National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is Law!

Article from the Allegheny Blue Ridge Alliance (ABRA), December 13, 2018

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated on December 13 the U.S. Forest Service’s approval for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP) to cross two national forests and the Appalachian Trail. The Court’s 60-page opinion came on a case brought by several ABRA members and others that was argued on September 28 (see ABRA Update #200 for details).

The plaintiffs, represented by Southern Environmental Law Center, were Cowpasture River Preservation Association, Highlanders for Responsible Development, Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation, Shenandoah Valley Network, Sierra Club, Virginia Wilderness Committee and Wild Virginia.

The Court concluded that the Forest Service’s decisions amending its Forest Plans and granting a Special Use Permit (SPU) for the ACP violate the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and that the Forest Service lacked statutory authority pursuant to the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA) to grant a pipeline right of way across the Appalachian National Scenic Trail. The Court granted the petition for review of the Forest Service’s SPU and its Record of Decision to amend the Forest Plans, as sought by the plaintiffs, vacated those the Forest Service’s decisions and remanded the case to the Forest Service “for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

In its opinion, the Court detailed how the Forest Service initially expressed serious skepticism about the ACP’s ability to be constructed through the steep slopes of the central Appalachian mountains in West Virginia and Virginia. In an October 24, 2016 letter to the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC (Atlantic), the Court noted that the Forest Service had requested ten site-specific stabilization designs for selected areas of challenging terrain to demonstrate the effectiveness of Atlantic’s proposed steep slope stability program, which Atlantic called the “Best in Class” (“BIC”) Steep Slopes Program” because the agency needed to be able to determine that the project was consistent with the Forest Plans of the George Washington National Forest(GWNF) and the Monongahela National Forest (MNF). The ACP would cross a combined 21-miles of National Forest lands in the two forests. Then, the Court noted, the Forest Service changed its mind and without explanation ultimately approved the project without requiring the requested ten stabilization designs for the project. (For more on the Forest Service request to Atlantic, see ABRA Update #103)

The NFMA establishes a procedure for managing forest plans through the use of Forest Plans and directs the Forest Service to ensure that all activities on forest lands are consistent with those Plans. The Court ruled that the Forest Service, in amending the GWNF and MNF plans, did not follow its own criteria and procedures for doing so. Among reasons cited in the opinion was the Forest Service’s failure to do a proper analysis of whether the ACP could be reasonably routed through non-national forest lands.

In considering the Forest Service’s compliance with NEPA in its evaluation of the ACP, the Court concluded that the agency violated that law “by failing to take a hard look at the environmental consequences of the ACP project. The Forest Service expressed serious concerns that the DEIS (Draft Environmental Impact Statement of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for the project) lacked necessary information to evaluate landslide risks, erosion impacts, and degradation of water quality, and it further lacked information about the effectiveness of mitigation techniques to reduce those risks.”

Regarding the violation of the MLA, the Court faulted the Forest Service for approving the ACP crossing the ANST on national forest land when the agency did not have the authority to do so. In its concluding paragraph of the opinion, the Court stated:

We trust the United States Forest Service to “speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues.” Dr. Seuss, The Lorax (1971). A thorough review of the record leads to the necessary conclusion that the Forest Service abdicated its responsibility to preserve national forest resources. This conclusion is particularly informed by the Forest Service’s serious environmental concerns that were suddenly, and mysteriously, assuaged in time to meet a private pipeline company’s deadlines.

Reacting to the Court’s opinion, SELC attorney Patrick Hunter said:

“The George Washington National Forest, Monongahela National Forest and the Appalachian Trail are national treasures. The Administration was far too eager to trade them away for a pipeline conceived to deliver profit to its developers, not gas to consumers. This pipeline is unnecessary and asking fracked gas customers to pay developers to blast this boondoggle through our public lands only adds insult to injury.”

