MVP extends thru WV and VA and now into NC

Reply Request by Lewis Freeman, Allegheny Blue Ridge Alliance (ABRA), September 7, 2020

The Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) has asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for an extension of time of “an additional two years, or until October 13, 2022, to complete construction of the Project and place the Project facilities into service.” FERC issued on August 27 an official notice of a comment period for the public to have input on the MVP request, the deadline for which is Friday, September 11 (more information below).

The MVP request, made in an August 25 letter, contends:

>> The need for the MVP by potential customers still exists.

>> FERC has already approved the Southgate Project to extend the MVP into North Carolina.

>> The recent cancellation of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP) makes it “vitally important for this Project to be completed and placed in service as soon as possible to meet the demand for national gas in these regions.”

>> “Unforeseen litigation and permitting delays outside of Mountain Valley’s control” have prevented the pipeline from being in service by October 13, 2020 (when the current certificate for the project expires).

>> The “Project is approximately 92% complete.”

MVPs request, while not surprising, raises several questions, among them:

>> Given natural gas market realities in 2020, how can the need for the MVP still be as justified as it was when the project’s certificate was granted in 2017?

>> After all, as noted in the August 13 issue of ABRA Update, the CEO of EQT Corporation, potentially the largest shipper of gas on the MVP should the project be completed, there is now – without the MVP being operational – there is an excess of pipeline capacity over production coming from the Marcellus Basin and that production is going to continue to decline, thus widening the gap of excess pipeline capacity over production.

>> How can the project be called 92% complete when by the company’s own admission only half of the MVP route has been fully restored, with the fully restored percentage in Virginia, which is one-third of the route, being only 15%?

>> If 92% of the MVP route is actually complete, why would it take two years to complete the remaining 8% of the project?

>> Given that North Carolina has denied a Section 401 water certificate for the Southgate Project, what assurance can MVP demonstrate that the project (which is one of the cited reasons for the certificate extension request to FERC) will even be built?

ABRA members and those active in the coalition are strongly urged to file comments with FERC by 5 pm, Friday, September 11 in opposition to the extension of the certificate for the MVP. Regarding filing comments, the FERC Notice states:

The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “e-File” link at http://www.ferc.gov.

Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426.

Comment Deadline: 5:00 pm Eastern Time on September 11, 2020

Franks Run was heavily polluted during pipeline construction

From an Article by Kate Mishkin, Charleston Gazette, April 19, 2019

A gas company has agreed to a $124,030 deal with the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection for its environmental violations in Doddridge and Wetzel counties.

MarkWest Liberty Midstream & Resources and the DEP entered into the consent order March 28. The order is subject to a comment period that ends May 16.

The 134-page consent order outlines environmental issues while the company was working to install a pipeline in Doddridge and Wetzel counties between August 2018 and February 2019.

Most recently, DEP inspectors visited the site on Feb. 27 and found the company had failed to keep sediment-laden water from leaving the site, and had “caused conditions not allowable in waters of the State by creating distinctly visible settleable solids” in one of the bodies of water. Inspectors subsequently wrote a Notice of Violation, which does not include a financial penalty.

The consent order includes a breakdown of fines: a $99,200 base penalty; $9,920 for willfulness or negligence; $24,800 for compliance or noncompliance history; and $30 for public notice costs. The company got a $9,920 discount for cooperating with the state.

That doesn’t account for staff investigative costs and the cost of dealing with repeat violators, said Angie Rosser, executive director of the West Virginia Rivers Coalition.

“This penalty, as with others, does not consider the economic benefit MarkWest Liberty gained from cutting corners. The order documents chronic lack of maintenance that’s required to control polluted run-off, yet there’s no acknowledgement that MarkWest saved money by choosing not to hire the personnel needed to avoid these damages,” Rosser said. “If paying the penalty is less than it costs to do the job right, then it’s not an effective deterrent.”

The consent order includes about 115 pages of photos of the project, including photos of muddy water and overflowing water.

“After seeing the pages and pages of photos, I’m grateful for the DEP doing their job, but mostly I just get upset. I’m upset with this company. I’m upset with the industry to not hold itself to a higher standard. Companies showing such blatant disregard for laws that protect our citizens’ water simply shouldn’t be allowed the privilege of doing business here,” Rosser said.

The company did not respond to a request for comment. The DEP would not answer additional questions about the consent order.

“WVDEP has no further comments beyond those provided on the signed consent order,” Casey Korbini, deputy director for remediation programs, said in an email.

