Punxsutawney Phil has relatives in West Virginia who care!

>>> Received on January 31 at 8:41 AM

Make sure you join us Thursday, February 2nd, for a special #GroundhogsDay webinar on the Mountain Valley Pipeline. Right now, there are two permits from federal agencies pending approval and you have the opportunity to comment!

Learn how you can send your comments. This webinar is set for 12:00 Noon! (See the recording below.)

#######+++++++#######+++++++########

RECORDING ~ Mountain Valley Pipeline Lunch and Learn February 2, 2023 – WV Rivers Coalition

ACCESS WINDOW~ https://wvrivers.org/2023/02/mvpfeb2023/

YouTube Recording ~ https://youtu.be/42d-68a1-tc

Two permits from federal agencies are pending approval and you have the opportunity to comment on them. This February 2nd webinar discussed how you can craft and submit your comments.

1. You can comment on the US Forest Service permit approval until February 6, through this webform.

2. You can comment on the Army Corp of Engineers permit until February 10, through this webform.

Thank you for your participation at this important time!

Larger pipe size in steep terrain results in land slides and water pollution

News from the Allegheny Blue Ridge Alliance, Update #282, June 25, 2020

The U.S. Forest Service has been cautioned that it should not depend upon the reliability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP) developed in 2017 by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) as the agency develops a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the project.

The Forest Service announced on June 11 that it was developing a SEIS in response to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals’ vacating of the Forest Service permit for the ACP. While one portion of that opinion (e.g. authority to grant the ACP the right to cross the Appalachian Trail) was overturned on June 15 by the U.S. Supreme Court, several deficiencies in the permit for the ACP are required to be remedied by the Forest Service before it can issue the ACP a new permit.

The Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) stated in a June 22 letter to the Forest Service:

The Forest Service cannot continue to rely on FERC’s obsolete FEIS. The original analyses of potential alternatives to the project and the environmental consequences of its risky and costly preferred route are in question. Significant, new and relevant information related to endangered and threatened species, water quality, landslides and slope failures, environmental justice communities, and climate change demonstrates the original analysis is stale and incapable of allowing effective review of the environmental consequences of the project. Meanwhile, the energy landscape of the region the ACP purports to serve also has transformed dramatically, the costs of the project have ballooned, and its timeline has been pushed back.

A motion was filed with FERC on May 30 by SELC, Appalachian Mountain Advocates and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation asking that FERC conduct an SEIS for the ACP to address significant new information bearing on the project’s environmental impacts.

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

New Biological Assessment Filed With FERC, But Not Made Public

News from the Allegheny Blue Ridge Alliance, Update #282, June 25, 2020

Dominion Energy Transmission, Inc. filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on June 22 a new Biological Assessment (BA) for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP), but designated the information as “privileged and confidential” and thus not available to the public.

The new BA, which was developed in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), is a necessary step toward the issuance of a new Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statement (BiOp/ITC) for the ACP, as required under the Endangered Species Act. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals had previously twice vacated the BiOp/ITC for the ACP, which led to construction activity on the ACP being suspended in December 2018.

Southern Environmental law Center wrote FERC on June 24 requesting that a public version of the new BA be posted on the FERC docket within five business days (by June 30), in accordance with statutory requirements.

ACP extends from WV to VA & NC, may not be needed

From an Article by Maya Weber, S & P Global — Platts, June 1, 2020

Washington — A coalition of environmental groups opened June 1 a new front in their legal war against the 600-mile, 1.5 Bcf/d Atlantic Coast Pipeline project, contending that a supplemental environmental impact statement is needed.

The action comes as lead developer Dominion Energy already is laboring to get the project back into construction after a series of legal setbacks. For instance, it is hoping for a positive US Supreme Court decision soon to help reinstate permission vacated by a federal circuit court for the pipeline to cross the Appalachian Trail.

The project is intended to move Appalachian natural gas to mid-Atlantic markets.

Should the developer prevail in the Supreme Court, it faces a possible new avenue of litigation in the form of a roughly 4,000-page filing posted on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s website June 1 by Southern Environmental Law Center, Appalachian Mountain Advocates and Chesapeake Bay Foundation on behalf of a coalition of conservation groups.

The groups argued in the filing that a supplemental EIS is needed in light of new information that has come to light since FERC issued an EIS for the pipeline project in 2017, and given upcoming FERC decisions on key matters such as whether to extend certificate authorization for the project beyond the October expiration date and whether to lift FERC’s existing stop-work order on construction.

