control methods is based on safety,
Southern Loop Project, PSB Docket No. _____
Prefiled Testimony of Jeffrey Disorda
November 8, 2007
Page 14 of 26
1
environmental impact, effectiveness, site characteristics, security, and economics.
2
This system of vegetation management is called Integrated Vegetation
3
Management, a concept recommended in the ANSI Standard, Exhibit Petitioners
4
JD-7.
5
6
VELCO has established a four year vegetation management cycle as an action
7
threshold. This vegetation management cycle has been time tested since 1980,
8
and is based upon engineering design of the lines, the growth rate potential of the
9
vegetation, and required minimum vegetation to conductor clearances.
10
The primary clearance factor is the design of the line. For 345 kV line corridors,
11
such as those involved with the Southern Loop Project, conductor to vegetation
12
clearance requirement at time of clearing and maintenance, is 12 feet, with a
13
maximum safe tree height of 12 feet. Vegetation that generally may mature to
14
greater than 12 feet in height is considered incompatible and removed from the
15
corridor. The 12 foot maximum vegetation height limitation is established based
16
upon growth rates, and the fact that once exceeded, vegetation will encroach into
17
the conductor-vegetation clearance zone before the next clearing cycle, thus
18
posing a risk of vegetation to conductor contact.
19
20
21
Q19.
Please explain how the wire zone – border zone approach to vegetation
management is applied.
Southern Loop Project, PSB Docket No. _____
Prefiled Testimony of Jeffrey Disorda
November 8, 2007
Page 15 of 26
1
A19.
The wire zone is the area under the conductors and extends to fifteen (15) feet
2
beyond the outside conductor. The objective of the four-year cycle is to reduce
3
the number of stems per acre of the tall-growing, incompatible species tree
4
species in the ROW. Once this is accomplished, the program performs basically
5
to control tree seeds germinating throughout the four-year vegetation management
6
cycle. All tall-growing, incompatible species are eliminated in both the wire zone
7
and the border zone. These incompatible species are identified in the TVMP.
8
The TVMP also identifies lower growing, compatible trees and shrubs that may
9
be allowed to remain in the corridor. The TVMP breaks down compatible tree
10
species into these categories: compatible species allowed within the wire zone,
11
and compatible species allowed within the border zone. The type of compatible
12
vegetation permitted within the border zone includes vegetation that does not
13
normally mature to greater than 12 feet tall, but could exceed 12 feet in height.
14
Any trees that grow taller than 12 feet within the border zone are removed on the
15
next cycle. Vegetation allowed within the wire zone does not mature to greater
16
than 12 feet. Over time, the plant community (trees, shrubs, forbs, ferns and
17
grasses) retained within the ROWs stabilizes into a very low maintenance
18
condition of compatible species. As I discuss later in my testimony, this low
19
growing plant community in the ROW has been found to promote and sustain
20
wildlife habitat in the ROWs.
21
22
Q20.
What methods of tree clearing are employed by VELCO?
Southern Loop Project, PSB Docket No. _____
Prefiled Testimony of Jeffrey Disorda
November 8, 2007
Page 16 of 26
1
A20.
Tree clearing is typically performed by VELCO-approved vegetation
2
management contractors using chainsaws. On large tracts such as the Southern
3
Loop Project, trees are cleared with mechanical, specialized tree-clearing
4
equipment. Trees are cut as close as possible to grade (e.g., typically six inches or
5
less), and the stumps are left intact, as this minimizes ground/soil disturbance and
6
promotes soil stability. In some cases, VELCO will remove stumps that are
7
located within access roads, in the immediate vicinity of structure locations,
8
within proposed excavation areas, or based upon other construction-specific
9
needs.
10
11
Q21.
Does VELCO use herbicides as part of its vegetation management program?
12
A21.
Yes. It is an integral part of our TVMP.
Q22.
Is VELCO required to obtain any regulatory permits or approvals before it applies
13
14
15
16
herbicides in ROW corridors?
A22.