There is much more than has been told!

From an Article by Laurence Hammack, Roanoke Times, January 28, 2019

WASHINGTON — The good of the Mountain Valley Pipeline — a steady supply of needed natural gas — met the bad Monday, when opponents told a federal appeals court there’s really no public need for a project that is already polluting Southwest Virginia.

In a sweeping attack, a coalition of environmental groups asked the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to reverse a federal agency’s approval of the 303-mile pipeline.

When the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission green-lighted the pipeline in October 2017, it voted 2-1 that its public benefits will outweigh any adverse impacts. But in finding there was a market demand for the natural gas, FERC relied entirely on contracts between the pipeline’s owners and its shippers, which are all part of the same corporate structure.

The complex affiliations of Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC were not the result of “arms-length negotiations” that would have demonstrated a true market based on public need, the court was told by Ben Luckett of Appalachian Mountain Advocates, a nonprofit law firm that represented pipeline opponents during Monday’s oral arguments.

Attorneys for FERC and Mountain Valley countered that the partners would never have invested in the $4.6 billion venture unless they were convinced it was worth the risk — an argument that seemed to resonate with the three-judge panel hearing the case. “They’re putting skin in the game, which tends to show they are using their best judgment about future demand,” Judge Gregory Katsas said in one of several questions put to Luckett.

And the pipeline’s capacity is fully subscribed to the Mountain Valley shippers, is it not? asked Judge David Tatel. Yes, Luckett responded, but 80 percent of the end users — the homeowners, businesses or power plants that will actually burn the gas — have yet to be identified and are based solely on speculation.

That may be so, Judge David Sentelle interjected, but the Mountain Valley shippers “are purchasers. They are buyers. They are creating a demand for the gas that is passing through the pipeline.”

In past decisions, the D.C. Circuit generally has been reluctant to second-guess FERC’s judgment. A written decision is expected within three to six months.

Of more than a dozen claims raised by Appalachian Mountain Advocates, the three judges devoted most of their questions to FERC’s reliance on so-called precedent agreements to identify market demand.

One such agreement involves RGC Midstream, which has a 1 percent ownership in the pipeline and is helping to pay for its construction. Its parent company, RGC Resources, has another subsidiary — Roanoke Gas Co. — which as a shipper will pay a fee to Mountain Valley for the transportation of the fuel it will then sell to its customers.

Challenging the government’s reliance on such agreements was seen by some as a long shot. “We do not expect the D.C. Circuit will ultimately rule against FERC given the court’s deference to the agency’s expertise on issues that fall under its jurisdiction,” Height Capital Markets, an investment banking research firm that has been monitoring the project, stated Monday in its weekly update. “However, an unfavorable decision here risks further delays and cost increases for the beleaguered project.”

Since it began work on the pipeline a year ago, Mountain Valley has been warned repeatedly by environmental regulators in West Virginia and Virginia that it is violating standards meant to limit erosion and sedimentation.

A lawsuit filed by Virginia’s Department of Environmental Quality accuses construction crews of breaking the rules more than 300 times in the six counties — Giles, Craig, Montgomery, Roanoke, Franklin and Pittsylvania — through which the pipeline will pass.

Mountain Valley has also lost two permits awarded by federal agencies following FERC’s initial approval of the pipeline. In separate legal challenges, environmental groups have said that the U.S. Forest Service did not properly address erosion controls when it allowed the pipeline to cross through the Jefferson National Forest, and that the Army Corps of Engineers failed to follow state-imposed conditions meant to reduce sedimentation during work in streams and wetlands.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out those permits in July and October. Mountain Valley has said it hopes to obtain new authorizations in time to complete the project by the end of this year.

In challenging FERC’s approval in the D.C. Circuit, Appalachian Voices and 23 other organizations and individuals cited a number of environmental concerns raised by burrowing a 42-inch diameter steel pipe along steep mountainsides and through pristine waters.

Other than the question of public need, the only other claim mentioned during Monday’s 30-minute session was the assertion that FERC had failed to adequately consider the impact of greenhouse gases to be released from the burning of natural gas provided by the pipeline.

Lawyers for FERC and Mountain Valley said that questions about where the gas eventually will wind up made it difficult to gauge its impact on climate change. “The tools for that simply don’t exist,” said Lona Perry, a U.S. deputy solicitor who made arguments on behalf of FERC.