Part of the groups’ rationale for a new review is that the region’s energy infrastructure has undergone a dramatic shift away from gas-fired power, while the cost of the pipeline has ballooned.

“In January 2020, Virginia — the site of over half of the ACP’s proposed route — told the Supreme Court that in light of the mounting evidence that the pipeline is not needed, the ACP threatens Virginia’s natural resources without clear corresponding benefits,” they wrote.

New data for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Commission (FERC)

And they said new information has come to light that they contended must be considered under the National Environmental Policy Act, involving endangered species along the pipeline route, expanded scientific information about climate change, and changing circumstances related to cumulative impacts from projects in the area.

In addition, they argued there have been substantial erosion, sedimentation and slope failures since 2017 along the ACP route and other pipelines in mountainous terrain, undermining FERC’s conclusions about effectiveness of mitigation in its documents. In light of the recently narrowed definition of waters of the US, some water bodies crossed by the project, including wetlands, may be at greater risk if permitting authorities no longer consider them within the purview of the Clean Water Act, they said.

Large long pipelines in steep terrain cause sediment & water pollution

Dominion Energy response to filings

In response to the filing, Dominion spokeswoman Ann Nallo said many of the concerns raised by the environmental groups already have been addressed publicly and others are being addressed through ongoing permitting processes with the agencies.

For example, ACP is working with the US Fish and Wildlife Service on a new biological opinion that will include the most up-to-date information on the impacted species.

The project is needed more than ever for the region’s economy and path to clean energy, she argued.

“The ACP will also support our region’s transition from coal and the rapid expansion of renewables, both of which are essential to Dominion Energy’s and Duke Energy’s plans to achieve net zero emissions by 2050,” she said.

ClearView Energy Partners, in a research note, said it expects the Supreme Court to remove one obstacle to the Appalachian Trail crossing but emphasized that others remained for the project. ClearView suggested the environmental groups may be preparing to ask the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to stay FERC’s certificate authorization when the court brings a legal challenge related to the FERC authorization out of abeyance.

“Given the strong consensus that the Supreme Court may reverse the 4th Circuit, we see this call to issue a supplemental EIS as another avenue through which the project’s opponents intend to delay, if not try to halt, the project altogether.”

Union of Concerned Scientists Report 2019

From the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), Common Dreams, January 28, 2019

WASHINGTON – New research shows that the administration has interfered with or sidelined science in 80 separate incidents over the past two years, demonstrating a pattern of hostility to evidence—and posing a serious threat to public health and the environment.

These abuses are detailed in the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) report “The State of Science in the Trump Era: Damage Done, Lessons Learned, and a Path to Progress.” On President Donald Trump’s watch, scientific agencies have been hollowed out, and at the leadership level, fewer than half of 83 critical science positions have been filled.

In numerous agencies, less data is being collected and decision-making processes have been changed to exclude scientific advice. The administration has delayed, suppressed or cancelled at least 14 important studies over the past two years. And the number of environmental impact statements filed has been cut in half, denying the public vital information and opportunities to comment on public projects.

“The administration is trying to accomplish its goals by pushing science out of the process,” said Jacob Carter, a UCS research scientist and the lead author of the report. “After two years, it’s clear that this administration values neither the work of federal scientists nor the health and safety of the public. Science is being silenced, in a truly unprecedented way—and we’re all paying the cost.”

The pattern is pervasive across multiple agencies, touching issues as wide-ranging as immigration, taxes and LGBQT rights. President Trump’s appointees to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Interior stand out for their glaring conflicts of interest and their hostility to the science-based mission of their agencies. Climate science and studies on the public health impacts of pollution have been especially targeted—demonstrating the administration’s commitment to helping politically powerful industries at the expense of the public good.

“The administration’s rollbacks of public protections without scientific justification are really damaging,” said Gretchen Goldman, research director for the Center for Science and Democracy at UCS. “But there’s even more potential harm from the actions they’ve taken to limit how future administrations can use science in policymaking. The Trump administration is restricting the kinds of science agencies can consider, rigging the rules for analyzing policies, gutting advisory boards and pushing federal scientists out of public service. That damage could be long-lasting.”

The good news is that there are proven paths to constrain these abuses. “The State of Science in the Trump Era” identifies some success stories that point the way forward. Scientists, science advocates and community groups have been able to use the courts, the public comment process, and Congress to put a check on the administration. Through sustained public pressure, the science community and its supporters have turned back some nominees and stalled several potentially damaging policies. Further, the new Congress has a chance to step up and perform its constitutional duty of holding the administration accountable.

