Sei sulla pagina 1di 6

August 7, 2020

By Email and U.S. Mail

Mr. Todd Miller Mr. Adam Fannin


Norfolk District Huntington District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
9100 Arboretum Pkwy, Suite 235 502 Eighth Street
Richmond, Virginia 23236 Huntington, West Virginia 25701

Mr. Jared Pritts


Pittsburgh District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
2200 William S. Moorhead Federal Building
1000 Liberty Avenue
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222

Re: Mountain Valley Pipeline (NAO-2017-0898; LHR-2015-592-GBR; LRP-2015-798)


Response to Wild Virginia Letter dated July 27, 2020

Dear Messrs. Miller, Fannin, and Pritts:

Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC (“Mountain Valley”) has received a copy of a letter dated July 27,
2020, submitted to the USACE by Wild Virginia. The letter includes incorrect factual and legal
allegations about the Mountain Valley Pipeline Project (“Project”). Mountain Valley submits this
response to clarify the record.

I. Project Construction Has Not Degraded the Aquatic Environment

This Project has been subjected to more environmental review and scrutiny than any other
infrastructure project in the history of Virginia or West Virginia. It is not possible to construct a
large infrastructure project that avoids all impacts, and this Project is no exception. Before
construction, those impacts were carefully studied by various federal and state agencies in a public
process resulting in a lengthy Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and related agency
determinations in subsequent permit records. These permits and approvals impose numerous
environmental conditions to ensure that the Project’s direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts are
minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
August 7, 2020
Page 2

Wild Virginia now states that construction of the Project has “altered conditions” in waterbodies
such that “detailed waterbody-specific assessments and cumulative impacts analyses” are
necessary. This statement is both unfounded and misleading. It is unfounded because neither Wild
Virginia nor any other citizen group or agency has documented that Project construction has
materially altered the condition of any waterbody. The statement is misleading because it suggests
that the Project-related impacts to date have been inconsistent with the findings and conclusions
in the FEIS. As projected in the FEIS, Project-related impacts to water quality have been minimal,
short-term, or both.

Lacking any evidence of actual water quality impairment or harm to aquatic life, Wild Virginia
highlights a handful of isolated incidents as purported evidence of “degradation” that purportedly
justifies a further round of environmental review and public comment. These references are a red
herring. The letter first discusses several alleged violations of the Virginia Water Protection permit
regulations that occurred in 2018 due to sediment being discharged from upland portions of the
right-of-way. No party could have anticipated that Project construction would commence during
what would come to be the wettest year on record in Virginia. Unfortunately, there were isolated
instances in which Mountain Valley’s controls were overwhelmed by volumes of stormwater
runoff that exceeded their regulatory design capacity or were washed out by floodwaters. Where
measurable quantities of sediment deposition were observed in streams following these events,
Mountain Valley responded in accordance with longstanding Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality (VDEQ) guidance: deposited sediment was removed by environmental
response crews using hand tools (provided the landowner granted Mountain Valley access) and
the damaged controls at the location were upgraded to prevent recurrence. 1 We regret that any one
of these incidents occurred, but the fact remains that there is no evidence to suggest that the
remediation efforts were unsuccessful and that the impacts were anything but minimal and
temporary. Because these incidents did not cause lasting or significant impact to the chemical,
physical, hydrological, or biological components of the aquatic ecosystem, there is no justification
for Wild Virginia’s claim that the functions of any streams were “altered” or “degraded.”

The letter also highlights two slips that occurred near a stream in West Virginia. The FEIS
recognized that portions of the Project cross areas that are naturally prone to landslides. 2
Construction in these areas could increase the potential for slips or accelerate ongoing slips, but
that does not necessarily mean that every slip in the vicinity of the Project was caused by Mountain
Valley. In any event, the FEIS acknowledged this hazard and required that Mountain Valley
comply with a Landslide Mitigation Plan to mitigate the risk the extent practicable. That plan has
been implemented and Mountain Valley has taken remedial action, in consultation with FERC and
other relevant agencies, to address slips that have occurred. As with the 2018 incidents in Virginia,

1
VDEQ, VWP Permit and Compliance Manual § 11.8.3 (Sept. 2019). To the extent Wild Virginia believes
that retrieving sediment by hand “may result in more damage and [is] of highly questionable value,” their
quarrel is with VDEQ.
2
FEIS 4-27 to 4-32.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
August 7, 2020
Page 3

Wild Virginia has cited no evidence that these slip incidents caused lasting or significant impact
to the chemical, physical, hydrological, or biological components of the aquatic ecosystem.