“But why?” Tatel later asked when an attorney for Mountain Valley raised the same defense. “You didn’t have any doubt that all this [gas] will be burned, correct?”

##########

See also: Appalachian Mountain Advocates of Lewisburg, WV, and Charlottesville, VA

Sediment from the Rover Pipeline construction flowing into Meathouse Fork, Doddridge Co. WV

From Autumn Crowe, West Virginia Rivers Coalition, December 4, 2017

This month WVDEP is holding public hearings on two major natural gas pipelines, the Mountain XPress Pipeline and the Atlantic Coast Pipeline. Each public hearing focuses on stormwater and sediment control permits, which regulate runoff from oil and gas development. Check out our guide to stormwater permits to learn more.

Mountaineer XPress Pipeline Public Hearings – December 11 & 12

The Mountaineer XPress Pipeline (MXP) would stretch 170-miles across West Virginia as part of the Columbia Pipeline Group, which spans multiple states.

Monday, December 11, 6-8pm
Doddridge County Park
1252 Snowbird Road
West Union, WV 26456

Tuesday, December 12, 6-8pm
Ripley High School
2 School Street
Ripley, WV 25271

Written comments will be accepted through Friday, December 22, 2017.

Atlantic Coast Pipeline Public Hearings – December 18 & 21

The Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP) would span 3 states in it’s 600-mile path, approximately 100 of those miles in West Virginia.

Monday, December 18, 6-8pm
Buckhannon Upshur High School
270 Bu Drive
Buckhannon, WV 26201

Thursday, December 21, 6-8pm
Pocahontas County High School
271 Warrior Way
Dunmore, WV 24934

Written comments will be accepted through Sunday, December 31, 2017.

Don’t wait to the last minute!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

New consultant report on pipeline economics and manufacturing jobs

By Amy Mall, National Research Defense Council, December 4, 2017

A new expert report commissioned by NRDC concludes that there is no support for claims that a new natural gas pipeline will save consumers money, is needed to meet new natural gas demand, or will lead to additional opportunities for new manufacturing jobs. This report focuses on ACP due to the information available on the proposed end uses, but offers some cautionary relevancy for MVP:

https://www.nrdc.org/experts/amy-mall/pipe-dreams-economic-jobs-myths-natural-gas-pipelines

Other relevant blog posts:

https://www.nrdc.org/experts/amy-mall/virginia-deq-wrong-pipelines-contaminate-clean-water

https://www.nrdc.org/experts/amy-mall/pipelines-ruin-farmland-across-country

https://www.nrdc.org/experts/amy-mall/virginia-water-board-can-and-should-deny-pipeline-permits-0

https://www.nrdc.org/experts/amy-mall/top-ten-concerns-mountain-valley-atlantic-coast-pipelines

Thank you for all you do to help out!

AMY MALL, Senior Policy Analyst
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL
1152 15TH STREET NW, SUITE 300
WASHINGTON, DC 20005

Dirty politics will not keep our water clean !!!

From an Article by Stacy Lovelace, Blue Virginia, November 29,  2017

While the hotly contested Atlantic Coast (ACP) and Mountain Valley (MVP) pipelines have put a considerable amount of focus on Dominion Energy, primary stakeholder in the ACP, the Virginia State Water Control Board (SWCB) is getting its own share of attention as it gears up for making a decision on the two “natural” gas pipelines at December hearings in Richmond.  One would think that because the SWCB’s function is to make independent decisions on Virginia water quality, the SWCB and Dominion wouldn’t have any connection outside of ‘independent’ decisions made by the SWCB involving Dominion projects.  But upon taking a closer look at individual members of the SWCB, a stunning and disconcerting number of ties between board members and Dominion can be found.