Yes, a Permit to Conduct Rights of Way Herbicide Treatment is required from the
17
Agency of Agriculture annually. VELCO’s current permit is attached as Exhibit
18
Petitioners JD-8. The Herbicide Treatment Permit applications are also reviewed
19
annually by the Vermont Pesticide Advisory Council (“VPAC”), which includes a
20
representative from each of ANR’s three departments. VELCO’s Herbicide
21
Treatment Permit restricts the use of herbicides in buffer areas for waters of the
22
state. 10 V.S.A. § 1251 defines “waters of the state” as rivers, streams, creeks,
Southern Loop Project, PSB Docket No. _____
Prefiled Testimony of Jeffrey Disorda
November 8, 2007
Page 17 of 26
1
brooks, reservoirs, ponds, lakes, springs, and all bodies of surface waters, public
2
and private water supplies, and domiciles. The allowed distance from surface
3
waters depends upon the type of herbicide applied. VELCO’s 2007 Herbicide
4
Treatment Permit allows herbicides to be applied within 10-30 feet of surface
5
waters, depending upon the type of herbicide used, but does not restrict herbicides
6
in uplands or wetlands without surface waters. VELCO’s Conditional Use
7
Determination (“CUD”) for the West Rutland to New Haven 345 kV line,
8
included with my testimony as Exhibit Petitioners JD-9, expressly notes, with
9
respect to herbicides use in wetlands, that “VELCO’s current vegetation
10
management plan presents an overall vegetation management strategy that
11
provides guidelines to appreciate vegetation control while minimizing negative
12
environmental impacts within the ROW and specifically in wetlands.” The use of
13
herbicides has been determined an allowed use in wetlands in accordance with the
14
Vermont Wetland Rules at subsection 6.2(1). In fact, VPAC opined that seasonal
15
application of herbicides to railroad rights of way is exempt under the same 6.2(1)
16
in a memo from Andy Raubvogel, ANR General Counsel, included with my
17
testimony as Exhibit Petitioners JD-15. The TVMP cites to several studies that
18
support the use of herbicides in utility ROWs as an environmentally sound
19
vegetation management technique.
20
21
22
Q23.
How does mechanical clearing in ROW compare to herbicide applications in
terms of wildlife and environmental resource impacts?
Southern Loop Project, PSB Docket No. _____
Prefiled Testimony of Jeffrey Disorda
November 8, 2007
Page 18 of 26
1
A23.
Several well known studies have evaluated the impacts and benefits of herbicide
2
applications as compared to mechanical clearing of utility ROWs. For example, a
3
study was conducted in Massachusetts in 1989 concerning the use of ROW
4
management techniques, including the use of herbicides to control undesirable
5
vegetation in wetlands. The executive summary of the report is included with my
6
testimony as Exhibit Petitioners JD-10. The study concluded that there is no
7
significant impact to wetlands from vegetation management techniques.
8
Mechanical treatments result in relatively higher impacts than selective herbicide
9
use. Mechanical techniques had a significantly higher impact on the cover value
10
of herbaceous vegetation than herbicide techniques. Wildlife habitat values were
11
rated low for mechanical techniques and medium for herbicide techniques.
12
Residues from petroleum products such as bar and chain oil or hydraulic fluid
13
were found in the leaf litter on mechanically treated sites. No herbicide residues
14
were found on herbicide treated sites. Many wetland species are low growing and
15
are desirable species. By removing the undesirable species the desirable species
16
can out compete undesirable species which reduces need for additional vegetation
17
management during subsequent cycles.
18
19
Another well known study was the 50-year research study of vegetation
20
development and production of wildlife cover on a transmission ROW in
21
Pennsylvania. A copy of each of three articles reporting on this study are
22
included with my testimony as Exhibits Petitioners JD-11 to JD-13. In terms of
Southern Loop Project, PSB Docket No. _____
Prefiled Testimony of Jeffrey Disorda
November 8, 2007
Page 19 of 26
1
impacts on wildlife habitat, this study has reported that “several important habitat
2
changes that are considered favorable to wildlife were caused by the construction
3
of the ROW and its subsequent maintenance with herbicide sprays.” Exhibit
4
Petitioners JD-12, at 6. Habitat values for areas of the sprayed ROW were much
5
higher than the adjoining forest or even as compared to wildlife clearing in
6
adjacent state gamelands. Id.
7
8
Q24.
Does VELCO restrict the use of herbicides near river or stream crossings?
9
A24.
Yes. VELCO adheres to buffer distances as set forth in its Herbicide Treatment
10
Permits issued by the Agency of Agriculture.
11
12
Q25.
Please explain VELCO’s TVMP approach regarding soil erosion control.
13
A25.
Erosion control is a concern when vegetation is completely removed. Promoting
14
stable plant communities on the ROW allows strong, healthy root-mat conditions
15
that are effective in stabilizing soil and controlling erosion. The TVMP
16
encourages compatible plants such as: ferns and grasses, sweet-fern, blueberries,
17
blackberries, raspberries, dogwood and other low-growing shrubs as well as a
18
variety of wild flowers. In areas where there are compatible species, erosion
19
control is typically less of a concern due to the fact that most plant species are not
20
removed. In areas where incompatible species dominate the right of way, erosion
21
controls maybe more of a concern. In these areas the strong root-mat conditions
Southern Loop Project, PSB Docket No. _____
Prefiled Testimony of Jeffrey Disorda
November 8, 2007
Page 20 of 26
1
of the incompatible species are typically effective in controlling erosion until
2
either compatible species begin to grow in or incompatible species re-sprout.