#########################

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Requested to Revoke ACP’s Certificate

Article from the Allegheny Blue Ridge Alliance, December 13, 2018

In a filing late December 13, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) was asked to revoke the certificate for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline in light of the decision earlier in the day by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to vacate the U.S. Forest Service’s approval for the pipeline to cross national forest lands and the Appalachian National Scenic Trail. In its 65-page letter to FERC, the Southern Environmental Law Center stated:

Crucially, the court held that the Forest Service does not have statutory authority to authorize the pipeline to cross the Appalachian Trail. As a result, under federal law, Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC (“Atlantic”) cannot obtain authorization from federal agencies to cross the Trail as proposed.

The Commission must therefore revoke the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. Further, the Commission must issue a formal stop-work order, effective immediately, halting all construction activities because the court’s decision means that Atlantic continues to be out of compliance with a mandatory condition of its Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity.

Pipelines & Excess Impacts Not Needed

EPA: FERC’s Pipeline Environmental Impact Assessment Is Wrong

From an Article of Climate Nexus, EcoWatch.com, October 13, 2016

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) did not properly account for climate change in its environmental impact assessment of a $1.4 billion natural gas pipeline, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

FERC found that the 160-mile pipeline would have a limited impact on the environment, but the EPA argues potential emissions from burning the natural gas transported by the pipeline need to be factored in.

In April, FERC found that the 160-mile Leach Xpress pipeline would have a limited impact on the environment, but the EPA argues potential emissions from burning the natural gas transported by the pipeline need to be factored in.

The EPA’s statement comes just a few months after the Obama administration called on federal agencies to consider the climate impacts of their projects and at a time of increasing pipeline protests due to environmental justice and climate impacts.

>  >  >  >  >  >  >  >  >

Xpress Pipeline has FERC and EPA Clashing over Climate Change

From an Article by Jonathan Crawford, Bloomberg News Service, October 12, 2016

A $1.4 billion natural gas line proposed by TransCanada Corp. is pitting two U.S. government agencies against each other and drawing attention to how major energy projects are reviewed.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission failed to undertake a “proper” analysis of climate change in its final environmental impact statement for the 160-mile (257-kilometer) Leach Xpress pipeline, according to a filing on Tuesday. Its input was at odds with the commission’s finding in April that the link would have limited effect on the environment that could be addressed.

“It’s been FERC’s decision to do a more limited scope of review” for these projects than the EPA has called for, Tyson Slocum, Washington-based director of energy at consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, said by phone.

The rift exposes divisions at the federal level over the approval process for pipelines when climate change is taken into account at a time when the U.S. gas network is undergoing a massive expansion driven by booming production. The filing comes on the heels of a call by the Obama administration in August for federal agencies to step up their assessment of global warming impacts in their review of projects.

“We view FERC’s response to our comments as very concerning in light of” the Obama administration’s new guidelines on greenhouse gas impacts, the EPA said in its letter to the commission. The agency seeks “a definitive resolution to this matter before you publish a record of decision.”

Increased output from prolific shale formations, such as the Marcellus in the Northeast, is driving developers to extend the pipeline network to bring more of the fuel to consumers. The commission has approved more than 880 miles (1,416 kilometers) of lines this year alone, the most since at least 2010.

The Leach Xpress project would allow for the shipment of 1.5 million dekatherms per day of natural gas from the Appalachian supply basin, or enough of the fuel to power about 14.3 million homes annually. The link is scheduled to start in the second half of 2017, according to the project website.

The commission declined to comment by phone. TransCanada, which bought Columbia Pipeline Group Inc. — the company behind the project — earlier this year, said the commission determines the level of environmental reviews. “Comprehensive environmental studies were conducted and results were provided in our applications to the FERC,” Scott Castleman, a spokesman, said by e-mail.

See also: www.FrackCheckWV.net

Pipeline routes not certain

Informational Update on Proposed 42” Mountain Valley and 42” Atlantic Coast Pipelines

Thursday, October 20, 6:00 p.m., Jackson’s Mill, West Virginia Building, Jane Lew, WV

________________________

If you live in Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge, Lewis, Braxton, Upshur, Randolph, Pocahontas, Webster, Nicholas, Summers, Greenbrier, Monroe, your county will be affected.