• Robert Dunn, who serves as Chair of the SWCB, is an executive board member for the statewide organization called VIRGINIAforever.  He serves alongside Pamela Faggert, also an executive board member at VIRGINIAforever, who is a Chief Environmental Officer for Dominion. Note that VIRGINIAforever claims to be the driving force for conservation policy action in Virginia, but the fact that the board is made up of people from so many corporations with a vested interest in getting what they want in terms of water and land, like the Home Builders Association of Virginia and Smithfield Foods (which produces a great deal of agricultural runoff), I am suspicious of the true nature of the organization. The board also includes representatives from two firms that have represented Dominion legally.
• Heather Wood, SWCB Vice-Chair, serves on the St. Margaret’s School Board alongside Jane Whitt Sellers, a lawyer who represented Dominion in a $4.4 billion acquisition to expand its natural gas assets.  Additionally, while serving on the SWCB and after the announcement of the ACP proposal, Wood worked for the Port of Virginia, owned by the Virginia Port Authority, an open supporter of the ACP.
• Roberta Kellam served on the board for the Virginia Institute of Marine Science until June of this year.  Dominion has given multiple grants to the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, including one for $40,000 this past April.
• Nissa Dean is the Virginia Director of the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay.  Dominion has given a large sum of money in grants to the Alliance over the years, including a $20,000 grant given this year.
• Timothy Hayes is a retired partner of Hunton and Williams, LLP.  This firm has acted as counsel for Dominion and employs a former Dominion officer, J. Kennerly Davis, Jr.
• Lou Ann Jessee-Wallace is an elected Republican of the Russell County Board of Supervisors.  The political influence of Dominion is well known – the company donated thousands of dollars to the Republican Party of Virginia in the past year alone and is considered one of the largest influencers in Virginia politics.

.
The people listed above represent six members of the SWCB, which comprises only seven members.  It’s worth noting that two recent former members of the SWCB, Thomas Branin and Joe Nash, also had potential ties to Dominion.  Branin, as an elected Republican of the Henrico Board of Supervisors, received thousands of dollars from the Republican Party of Virginia, shown above to be under the influence of Dominion.  Joe Nash was and still is a writer for the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy on whose board serves James Beamer, a Managing Director for Dominion.  The latter of these two men, along with some of the current SWCB members, made controversial decisions in favor of Dominion regarding the company’s coal ash policies.

All of the current members of the SWCB were appointed or reappointed by Governor Terry McAuliffe, who has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations from Dominion.  David Paylor, another appointee of Governor McAuliffe who has also received thousands of dollars in gifts from Dominion, is Director of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).  The DEQ gives recommendations to the SWCB and oversees the day-to-day administrations of the SWCB programs.

If it were only one or two members of the SWCB with connections to Dominion, one might consider it a coincidence.  After all, Dominion is a very large corporation.  But because six out of the seven current Board members along with multiple related officials have connections with Dominion money or high level Dominion employees, the possibility of it being coincidence diminishes.

And while Dominion’s influence is directly tied to the ACP, any SWCB decision made with regards to one pipeline will potentially affect the other.  It is highly unlikely the Board would approve water permits for the ACP without approving the same permits for the MVP.  Doing so would make Dominion’s influence dangerously obvious.

These two pipelines would cross thousands of waterbodies and impact the drinking water sources of millions of people.  With so many potential conflicts of interest involving the SWCB and Dominion, it begs the question: can the State Water Control Board really be trusted in making decisions on protecting our water with regard to the Atlantic Coast and Mountain Valley pipelines?

——–
Contact: Carolyn Reilly, Pipeline Fighter, Appalachia Region
Bold Alliance, Carolyn@BoldAlliance.org
www.BoldAlliance.org

Secretary Caperton’s Letter to WVDEP Staff Regarding the Mountain Valley Pipeline (11/13/2017)

CHARLESTON, W.Va. – West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) Cabinet Secretary Austin Caperton sent the following letter to all staff this morning explaining the agency’s decision on the Mountain Valley Pipeline.

“Good morning:

“There’s been a lot of news coverage recently of the WVDEP’s decision regarding the Mountain Valley Pipeline. Many of you have been asked questions by friends or family about exactly what this agency did, what we didn’t do, and how we arrived at our decision.

“I’d like to explain how this agency is protecting water quality with its permits.

“First, it is important to understand Section 401 Certifications and Section 404 permits. Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act allows states an opportunity to ensure federal permitting actions will comply with a state’s water quality standards. The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) issues Clean Water Act Section 404 stream crossing and wetland permits, allowing fill to be placed in streams and wetlands. This permit is not for upland activities. The USACE can issue either an individual 404 permit for a particular activity or a general permit known as a Nationwide Permit. Nationwide Permits are used for common activities like highway construction or utility line construction. The USACE reissues Nationwide Permits every 5 years and likewise states are given an opportunity to issue 401 Certifications for these permits every 5 years.

“The timeline is important to understand WVDEP’s actions. WVDEP issued a 401 individual water quality certification for the Mountain Valley Pipeline project on March 23, 2017.

