Conservation Groups Urge Full Environmental Review of Dominion Energy’s Proposed Power Line Expansion Through Manassas Battlefield

National Park Service
Jessica Bowron, Comptroller, Exercising the Delegated Authority of the Director
1849 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20240

Dear Acting Director Bowron,

We, the twelve undersigned organizations, are writing to share our concerns regarding a forthcoming permit request from Dominion Energy for a proposed right-of-way (ROW) expansion for a transmission line through Manassas National Battlefield Park. Our organizations have become aware of
planned upgrades to Dominion’s Morrisville to Wishing Star transmission line corridor, which runs through approximately 2 miles of National Park Service (NPS) land along the western boundary of this historically significant battlefield. Dominion’s proposal includes increasing the existing ROW by more than 100 feet in width throughout the entire corridor, leading to impacts to approximately 25 acres of NPS land.

The Deed of Easement for the existing Dominion transmission line on NPS land was issued in 1996 to settle claims of Virginia Electric and Power Company, a subsidiary of Dominion Energy, related to the legislative taking of certain of its easements and structures resulting from the Manassas National Battlefield Park Amendments of 1988. In contrast, the proposed expansion of the ROW is new and unrelated to the 1988 legislative taking and will require NPS to follow the procedures and requirements of 36 C.F.R. Part 14 in order to evaluate whether or not to issue a ROW Permit for the expansion, which is different than a Deed of Easement. This project has the potential to severely impact numerous important cultural, historic, and environmental resources. Therefore, it is imperative that NPS prepare a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), along with a National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 consultation process (and compliance with other applicable laws), to thoroughly examine these potential impacts, determine if viable alternatives exist, and evaluate effective strategies to avoid, minimize, and mitigate effects as part of the NEPA and NHPA process.¹Because Dominion’s Morrisville to Wishing Star transmission line proposal will likely affect resources under the jurisdiction of other federal agencies, NPS should coordinate with those agencies (e.g., the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) in carrying out NPS’s own NEPA, NHPA, NPS Organic Act, and other legal obligations for the project. See, e.g., 43 C.F.R. § 46.430(b) (Interior Department NEPA regulations requiring that NPS and other Interior subagencies should coordinate with other agencies, and that “[t]he environmental analyses for [] related permits, licenses, and approvals should be integrated and performed concurrently”).

As you are aware, NEPA requires that agencies considering an action of this kind must examine the “reasonably foreseeable environmental effects of the proposed agency action”; “any reasonable foreseeable adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented”; “a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed agency action, including an analysis of any negative environmental impacts of not implementing the proposed agency action in the case of a no action alternative, that are technically and economically feasible, and meet the purpose and need of the proposal”; “the relationship between local short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity”; and “any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of Federal resources which would be involved in the proposed agency action should it be implemented.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C); see also 43 C.F.R. § 46.415(a), (b). Congress has determined that “[a]n agency shall issue an [EIS] with respect to a proposed agency action . . . that has a reasonably foreseeable significant effect on the quality of the human environment.” 42 U.S.C. § 4336(b)(1).

Dominion Energy’s ROW permit request will kickstart the NEPA process for reviewing the impacts of its proposed project. Per NPS’s NEPA Handbook, an EIS is warranted if the proposed action “could result in significant adverse environmental impacts.” Nat’l Park Serv., NEPA Handbook at 18 (2015).²https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nepa/upload/NPS_NEPAHandbook_Final_508.pdf Other reasons listed that justify the creation of an EIS include “there is incomplete or unavailable information to the extent that a [Finding of No Significant Impact] FONSI cannot be supported” and if “there is a high degree of controversy over the environmental impacts of a proposed action.” Id. The Interior Department’s NEPA regulations further clarify that a “controversial” action requiring an EIS is one “where a substantial dispute exists as to the environmental consequences of the proposed action.” 43 C.F.R. § 46.30. We believe that Dominion’s proposal meets all of these requirements, and therefore a comprehensive EIS process, including public scoping, see 43 C.F.R. § 46.235, is warranted.