What you must know in order to be protected

Topics will include: (1) Loss of Property Values and Future Land Use, (2) Effect on Insurance & Mortgages, (3) The Incineration Zone and Impact Radius,  (4) Impact on Water Supplies, (5) Do we really need two 42” Pipelines? (6) Is Any of this Gas for West Virginia? (7) How Compressor Stations Affect Your Health, (8) Why aren’t we exploring the alternatives? (9) Economic Losses to Counties, (10) Eminent Domain Abuse and Your Rights.

Expert Presenters will be available to answer YOUR questions and help you file your comments with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Public comment period is open till December 22, 2016

You may call 304-642-9436  for more information

Source: April Pierson-Keating, Buckhannon (Upshur County), WV.  304-642-9436

• >  >  >  >  >  >  >  >  >  >

Atlantic Coast Pipeline signs (tentative) construction contract

From an Article of the Staff, WHSV News 3, Richmond, September 21, 2016

Richmond, Va. (WHSV) – The Atlantic Coast Pipeline, a 600-mile natural gas transmission line proposed to run from West Virginia through Virginia to North Carolina, is one step closer to reality.

On Wednesday, Dominion announced that the company has signed a construction contract with Spring Ridge Constructors, LLC, which is a joint venture of leading natural gas pipeline construction companies.

The venture is comprised of four companies: Price Gregory International, Inc., a Quanta Services, Inc. company; U.S. Pipeline, Inc.; SMPC, LLC; and Rockford Corporation, a Primoris Services Corporation company.

Spring Ridge Constructors are signed on as the lead construction contractor for the pipeline project, though the pipeline has yet to be approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

If the pipeline is approved, Dominion has construction scheduled to begin in the fall of 2017.

Dominion says that economic impact studies show construction of the pipeline would generate more than 17,000 jobs, $2.7 billion in total economic activity and $4.2 million in average annual tax revenue for cities and counties in the project area.

Studies sponsored by the Southern Environmental Law Center and Appalachian Mountain Advocates say existing pipelines can supply more than enough fuel through 2030, but Dominion points out a growing demand for natural gas in the states affected by the Atlantic Coast Pipeline.

Dominion selected Spring Ridge Constructors (SRC) after an extensive bidding process conducted by Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC. They say the four companies encompassed by SRC account for a significant portion of the large-diameter natural gas pipeline construction spread capacity in the U.S.

“We are excited to work with SRC, which has assembled four of the nation’s leading and most-qualified pipeline builders for this project,” said Diane Leopold, president of Dominion Energy. “These companies have extensive experience in building large-scale, complex projects like the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, and their commitment to safe construction practices and best-in-class standards align with our expectations for the project.”

“The selection of our lead construction contractor is another significant milestone for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and represents one more step toward making this project a reality and securing the energy future of our region,” Leopold added.

“SRC is pleased to have been selected by ACP as the constructor of this vital project which serves to strengthen the nation’s energy infrastructure,” said Dan Plume, SRC project director. “The members of SRC are aligned in purpose with the common goals of safe construction practices, a commitment to environmental stewardship and quality construction. The SRC team leads the industry with a combined 200 years of expertise and leadership in the construction of large diameter pipelines that encompass all regions and terrains across North America. We are also excited about the positive economic impact this project will have in communities across these three states, where SRC and its subcontractors expect to hire thousands of local workers and enlist the services of many local businesses.”

In what Dominion calls “another significant milestone for the project,” the FERC issued a ‘Notice of Schedule’ in early August, which establishes a timeline for the remainder of the project’s federal environmental review process.

Based on that schedule, Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC expects to receive a FERC certificate in the late summer or fall of 2017, and they would begin construction shortly after. Following that same timeline, the pipeline would be completed and in service by late 2019.

The company is working with its contractors to try and find ways to complete construction even sooner.

Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC is composed of four major U.S. energy companies – Dominion, Duke Energy, Piedmont Natural Gas and Southern Company Gas. The joint venture partners plan to build and own the $4.5 billion-to-$5 billion pipeline, which would help meet the growing clean energy needs of Virginia and North Carolina by providing direct access to low-cost, abundant supplies of natural gas being produced in the nearby Marcellus and Utica shale basins of West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio.

The pipeline has been a major source of contention among people living in counties where it will pass through, like Augusta and Nelson Counties, and WHSV has covered protests, studies, debates, and far more in connection with the pipeline throughout recent years.