“That 401 Certification had several conditions to ensure that temporary impacts to West Virginia’s waters would be minimized, and mitigation would be provided for permanent impacts. Importantly, during the same period of time that the WVDEP was working on this MVP individual certification, it was also developing special conditions for the reissuance of the USACE nationwide permit. This permit is called the Nationwide 12 permit. It is typically used by the USACE for utility line construction (including pipeline stream crossings). The special conditions West Virginia included in it is certification on the newly reissued Nationwide 12 permit (in April 2017) largely mirrored the conditions that West Virginia had previously placed (in March 2017) on the MVP’s 401 Individual Certification.

“An appeal was filed on Aug. 15, 2017 against WVDEP in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, raising the issues of antidegradation, karst, and the response to public comments. The WVDEP vacated and remanded the 401 Certification to re-evaluate the complete application. During this re-evaluation it was determined that, while the agency could defend against the arguments raised in the appeal, some of the issues raised were better addressed in the state Oil and Gas Construction Stormwater Permit (WV0116815).

“This state permit was issued nearly five years ago to cover oil and gas construction activity. Those activities were otherwise exempt from needing a federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Based on West Virginia’s experiences, it had become obvious that oil and gas construction activity needed to be permitted to protect water quality in our state. West Virginia is unique among its surrounding states in that it has this specific state permit to cover oil and gas pipeline construction activity.

“Because the newly issued Nationwide 12 permit included updated state conditions that were similar to those contained in MVP’s previous individual 401 Certification, WVDEP determined it was unnecessary to repeat them in an Individual Certification. As a result, it waived the 401 Certification. Through its use of the Construction Stormwater Permit, WVDEP will now take full control of the inspection and enforcement of this entire project – in both upland areas and at stream and wetland crossings.

“To be clear – by waiving the 401 Individual Certification, we are not abandoning our duty to protect the water quality of West Virginia. In fact, the new Nationwide 12 permit is 401 certified by West Virginia and includes state specific conditions relative to pipelines. Combined with the state Construction Stormwater Permit, we are in a stronger position to effectively regulate all pipeline construction in West Virginia.

“I take our duty to protect the environment seriously, and will use all of our resources to make sure this project, and any other project, adheres to the conditions of its permit.”

>>> Signed, Austin Caperton, WVDEP Cabinet Secretary

Contact: Jake Glance, (304) 926-0499 ext. 1335, Jacob.P.Glance@wv.gov

Protect our public waters NOW!

The Virginia Dept. of Environmental Quality (DEQ) recently held public hearings for people to express their concerns for both the proposed Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) and Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP).

Landowners and all those opposed to these unnecessary fracked gas pipelines that threaten waters in West Virginia, Virginia and North Carolina have been petitioning the DEQ for a 60-day extension to the public comment deadlines for the MVP and ACP permits — which otherwise close on August 22nd.

Sign the letter to Gov. McAuliffe, Lt. Gov. Northam and Virginia DEQ Director David Paylor: Extend the public comment periods for ACP and MVP. And, please contact these people on your own.

Because many documents from both MVP and ACP have not even been released yet for public comment — citizens are being left in the dark, and are unable to give specific feedback on the numerous water bodies threatened by these pipelines — including the amount of sediment expected to be released into the six Virginia rivers; upland impacts; impacts on recreational lands; and the results of karst hazard assessments and dye-testing.

We’re taking Bold action and calling directly on Gov. McAuliffe, Lt. Gov. Northam and David Paylor — head of the Virginia DEQ — to perform their sworn duties, and hold fast to the DEQ’s mission to “protect and enhance Virginia’s environment, and promote the health and well-being of the citizens of the Commonwealth.”

The DEQ must grant a 60-day extension to the public comment period, and suspend this process until all the relevant studies and information can be reviewed by citizens.

Sign the letter: Extend the public comments periods for the proposed Mountain Valley and Atlantic Coast pipelines.

>>> Thanks for standing with us. Carolyn Reilly and the Bold Alliance team

P.S. Do you have some great photos of you and your family enjoying some of the many Virginia rivers and water bodies threatened by these risky fracked-gas pipelines? We can use them to help raise awareness of our fight to protect our water and land. Email your water photos to Carolyn Reilly: carolyn@boldalliance.org

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

How to comment on proposed 401 Water Quality Certifications for the Atlantic Coast and Mountain Valley pipelines

From Greenbrier River Watershed Association, August 10, 2017

You have the right to provide public comments on the proposed Section 401 Water Quality Certifications for construction related activities in upland areas that are located near state waters and that may affect state water along the proposed routes of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP) and Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP).