3
4
Q26.
5
6
Does VELCO’s TVMP address impacts of vegetation management practices upon
wildlife habitat?
A26.
Yes. VELCO’s TVMP strives to have an approach to vegetation management
7
that supports and enhances wildlife habitat. VELCO understands that properly
8
maintained rights of way result in improved wildlife habitat for numerous plant
9
and animal species, including songbirds and rare plants. General observations on
10
VELCO rights-of-way indicate a noticeable bio-diversity that provides very
11
favorable habitat for many wildlife species. Utility ROWs promote low growing
12
desirable vegetation that is maintained in a stable early successional habitat that is
13
disappearing throughout Vermont as farms are abandoned and developed. By
14
managing for early successional habitat, the ROW supports and promotes wildlife
15
habitat improvement.
16
17
There have been many studies on this subject that VELCO references when
18
making vegetation management decisions. The most well known is a continuing
19
research project initiated by Purdue University professors Dr. William Byrnes and
20
Dr. William Bramble. This study has been directed on a transmission line right-
21
of-way in Pennsylvania over the last 50 years. I mentioned the 1983 study
22
finding earlier in my testimony (Exhibit Petitioners JD-11 to JD-13 are articles
Southern Loop Project, PSB Docket No. _____
Prefiled Testimony of Jeffrey Disorda
November 8, 2007
Page 21 of 26
1
reporting on this study), regarding favorable habitat changes found to occur in
2
utility ROWs. A more recent report from this ongoing study addresses the
3
positive findings regarding bird populations associated with utility ROWs. See
4
Exhibit Petitioners JD-14. The study concentrated on the vegetation on utility
5
rights-of-ways and the relationship to the habitat of wildlife. The research
6
documented the effects that many different vegetation management techniques
7
have on food and cover for whitetail deer, cottontail rabbit, ruffed grouse, wild
8
turkey, songbirds and other small mammals and birds. The conclusions of this
9
study, initially reported in 1983 Exhibit Petitioners JD-11, have documented that
10
Integrated Vegetation Management on rights-of-way can be beneficial to wildlife.
11
12
VELCO also conducts its own wildlife Habitat Appraisal study, in consultation
13
with the Department of Fish and Wildlife at the Vermont Agency of Natural
14
Resources, United States Fish and Wildlife Service and Vermont Institute of
15
Natural Science (VINS) and uses consistent protocols that can be shared amongst
16
all parties. This assessment is conducted once during a cycle (i.e. every four
17
years) along a ten mile stretch of VELCO’s HVDC transmission line ROW. We
18
have learned from our assessments of that corridor that the ROW contributes a
19
diverse habitat of early successional vegetation in a landscape of a maturing
20
northern forest where routine timber harvesting operations are on a decline.
21
Vegetation management techniques have primarily been selective herbicide
22
applications with hand cutting of protective buffers at surface waters. These
Southern Loop Project, PSB Docket No. _____
Prefiled Testimony of Jeffrey Disorda
November 8, 2007
Page 22 of 26
1
vegetation management methods, applied to the ROW over several cycles, have
2
created a mosaic of herbaceous-plant communities, shrubs, and small trees. As
3
the surrounding forest continues to mature, the ROW becomes a significant
4
source of this diverse, early successional habitat that will help sustain populations
5
of shrubland birds as well as other wildlife. A copy of the recent report on this
6
ongoing study is included with my testimony as Exhibit Petitioners JD-14.
7
8
The VELCO TVMP was also recently certified by the National Wild Turkey
9
Federation (one of the fastest growing, largest, and most respected conservation
10
organizations in the country) as having an approach to vegetation management
11
that promotes improvement to wildlife habitat. VELCO is actively involved with
12
many wildlife partnerships such as the National Wild Turkey Federation, The
13
Ruffed Grouse Society, Wildlife Management Institute, and Vermont Institute of
14
Natural Sciences to better understand its role in wildlife habitat and seek continual
15
improvement to its integrated vegetation management practices.
16
17
Q27.
How does VELCO TVMP address wildlife crossing in the ROW?
18
A27.
Wildlife travel lanes are maintained on VELCO rights of way in appropriate
19
locations to promote the movement of white tailed deer and other wildlife across
20
the ROW. In general, the management objectives are to favor vegetation that can
21
support snow (softwoods) and thereby keep the snow depth on the ground shallow
Southern Loop Project, PSB Docket No. _____
Prefiled Testimony of Jeffrey Disorda
November 8, 2007
Page 23 of 26
1
enough for deer to move about easily and conceal wildlife as they cross through
2
wildlife travel lanes.