“For the first time in two years, we could see some meaningful checks and balances in Washington,” said Carter. “This is how it’s supposed to work—Congress should press the administration to stop undermining science and do its job of protecting the public. And the science community can play a meaningful role if scientists step up and get engaged as constituents. There’s a lot of damage to undo, but we have a roadmap to get there.”

In the report, UCS researchers lay out an action plan for Congress. These recommendations include passing new laws to protect scientific integrity and reduce conflicts of interest; holding oversight hearings to investigate anti-science actions and the harms they cause; and protecting the role of science in laws like the Clean Air Act and Endangered Species Act that are under attack.

“President Trump’s political appointees have taken a wrecking ball to science, which we all depend on,” said UCS President Ken Kimmell. “But the science community is more engaged than ever to fight back. Supporters of science, public health and environmental justice will be watching to make sure science works for all of us — in the Trump era and beyond.”

###

Tribes Seek Justice at DAPL

‘Pipelines Leak’: Expert Finds Government Downplayed DAPL Impact on Tribe and Water

From an Article by Lauren McCauley, Common Dreams, November 4, 2016

An independent pipeline expert has concluded that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ environmental assessment (EA) of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) is insufficient and fails to account for the impact on tribal members, prompting the Standing Rock Sioux to demand that the federal agency “revisit” its approval of the controversial project.

The review, commissioned by the tribe, found that the Army Corps’ EA “understates the risk of pipeline failure and related oil release from this pipeline impacting Lake Oahe and the Missouri River,” determined (pdf) Richard Kuprewicz, a pipeline engineer with the consulting firm Accufacts, Inc..

Earthjustice, which is representing the Standing Rock Sioux in its litigation against the Corps, outlined additional “areas of deficiency” identified in the review:

1. Shoddy pipeline construction
2. The risks posed by landslides were underestimated
3. Lack of proper safety constructions to contain spills
4. Failure to review impact to residents and environment downstream of the site
5. A risk review of industry spills and containment at similar sites that document problematic regulatory oversight of the industry in North Dakota

In a letter (pdf) sent late last week to Jo-Ellen Darcy, assistant secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Standing Rock Sioux chairman Dave Archambault II presents Kuprewicz’s findings in contrast to the EA’s determination that building a pipeline across Lake Oahe “will not affect members of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe or the Tribal reservation.”

“Mr. Kuprewicz’s findings reflect the common sense point that was somehow lost in the Final Environmental Analysis—that pipelines leak, and that when they do so there are often devastating consequences, particularly when the leak contaminates water.”
—Dave Archambault II, Standing Rock Sioux

The review, he said, “underscores one of the fundamental deficiencies of the Final Environmental Assessment—it assumes, without foundation, that placing a massive oil pipeline just upstream from the Reservation presents no risk to the Tribe.

Alternately, “Mr. Kuprewicz’s findings reflect the common sense point that was somehow lost in the Final Environmental Analysis—that pipelines leak, and that when they do so there are often devastating consequences, particularly when the leak contaminates water,” he noted.

“This raises the question,” Archambault continued, “if the Dakota Access pipeline is so safe that it presents no risk at all when situated on the Tribe’s doorstep, why isn’t the pipeline safe enough to cross the river north of Bismarck, as originally proposed? The Final EA provides no answer.”

Earthjustice staff attorney Jan Hasselman, who represents the Tribe, said, “The law requires a full and transparent analysis of risks like oil spills prior to issuance of a federal permit. It’s clear that never happened here.”

Indeed, as recent news events have shown, and as Archambault himself pointed out in the letter, “the public record is filled with examples” of pipeline failure. The past two weeks alone have seen a deadly gasoline pipeline explosion in Alabama, and successive pipeline leaks in Oklahoma and Pennsylvania, respectively discharging crude oil and gasoline.

According to data from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, an average of over 59 oil spills occur each year while the average amount of oil spilled from pipelines topping 47,000 barrels. North Dakota alone had 1238 reported incidents of spills of oil or oilfield wastewater in the 12-month period from July 27, 2015 through July 25, 2016.

Referencing these “sobering” statistics, as well as many of the documented instances, Archambault concluded that the Army Corps should deny the easement for the Lake Oahe pipeline crossing.

See also: www.FrackCheckWV.net