See also: www.FrackCheckWV.net

Sediment in Local Stream

FERC draft report calls pipeline’s potential impact ‘limited’

From an Article by Duncan Adams, roanoke.com, September 16, 2016

The federal commission evaluating the proposed Mountain Valley Pipeline issued Friday a draft environmental impact statement for the deeply controversial project — a major milestone in the review process. The 781-page statement from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission was accompanied by appendices that totaled 2,671 pages.

An executive summary of the statement reports, under a section titled “Major Conclusions,” that FERC determined the construction and operation of the pipeline “would result in limited adverse environmental impacts, with the exceptions of impacts on forest.”

Pipeline opponents reported Friday that their review of the commission documents was just beginning. But there were strong expressions of dismay, alarm and skepticism about FERC’s analysis.

“FERC’s conclusion that adverse environmental effects of the MVP would be limited and will be satisfactorily mitigated by the applicant is ludicrous,” said Rick Shingles, a member of Preserve Giles County.

Bill Wolf of Preserve Craig County provided a statement from that group: “It is inconceivable that our government would issue a draft EIS for public comment when it has been thoroughly documented that there are massive errors, gaps and possible falsehoods in the information provided by the private corporation that filed this application,” Wolf said. “This document seems to accept everything submitted by the company as fact, while ignoring thousands of pages of comments submitted by concerned citizens and knowledgeable professionals,” he added.

And there was stiff criticism too about the commission’s planned format for regional public meetings in November, when comments about the draft environmental impact statement will be collected in one-on-one conversations with a stenographer instead of in an open, public forum.

Roberta Bondurant, a resident of Bent Mountain in Roanoke County and one organizer there of stiff pipeline opposition, blasted the one-on-one format. “It’s a farce to call the individual delivery of scientific, environmental, historic and cultural information [to stenographers] a ‘public’ hearing,” she said.

Richard Caywood, assistant county administrator for Roanoke County, has led the county’s efforts to monitor the pipeline project. “The meeting format planned by FERC appears to be designed to limit, rather than facilitate, meaningful public dialogue regarding this project,” Caywood said.

In turn, Natalie Cox, a spokeswoman for Mountain Valley Pipeline, said the draft environmental impact statement follows more than two years of project planning and development and collection of data from surveying activities.

It also reflects, Cox said, “the comments, considerations and concerns of landowners, community members, government agencies and local elected officials along the proposed route.” She noted that Mountain Valley has made hundreds of route adjustments in response to landowner requests, efforts to avoid sensitive resources or engineering requirements.

As proposed, the 301-mile, 42-inch diameter Mountain Valley Pipeline would transport natural gas at high pressure from Wetzel County, West Virginia, to another natural gas transmission pipeline in Pittsylvania County.

The buried pipeline would travel from West Virginia through the Virginia counties of Giles, Montgomery, Craig, Roanoke and Franklin en route to terminating at the pipeline near Chatham. As an interstate pipeline, the project needs FERC’s approval to proceed.

‘Rugged terrain’

FERC acknowledged that the Mountain Valley Pipeline would travel through sections of steep, rugged terrain. For example, FERC said, about 67 percent of the project “would cross areas susceptible to landslides.” In addition, the pipeline would traverse nearly 73 miles where slope grades would be greater than 30 percent and also cross about 51 miles of karst terrain, the commission said.

Pipeline opponents contend that karst terrain — characterized by sinkholes, caves, sinking streams and springs — cannot safely support a 42-inch diameter, buried pipeline transporting natural gas at high pressure.

The Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation also has cited concerns about the pipeline’s impact on sensitive karst features and water quality in Giles and Montgomery counties. Pipeline foes warn that construction and operation of the pipeline on steep slopes will lead to erosion and the deposit of sediment in sensitive streams and drinking water sources.

The commission reported that it considered an impact to be significant “if it would result in a substantial adverse change in the physical environment.” Examples would be impacts to critical habitat for endangered species or direct construction impacts on historic properties, FERC said.

The commission suggests that the pipeline would not affect property values, an observation contradicted this year by at least two landowners in the region whose property values have been affected by the prospect of hosting the pipeline.