What is the subject of the public comment period?
DEQ is seeking comments on the proposed conditions described in the draft certificates. Only comments related to the MVP or ACP additional conditions will be considered. Additional conditions address karst protection, unregulated surface water withdrawal, exceptional waters, water quality monitoring and activity on steep slopes and in slide prone areas to protect areas during and after construction activities. These conditions provide additional protections not already addressed by other regulations or requirements.

When is the public comment period? 
Comments will be accepted through 11:59 p.m. on August 22, 2017. The comment period is 50 days, 20 days longer than required by the State Water Control Board’s Procedural Rule No. 1 (9VAC25-230-130B).

((It also is important to note that DEQ has directed ACP and MVP to post their site-specific plans for erosion and sediment control and stormwater management so the public can have an opportunity to review them. That deadline is October 13, 2017.))
 
How do I submit a comment?
 
>>> Hand-deliver your comments to DEQ: Office of Wetlands & Stream Protection, 629 East Main St., Richmond, VA 23219 during business hours 8:15 a.m. to 5 p.m.
 
>>> Mail your comments to DEQ: Office of Wetlands & Stream
Protection, P.O. Box 1105, Richmond, VA 23218.
 
>>> Email your comments: For the ACP, the email address is
comment-acp@deq.virginia.gov

>>> For MVP, the email address is comment-mvp@deq.virginia.gov
 
>>> Comments are given the same consideration by the board whether they are made in writing or given orally.

What is required for a public comment to be considered?
Comments must be submitted before the end of the comment period by the 11:59 p.m., August 22, 2017 deadline. Comments should be factual and related to the merits or issues contained in the proposed certification document. When providing written comments, the person commenting must include his/her name and mailing address, and if representing a group of people, the person commenting must also include the names, mailing addresses, and telephone numbers of the persons being represented.
 
What happens after the public comment period?
DEQ staff will summarize all public oral and written comments received during the public comment period, and will provide this summary and responses to comments to the State Water Control Board before its Fall meeting.
 
Only persons who have submitted written or oral comments during the public comment period may respond to the public comment summary provided to the State Water Control Board in accordance with the Board’s Policy on Public Comment at State Water Control Board Meetings.

The State Water Control Board may grant as proposed, grant with amendments, or deny the proposed 401 certification. DEQ will publish additional information as it becomes available, and will send email updates through its news feeds. DEQ director hears residents’ fears about pipeline impacts to wells, springs and pristine streams. See also the information here:
 
http://www.roanoke.com/news/local/giles_county/deq-director-hears-residents-fears-about-pipeline-impacts-to-wells/article_35867e51-89e1-5aa4-9879-511022bd438f.html

Subject: Protecting Water Quality in Name Only

Letter from Rick Webb, Dominion Pipeline Monitoring Coalition, July 26, 2017

DPMC CALLS ON GOVERNOR McAULIFFE

The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality has indicated that applications for water quality certification of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP) and the Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) could be denied “in theory.” We are calling on Governor Terry McAuliffe to take action now to ensure that VA-DEQ’s enforcement of the law is more than theoretical; that the certain damages these proposals would cause to hundreds of our streams and wetlands be honestly acknowledged by VA-DEQ and prevented.

In a letter to the Governor dated July 25, 2017, the Dominion Pipeline Monitoring Coalition (DPMC) described how the Governor’s top environmental officials have skewed the regulatory reviews of these major pipeline proposals. State records and public statements clearly show that VA-DEQ has failed even to acknowledge its duty to deny water quality certifications for the ACP and MVP, despite the Clean Water Act’s mandate that VA-DEQ do so.

Other states have faithfully fulfilled their Clean Water Act duties to reject proposals when pipeline builders failed to meet their burdens of proof and show that their projects could meet all water quality requirements. As DPMC’s letter asked the Governor: “Do Virginian’s deserve less protection than our fellow citizens? Will you accept VA-DEQ’s proposals to forego its responsibilities where others have fully exercised their authorities to protect their citizens and environments?”

VA-DEQ’s resistance to considering rejection of threats to water quality is not in line with actions it has taken on proposals by other parties. The Department has rejected permit applications for facilities such as wastewater discharges and held other construction projects to stringent stormwater control requirements. In stark contrast, the pipeline companies have gotten special deals. Certainly, other applicants for State approvals will be dismayed to know they’ve been treated differently than the politically-powerful sponsors of ACP and MVP.