Lastly, the letter charges Mountain Valley with a “frequent and widespread body of [water
quality]-related violations,” including “dozens of stream impairments in violation of state water
quality standards.” Mountain Valley expects full compliance with all regulatory requirements and
environmental best practices from ourselves and our contractors. We take full responsibility for
the fact that the Project has fallen short of that expectation at times and have diligently addressed
these issues. However, Mountain Valley cannot accept Wild Virginia’s blatant mischaracterization
of the Project’s compliance record. 3 No notices of alleged violations received by Mountain Valley
allege that any stream uses have been impaired or that any Project-related impacts have caused
lasting or significant impact to the chemical, physical, hydrological, or biological components of
the aquatic ecosystem. Furthermore, none of the alleged violations have resulted from instream
activities within the Corps’ jurisdiction.

II. Project Construction Is Not Causing Streambank Erosion

Wild Virginia alleges that the Project is causing stream bank erosion on Teels Creek and other
streams near the Project. Stream bank erosion is a natural process typically caused by the force of
water flowing downstream and eroding into or undercutting banks.

There is no rational basis for asserting that Mountain Valley is increasing the flashiness of local
streams and contributing to the type of bank erosion highlighted in Wild Virginia’s letter. Teels
Creek is a good example. Mountain Valley’s preconstruction surveys documented ongoing bank
erosion in many of the streams crossed by the Project, including Teels Creek. Following the start
of Project construction in early 2018, the Project area experienced a period of frequent, high-
intensity storms—including three named storms (Alberto, Florence, and Michael)—that resulted
in significant bank erosion. Mountain Valley is aware of numerous citizen complaints that year
from persons who believed the Project caused bank erosion they witnessed, notwithstanding that
many of the complaints concerned streams or segments that received no flow from the Project. In
other cases, the cause of the bank erosion in the vicinity of the Project is flow from upstream areas
unaffected by the Project. That is true of the Teels Creek crossing in the photograph attached to
Wild Virginia’s letter.

Mountain Valley has not yet installed pipeline across the UNT to Teels Creek at the location
highlighted by Wild Virginia, meaning that there has been no instream disturbance in the vicinity

3
Wild Virginia falsely insinuates on page 5 that Mountain Valley was conducting work in December 2019
in contravention of FERC’s stop-work order. Temporary erosion and sediment controls degrade as they are
exposed to the elements and require constant maintenance. Mountain Valley’s environmental crews have
continued to maintain those controls along the right-of-way as required by FERC and state agencies.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
August 7, 2020
Page 4

of the photographs. 4 Mountain Valley left an undisturbed vegetative buffer in place along the
stream and controlled runoff from the right-of-way using a series of erosion and sediment controls,
including a diversion berm, belted silt retention fence, and compost filter sock. Stormwater runoff
is released from the right-of-way only after flowing through several layers of controls designed to
slow velocity and both filter and precipitate out heavy sediment, and then to the stream through a
preexisting erosional feature lined with geotextile fabric and temporary riprap for energy
dissipation. These measures ensure that the volume and velocity of the flow from the right-of-way
is carefully controlled to prevent downslope and downstream erosion. This location was a crop
field prior to construction, so there is no reason to assume that Mountain Valley increased the
stormwater flows by removing natural vegetation. To the contrary, the ponding conditions behind
the Project’s erosion and sediment controls visible in Wild Virginia’s photograph suggest that
controls are detaining stormwater at this location that would have reached the stream more rapidly
in the preconstruction condition. The erosion evident in Wild Virginia’s photographs is cut bank
erosion from upstream flow negotiating a braided segment of the stream at the confluence of a
UNT and Teels Creek, which is eroding into the undisturbed vegetative buffer between the Project
and the stream. The mere fact that this natural bank erosion process is observed next to the right-
of-way provides no evidence that it is caused by the Project.

The current condition of Teels Creek and the adjacent UNT could have been significantly
improved if Mountain Valley had been able to install the crossings in 2018 as originally planned.
As the Corps is aware, Mountain Valley is required to restore and stabilize all stream banks
impacted by Project construction. For crossings that are experiencing rapid erosion, the restored
postconstruction condition will mark an improvement over the preconstruction condition.

III. Stream Crossings Are Conducted in a Protective Manner

Most of the assertions in the Wild Virginia letter concern upland activities outside of the Corps’
jurisdiction. The discussion of Project-related activities regulated under Clean Water Act § 404 is
limited to the assertion that “there is no debate” that the Project “crossings allowed under a section
404 permit will contribute sediments or fill to the waterbodies where work is done.” This statement
is clearly intended to exaggerate the impact of stream and wetland crossings.