‘Fatally flawed’

Mountain Valley applied to FERC in October for the certificate the joint venture needs to begin construction. Since then, FERC has peppered Mountain Valley with requests for more information, clarifications and corrections as the commission staff and a consultant prepared the draft environmental impact statement.

Throughout the draft statement issued Friday, FERC acknowledges that additional information is required from Mountain Valley before the commission can complete a final environmental impact statement — which FERC has said should be available in March.

Laurie Ardison, co-chair of the Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights pipeline opposition group, described the draft environmental impact statement as “fatally flawed for a variety of process and substance matters, not the least of which is MVP’s insufficient, unsubstantiated foundational material.”

Carolyn Reilly, a member of Preserve Franklin County, offered similar observations. Her family has resisted efforts by Mountain Valley crews to survey their farm for a possible pipeline route.

“Considering that our family farm has not even been surveyed by MVP, we are aghast at how FERC has issued a draft environmental impact statement which doesn’t include our property, as well as others that have not been surveyed by MVP,” Reilly said. “Our family’s land includes woods inhabited by many species, pristine pasture, wetlands and two creeks. How can they state that there is not a significant impact to land and property values when the survey data doesn’t exist?”

Opponents contend FERC has relied too heavily on Mountain Valley’s data to assess whether the project meets a public need. Two studies commissioned by pipeline foes have concluded that the project isn’t necessary to meet current and anticipated demand for natural gas from the Appalachian Basin.

FERC notes, however, that the pipeline, designed to transport about 2 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas, has shippers lined up to use the gas. Roanoke Gas is one of five shippers and has confirmed it might site a tap in Franklin County to take natural gas off the pipeline.

FERC is also considering a separate application from Dominion, Duke Energy and other partners for the similarly controversial Atlantic Coast Pipeline project. It would also transport natural gas from West Virginia into Virginia through a 42-inch diameter natural gas transmission pipeline.

Opponents to both pipelines have long held that FERC staff should have completed a programmatic environmental impact statement that considered the two projects together, examining whether they are necessary and weighing their cumulative impacts.

Joe Lovett, executive director of Appalachian Mountain Advocates, reacted to the release of the impact statement for the Mountain Valley project by slamming FERC for failing to do a more overarching, comprehensive analysis. He said FERC’s unwillingness to complete a programmatic study was “shameful” and “lazy” and set the stage for private companies to take people’s private property for corporate gain.

If the commission ultimately approves the project, Mountain Valley will be able to use eminent domain to acquire easements across private property if negotiations fail to yield a price acceptable to the landowner.

Proponents of the Mountain Valley Pipeline emphasize a belief that the project will enhance economic development, help move away from coal as a fuel for power generation and support the nation’s energy independence.

Pipeline foes suggest the project will do significant and lasting environmental harm, impact property rights and values, create a safety hazard and continue the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels.

‘Forest impacts’

The commission reported that the Mountain Valley Pipeline would cross about 245 miles of forest, noting that the project’s 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way “would be kept clear of trees, which would represent a permanent impact” and lead to habitat fragmentation. FERC said the 125-foot construction right-of-way would remove trees that would take years to grow back.

As currently routed, the pipeline would cross a total of about 3.4 miles of the Jefferson National Forest. The Forest Service has expressed concerns about Mountain Valley’s current plans for crossing the Appalachian Trail and has criticized the company’s proposed crossing of Craig Creek.

FERC confirmed it will double the comment period that follows the release of the draft statement to 90 days to accommodate the needs of the Forest Service and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, another federal agency involved in preparation of the draft environmental impact statement.

FERC also will host public meetings to solicit comment on the draft. FERC has scheduled two meetings in the region: Nov. 2 at Franklin County High School, and Nov. 3 in Roanoke, at the Sheraton Hotel on Hershberger Road.

Each will begin at 5 p.m. FERC said individual comments will be collected in one-on-one conversations with a stenographer. Pipeline opponents and regional politicians had asked FERC to also include a town hall-type meeting.

FERC also will accept comments electronically and through the mail through December 22nd.

See also: www.FrackCheckWV.net