For more information, see:

DPMC Press Statement

DPMC Letter to Governor

>>> Rick Webb, Program Coordinator
Dominion Pipeline Monitoring Coalition
rwebb.dpmc@gmail.com

People Over Pipelines

We have a Report from Erin McKelvy. Erin is a resident of the Blacksburg VA area and an affiliate of Blue Ridge Rapid Response Project (or BRRRP) and is helping to organize the “Stop The Pipelines Action Camp” in that area from July 13-17th, 2017. The action camp is being organized in hopes to spread resistance to the Mountain Valley & Atlantic Coast Pipelines that are traversing Appalachian West Virginia, Virginia and, in the MVP’s case, North Carolina. We talk about what it is to live in a place and defend your home, to get to know your neighbors, to build the skills needed to resist ecocidal, capitalist infrastructure projects.

More info at https://blueridgerapidresponse.wordpress.com or contact blueridgerapidresponse@gmail.com

The event is being co-sponsored by Smokey Mountain Eco-Defense (SMED).

New industry sponsored pipeline security is being pursued by mercenary groups like “TigerSwan” as well as industry-sponsored astro-turf (or fake grassroots) group “YourEnergy” meant to muddy the water of community resistance to pipeline expansion and other infrastructural projects.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Virginia DEQ Programs: Water Protection for Pipelines, June 1, 2017

Due to the size and scope of proposed natural gas pipeline projects in Virginia, DEQ is developing additional requirements to ensure that Virginia water quality standards are maintained in all areas affected by the construction of these pipelines.

VA-DEQ will require Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) and Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP) to provide detailed plans to assess whether construction activities in adjacent areas will adversely affect water quality during construction and to ensure that water quality is maintained into the future. This additional certification goes well beyond other regulatory requirements and will protect water quality across the range of pipeline activities, not just temporary construction impacts to streams and wetlands.

The types of additional information developers must provide relate to environmental concerns such as karst geologic features, steep slopes, public water supplies and areas prone to rockslides. See main article sidebar, Request for Information (RFI) for ACP and MVP.

Once VA-DEQ has evaluated this information, it will develop additional water quality conditions and will give the public an opportunity to review and comment on these certification conditions. VA-DEQ also will hold public hearings on the draft certifications. Once the comment period has concluded, VA-DEQ will prepare a report and recommendations on the certification conditions for the State Water Control Board’s consideration.

VA-DEQ will hold three public hearings for Atlantic Coast Pipeline and two for Mountain Valley Pipeline.

In summary, five regulatory and review tools provide comprehensive oversight and thorough technical evaluation to ensure that Virginia’s water quality is protected.

Environmental impact review.

VA-DEQ, along with Virginia’s other natural resource agencies, submitted numerous comments and recommendations on the draft environmental impact statements published by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for these pipelines. For example, Virginia identified specific concerns in a number of stream segments crossing watersheds. Virginia recommended additional pre- and post-construction water quality monitoring, heightened erosion and sedimentation control practices, and/or pre-impact characterization of proposed stream and wetland crossings.

Stormwater, erosion and sediment control.

VA-DEQ is requiring each pipeline developer to submit detailed, project-specific erosion and sedimentation control and stormwater plans for every foot of land disturbance related to pipeline construction, including access roads and construction lay-down areas. These plans must comply with Virginia’s stormwater and erosion and sediment control regulations that are designed to protect water quality during and after construction. These plans will be reviewed by qualified professionals (either VA-DEQ staff or third-party engineers) and will be posted for public review. An engineering consulting firm will assist in VA-DEQ’s review of the erosion and stormwater plans. The cost of this work is estimated to be approximately $2.2 million.

Federal wetlands and stream regulation.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is the federal regulatory partner in permitting dredge and fill activities in wetlands and streams. The Corps’ Nationwide Permit (NWP) 12 requires that water quality is protected during the construction of pipelines in wetlands and streams. The Corps will evaluate each wetland and stream crossing to see if it is consistent with the conditions of NWP 12. Because the Corps’ permit only covers construction activities that cross a wetland or stream, VA-DEQ is addressing other water quality impacts through its water certification authority. The conditions provided in NWP 12 are comprehensive and include: coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on threatened and endangered species; requirements to restore the pre-construction conditions at stream crossings using materials that mimic the natural stream bed; mitigation for all permanent loss over 1/10 acre and/or 300 linear feet of waters; a recommendation discouraging directional drilling in karst topography; a recommendation to use Virginia native species for revegetation; and extensive guidance and requirements for countersinking pipes.