The majority of stream and wetland crossings for the Project will be completed using the dry open-
cut crossing method. 5 This is a well-understood and predictable crossing method that represents a
vast improvement over older “wet” crossing methods. In its evaluation of the aquatic impacts for
the Project, FERC summarized the scientific literature on the dry open-cut crossing method as
follows:

4
Meandering Teels Creek is scheduled to be crossed by the Project at several locations, but none of those
crossings have been completed to date. A crossing for one small UNT to Teels Creek (S-C16) was
completed in October 2018.
5
The remaining crossings have or will be installed using drilling or boring methods that avoid all impacts
to aquatic resources.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
August 7, 2020
Page 5

A study conducted by the USGS (Moyer and Hyer, 2009) investigating the effects
of dry open-cut waterbody crossings on downstream sediment loading found that
short-term increases in turbidity downstream of construction did occur, but the
magnitude of the increase was small and considered to be minimal compared to
increased turbidity associated with natural runoff events. Other literature (e.g., Reid
et. al., 2004) assessing the magnitude and timing of suspended sediment produced
from open-cut dry crossing methods indicates the duration of increased
sedimentation would be mostly short-term (i.e., less than 1-4 days) and remain near
the crossing location (i.e., an approximate downstream distance of a few hundred
feet). 6

Similarly, VDEQ and West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) each
issued Clean Water Act § 401 certifications for Nationwide Permit 12 finding that there is
reasonable assurance that utility crossings installed with this method in accordance with the permit
will not cause exceedances of state water quality standards. In addition to the numerous
requirements imposed by Nationwide Permit 12, the respective Regional Conditions, and 401
Certification conditions, this activity is subject to regulatory authority of and requirements
imposed by FERC (Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures), U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (for streams with listed species), VDEQ (Erosion and Sediment Control
regulations and Virginia Water Protection regulations), Virginia Department of Game and Inland
Fisheries (aquatic life protection measures), Virginia Marine Resources Commission (for certain
navigable streams in Virginia), West Virginia Department of Natural Resources (aquatic life
protection measures), and WVDEP (Oil & Gas Construction Stormwater General Permit and
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan). Wild Virginia does not identify any shortcomings in the
regulatory requirements for the Project’s stream and wetland crossings and does not suggest any
additional measures for consideration by the Corps.

Mountain Valley has successfully completed dozens of stream and wetland crossings for the
Project in Virginia and West Virginia to date. Wild Virginia presents no information suggesting
that FERC, VDEQ, or WVDEP were incorrect about the protectiveness of the open-cut dry
crossing method and/or the effectiveness of the various regulatory requirements for the Project’s
crossings. Mountain Valley is not aware of any complaints about excess sediment loading or long-
term impacts from any of the completed crossings. Nor has Mountain Valley received any notices
of alleged violations associated with the installation of any stream or wetland crossing.

* * *

Mountain Valley acknowledges that Wild Virginia is opposed to the Project. Much like Wild
Virginia’s previous statements made earlier this year seeking action from another agency, the
current request is based on an incomplete and incorrect understanding of the relevant facts and the
6
FEIS 4-120.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
August 7, 2020
Page 6

law. Mountain Valley believes that Wild Virginia’s letter does not represent a sincere request to
the Corps based on the actual facts and circumstances of the project. The attempt to initiate another
round of environmental review and public comment for elements of the Project that were
previously considered, not to mention largely outside the scope of the Corps’ jurisdiction, is simply
another tactic to advance their stated policy objectives against energy infrastructure projects. Wild
Virginia’s position ignores the basic facts. The Project is over 90% complete. Legal and regulatory
tactics like the demands in Wild Virginia’s letter have substantially delayed completion of the
Project for the sake of policy and to the detriment of the environment as it has left many areas of
the right-of-way in an ongoing state of temporarily stabilized construction. The best environmental
outcome to protect the streams, wetlands, upland areas, and all terrestrial and aquatic species, is to
complete construction as soon as possible so that the right-of-way can be fully restored and
revegetated

As we previously stated in a letter to Wild Virginia earlier this year, Mountain Valley understands
that the completion of the Project is antithetical to Wild Virginia’s desired policy objectives. If
Wild Virginia’s concern is truly grounded in the environmental issues set forth in their letter, then
Mountain Valley reiterates our offer to meet with Wild Virginia with the objective of having a
constructive discussion about any legitimate concerns regarding the Project. We believe that
dialogue would be more productive for both parties and all the governmental agencies involved
than requests for unnecessary and duplicative agency actions—and it would present a better
opportunity to explore consensus measures that potentially could deliver a net benefit to the
environment.

Mountain Valley respectfully requests that the Norfolk, Huntington, and Pittsburgh Districts
proceed with action on the Project’s Nationwide Permit 12 verifications without unnecessary
delay. Please let me know if Mountain Valley can provide any additional information.

Respectfully submitted,
MOUNTAIN VALLEY PIPELINE, LLC
by and through its operator,
EQM Gathering Opco, LLC
By:

Todd Normane
Deputy General Counsel

cc: FERC Docket


Mr. David Sligh, Wild Virginia

Potrebbero piacerti anche