3
4
Under the TVMP (page 6), specific vegetation management practices in wildlife
5
crossings include:
6
1. Selective removal of trees favoring crown closure.
7
2. Removing cut material or cutting up small enough so as not to
8
interfere with animal movement in the travel lane.
9
3. Promoting compatible species of trees and shrubs.
10
4. Favoring the continued growth and reproduction of coniferous
11
vegetation with canopies that intercept snow.
12
5. Avoid use of mechanical methods during bird nesting season.
13
14
Q28.
How does the TVMP address vegetation management at stream crossings?
15
A28.
This is discussed at page 7 of the TVMP. The objective of stream crossing
16
management is to favor vegetation that will shade the stream, control erosion, and
17
promote bank stability. Wildlife also use stream crossing as wildlife crossings,
18
and they are managed as such.
19
20
21
22
23
24
Specific vegetation management practices in stream crossings include:
1. Selective removal of trees favoring crown closure to provide
shade to the stream.
2. Removing cut material or cutting up small enough so as not to
interfere with animal movement in the travel lane.
25
3. Favoring the continued growth and reproduction of compatible
26
vegetation with canopies that provide shade to the stream.
Southern Loop Project, PSB Docket No. _____
Prefiled Testimony of Jeffrey Disorda
November 8, 2007
Page 24 of 26
1
4. Avoid use of mechanical methods that may cause soil
2
compaction or rutting to the greatest extent possible.
3
5. Leave all stumps in place so that root mat maintains bank
4
stability.
5
6. Remove all slash and debris from the stream.
6
7
5.
Clearing the ROW for the Southern Loop Project
8
Q29.
Please describe how VELCO plans to clear the ROW for the new Southern Loop
9
10
Project transmission lines.
A29.
We will expand the area of clearing on the existing 345 kV line from 150 to 250
11
feet (except in the approximately one mile segment on the southern end of the
12
ROW, which has only a 200 foot width), to make room for the second 345 kV line
13
(the 360 line). For the Newfane Loop, we will run parallel with the existing
14
CVPS 46 kV line in the same corridor; the existing CVPS line is located in a 150’
15
wide ROW, maintained by CVPS generally as a 100’ wide cleared corridor. The
16
Newfane Loop route runs approximately 1 mile from the existing 345 kV corridor
17
in Dummerston to a proposed substation in Newfane. The proposed Newfane
18
Loop will require 78’ of new clearing on the north side of the existing CVPS 46
19
kV line. All vegetation will be removed in the expanded cleared area initially. In
20
addition, trees at the edge and outside of the corridor will be evaluated and
21
removed as necessary if they are deemed to pose a threat to the line because of
22
species, growth pattern, height, health, ledge, soil conditions, erosion or other
Southern Loop Project, PSB Docket No. _____
Prefiled Testimony of Jeffrey Disorda
November 8, 2007
Page 25 of 26
1
location conditions, disease, and other defects. The Danger Tree Identification
2
Criteria are set forth in our TVMP at pages 29-30.
3
4
Q30.
How does VELCO dispose of vegetation that is cleared?
5
A30.
To the greatest extent possible, VELCO attempts to chip all trees and brush, as the
6
chips are used to support erosion control measures. In locations where tree
7
clearing is minimal and large equipment is not required for tree clearing, trees will
8
be cut and lopped to lay as flat to the ground as possible to decompose naturally.
9
In some cases, landowners request that VELCO pile or windrow cut trees/logs, so
10
the landowners can use the wood for firewood or other commercial purposes. In
11
these cases, VELCO will chip brush and windrow the larger logs.
12
13
Q31.
14
15
Will VELCO be conducting any additional tree clearing in connection with the
Southern Loop Project?
A31.
Yes. VELCO will be conducting tree clearing at the Coolidge and Newfane
16
substation sites. Those substations are described in detail by VELCO witness
17
Michael Barrett. The clearing at the Coolidge and Newfane substations sites will
18
be conducted in accordance with the Coolidge Tree Clearing Plan and Newfane
19
Tree Clearing Plan, which are Exhibit Petitioners JD- 15 and Exhibit Petitioners
20
JD-16, respectively.
21
22
Southern Loop Project, PSB Docket No. _____
Prefiled Testimony of Jeffrey Disorda
November 8, 2007
Page 26 of 26
1
6.
Conclusion
2
Q32.
Does this conclude your testimony?
3
A32.
Yes