Virginia water quality certification.

VA-DEQ will require water quality certification conditions for all potentially impacted water resources related to activities that may affect water quality outside the temporary construction impacts to stream and wetland crossings. These will provide reasonable assurance that water quality standards are maintained in Virginia’s streams. Once VA-DEQ has evaluated this information, it will develop additional water quality conditions and will give the public an opportunity to review and comment on these conditions. VA-DEQ also will hold public hearings on the draft conditions. Once the comment period has ended, VA-DEQ will recommend certification conditions for the State Water Control Board’s consideration.

Water quality monitoring.

VA-DEQ will conduct its own water quality monitoring of the pipeline projects to ensure water quality standards are maintained.

NOTE: See the schedule for public hearings and other information on the VA-DEQ website.

St. Albans Arts Center, April 21 & 22

Law firm disputes W.Va. water quality permit for pipeline

From an Article by Duncan Adams, Roanoke Times, April 11, 2017

An environmental law firm contends that a West Virginia state agency acted prematurely, relied on incomplete information and otherwise erred last month when granting a water quality permit for the controversial Mountain Valley Pipeline.

Appalachian Mountain Advocates, headquartered in Lewisburg, West Virginia, last week notified the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection that the nonprofit law firm seeks a hearing to dispute the department’s issuance in March of an individual 401 water quality certification for the natural gas pipeline project.

The permit allows the pipeline and related access roads to cross streams and wetlands in the project area in West Virginia, where the pipeline would be about 195 miles long.

A nine-page letter from lawyer Derek Teaney to Scott Mandirola, director of the West Virginia agency’s division of water and waste management, detailed a host of objections about the department’s decision to grant the water quality permit.

Among other concerns, Appalachian Mountain Advocates alleged:

• The department had not established current water quality baseline data for streams that the pipeline would cross.
• The department had failed to adequately consider impacts to water quality from land disturbance and subsequent erosion and sediment unrelated to stream crossings.
• Because the pipeline’s route is not yet final and property surveys are incomplete, the “locations and effects of discharges associated with the construction and operation of the Mountain Valley Pipeline [are] ill-defined and impossible to fully evaluate.”
• The department had not adequately evaluated the effects on public drinking water supplies of the pipeline’s construction and operation.

The letter advised Mandirola that Appalachian Mountain Advocates requested the hearing on behalf of 14 individuals – whose properties are either on a current route of the 42-inch diameter buried pipeline or otherwise at risk of being directly affected by the project – and three organizations.

One of the organizations was the West Virginia Rivers Coalition. In an email, Angie Rosser, its executive director, described the outcome sought by the request for a hearing.

“First, WVDEP must go back and require the applicant to submit a complete application,” Rosser said. “That will make it even more obvious that a project of this scale cannot avoid causing or contributing to water quality standards violations.”

She said water quality certification for the pipeline cannot be justified.

“This pipeline threatens some of the most sensitive and ecologically valuable headwaters streams in the state,” Rosser said. “The WVDEP can’t get this wrong.”

Natalie Cox, a spokeswoman for Mountain Valley Pipeline, said the company’s project team and department of environmental protection staff worked diligently to develop comprehensive plans for constructing the pipeline with the least possible impact on streams and wetlands in West Virginia.

“We respect the various opinions of those who may not support the MVP project and remain confident that MVP construction plans, as submitted to the WVDEP for evaluation and public comment, will protect wetlands and streams and meet water quality standards as outlined in the 401 certification process,” Cox said in an email.

The letter from Teaney describes the concerns of three landowners whose two properties in Summers County, West Virginia, are adjacent to the Greenbrier River, which the pipeline will cross. The landowners worry that the project will increase sedimentation and be a source of other pollution in the river.

Separately, the letter reports that landowner Landcey Ragland in Monroe County worries the pipeline would pollute Slate Run, described as “the sole source of drinking water for his livestock.”

Maury Johnson, a Monroe County farmer, also fears the pipeline could affect Slate Run and, ultimately, the well for his home, the letter says.

Teaney declined to talk about the request for a hearing, citing Appalachian Mountain Advocates’ policy restricting comment about pending legal cases.

Under West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection regulations, the agency is not obligated to hold the administrative hearing sought by the organization and its clients. If the department declines the request, Appalachian Mountain Advocates could decide to file a lawsuit and ask a judge to weigh in.

See also:  Greenbrier River Watershed Association

See also:  Appalachian Mountain Advocates