Dominion Energy’s project presents a myriad of potentially significant environmental and historic impacts that warrant extensive consideration prior to a final decision by NPS to grant or deny a permit for the proposed project. A majority of Dominion’s preferred alternative would cross-cut existing forest, resulting in nearly 20 acres of land clearing in a currently forested area. The project will negatively impact the park’s trail network and a parking area. Moreover, increasing the transmission infrastructure in the park will negatively impact the viewshed throughout the park and the overall visitor experience near the project. Many unknowns also exist around the potential to discover significant historical and cultural artifacts during the construction of the project, warranting further and more extensive review prior to approving or denying the permit. And only an EIS would provide adequate analysis of the potentially significant impacts to the park’s natural and cultural resources, including potential cumulative impacts³Although the U.S. Supreme Court has recently downplayed the consideration of cumulative impacts under NEPA, Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, CO., No. 23-975, 605 U.S. ___ (May 29, 2025), the binding regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act explicitly require consideration of cumulative impacts when evaluating adverse effects on historic and cultural resources, such as Manassas National Battlefield Park. 36 C.F.R. § 800.5(a)(1). In addition, the NPS’s own NEPA regulations call for the consideration of cumulative impacts. 43 C.F.R. § 46.30 (“Reasonably foreseeable future actions”). of this project and related proposals in proximity to Manassas National Battlefield Park. Indeed, given NPS’s substantive obligation under the Organic Act to ensure that projects such as this one will not impair Park resources, see 54 U.S.C. § 100101(a), we believe that an EIS is necessary to inform NPS and the public as to whether this proposed project can be lawfully authorized (even with NPS-imposed conditions to minimize and mitigate harm to Park resources) in a manner that is consistent with the Organic Act’s non-impairment mandate.

An EIS would also allow the Park and Dominion Energy to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives, as required by NEPA, including alternatives that would not so negatively impact NPS resources and values. Only a comprehensive EIS would allow the consideration of other viable options that could provide Dominion with the benefits it seeks through this proposed project, including transmission grid system upgrades outside of the Park, reconducting the existing system in the Park, or other not-yet-known solutions that will come to light as part of an EIS process when subject matter experts and others have the ability to bring their expertise to bear on how to best meet Dominion’s stated electricity needs in the region.

Given the nature and extent of the proposed action and the iconic importance of the resources that would be affected at Manassas National Battlefield Park in the event this proposal is ultimately approved by NPS and implemented by Dominion, we request that the NPS conduct public scoping and prepare an EIS to hear from the many interested and impacted parties regarding this proposal. As we have seen in recent years, there is strong public interest in the potential for significant impacts to the resources and values of Manassas National Battlefield Park due to the variety of development proposals in the vicinity of the Park. As a result, we believe the most effective (and the only lawful) approach to evaluating potential impacts of the proposed action would be for NPS to solicit public scoping comments early in the process so that public input can be considered in determining the extent and nature of issues and alternatives that should be considered during a NEPA review, before NPS then prepares an EIS to examine the foreseeable effects of the proposal on iconic historic, cultural, and environmental resources.

Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. We look forward to working with the National Park Service and Dominion Energy on this forthcoming permit. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions.

Cc:
Kris Butcher, Superintendent, Manassas National Battlefield Park
Jennifer T. Nersesian, Regional Director, National Capital Region
Tammy Stidham, Associate Regional Director of Lands and Planning, National Capital Region
Joy Beasley, Associate Director Cultural Resources, Partnerships, and Science
Mike Caldwell, Associate Director Park Planning, Facilities and Lands
Senator Tim Kaine, Virginia
Senator Mark Warner, Virginia
Representative Suhas Subramanyam, Virginia’s 10th Congressional District

• 1
  Because Dominion’s Morrisville to Wishing Star transmission line proposal will likely affect resources under the jurisdiction of other federal agencies, NPS should coordinate with those agencies (e.g., the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) in carrying out NPS’s own NEPA, NHPA, NPS Organic Act, and other legal obligations for the project. See, e.g., 43 C.F.R. § 46.430(b) (Interior Department NEPA regulations requiring that NPS and other Interior subagencies should coordinate with other agencies, and that “[t]he environmental analyses for [] related permits, licenses, and approvals should be integrated and performed concurrently”).
• 2
  https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nepa/upload/NPS_NEPAHandbook_Final_508.pdf
• 3
  Although the U.S. Supreme Court has recently downplayed the consideration of cumulative impacts under NEPA, Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, CO., No. 23-975, 605 U.S. ___ (May 29, 2025), the binding regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act explicitly require consideration of cumulative impacts when evaluating adverse effects on historic and cultural resources, such as Manassas National Battlefield Park. 36 C.F.R. § 800.5(a)(1). In addition, the NPS’s own NEPA regulations call for the consideration of cumulative impacts. 43 C.F.R. § 46.30 (“Reasonably foreseeable future actions”).