Talking Points for Mountain Valley Pipeline Certificate Amendment Request in Docket CP21-57

The Basics:

• Create your own unique, personalized comment

• Please do not copy and paste all of this information into your comment, you may reference it in your own words, or copy and paste portions.

• In your comment, please feel free to speak to any of the below talking points that are meaningful to you.
• Submit your comment here via eComment before August 2, 2021 at 4:59pm.

Need a template for filing a Motion to Intervene and Comment? Click Here.

Need help submitting your comment? Check out this guide

Background Information on MVP’s Certificate: [CLICK HERE TO SEE SHORT TIMELINE]

MVP is now requesting to use trenchless crossings (boring) at 120 locations, to cross 181 waterbodies and wetlands that FERC originally approved as open-cut (trenched) crossings.

• MVP asserts that these changes will “not result in impacts outside of the previously reviewed and certified workspace, will not affect any new landowners, and will not require changes in land requirements.” They allege that this application would have “minimal, if any, environmental impacts beyond those that have already been assessed and approved by the Commission” (FERC).
• Concerningly, within this request MVP writes that if they encounter “unexpected conditions” that may prevent them from boring, or a bore failure, they want to be able to revert back to open-cut (trenching) methods without any new review, analysis, or public involvement.  This is an enormous “fine print” request and essentially gives MVP free rein to do what is easiest for them, on the fly, without public or professional input. They report that the original Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) already evaluated the impacts of open-cut crossings for the same features they now want to bore, so changing it back should not be a big deal. This is false.

Environmental Concerns

• Additional information is needed on the amount of dewatering necessary for the bore pits

• Dewatering is the process of draining water from a construction area via pump, into other areas with lower ground water levels. Poorly managed dewatering results in soil erosion and negative impacts on local groundwater in areas where residents rely on wells and springs.

• Pumping may be needed 24/7, but there is no discussion in the Environmental Report of capacity of dewatering devices. This information should be included in a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS).
• An analysis of dewatering impacts on shallow groundwater should be performed and included in SEIS and an analysis of impacts to nearby residential drinking water wells must be performed and included in an SEIS
• Additional information is needed on the best management practices for handling of drilling mud. Drilling mud will be required for longer bores or bores through mixed ground.
• A full geotechnical analysis must be performed at each boring site to determine if boring is feasible since the drill bit subject to deflection from cobbles and boulders greater than 14 inches
• MVP has a history of non-compliance with their dewatering structures for borings and has received two notices of violations from the WVDEP for improperly installing dewatering devices and not operating properly causing sediment laden water to enter streams, a violation of WV water quality standards. 
• MVP’s amendment request for their FERC Certificate would change 181 water crossings at 120 locations.
• MVP should not be allowed to get around the Clean Water Act and court decisions to stay their existing permits.
• The Environmental Impact Statement process that MVP was required to undergo in order to receive their Certificate does not consider the impacts that conventional bore would have on these streams and wetlands. Therefore, a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement is warranted.
• Conventional bore is a risky process that is not suited for longer crossings and requires certain subsurface soil and geologic conditions and suitable topography. Wetlands and stream crossings in steep terrain with karst geology are not safe for conventional boring. FERC acknowledged in the FEIS that bore pits can fail and collapse the beds of waterbodies into the bore pathways.
• MVP has not demonstrated a track record of construction practices that are in line with environmental protections, and should not be trusted to perform these risky methods.
• FERC must order site-specific assessments of each water crossing to determine the subsurface soil and geologic conditions, the likelihood for sediment run-off or boring hole collapse and whether long term impacts would be created from the large boring pit staging areas before considering MVP’s amendment request.
• Due to the substantiated lack of need for the project and the list of federal permits that are stayed that MVP is trying to work around, FERC should reject the amendment request.  

Procedural Concerns

• The request does not include any supplemental environmental analysis.
• The public comment and intervenor deadline is incredibly short, poorly publicized, and allows an insufficient amount of time to review the large number of impacted crossings.
• Residents along the MVP route often do not have access to reliable internet or require additional assistance to effectively participate in a proceeding that can be confusing or difficult to navigate online.
• MVP claims again that “proceeding to final restoration [finished pipeline] is in the best interest of landowners and the environment,” a false and misleading statement
• MVP again claims that the pipeline is 92% complete, but analysis of construction compliance reports submitted by MVP to FERC shows it is actually closer to 51 percent of the project route completed to “final restoration,” with some of the steepest and most difficult terrain, including the requested 120 bore sites remaining.
• This request doubles that of CP21-12, and further circumvents existing or vacated permits
• Multiple requests by Intervenors for a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement^[1] for this project in response to granted variances have gone unanswered by FERC.
• Unclear procedurally how approval of this amendment would factor into the remainder of the route, and MVP’s request for individual stream crossings, and the missing Nationwide 12 permits for the Huntington and Norfolk Districts

The Economic and Financial Basis for MVP is No Longer Valid

• From IEEFA U.S.: Financial rationale for Mountain Valley Pipeline has evaporated in changing market

• Revised forecasts now predict lower natural gas demand than when the project was first proposed. The U.S. Energy Information Administration predicts gas demand will fall at least through 2030 in the Southeast and mid-Atlantic.
• The likely cancellation of the Southgate Extension, a spur meant to funnel gas from the Mountain Valley project to North Carolina, weakens the financial case for the pipeline. Public Service Company of North Carolina has signed up for 12.5 percent of the Mountain Valley capacity. But if a North Carolina permit denial is upheld in federal court, the extension can’t be built—and the utility can’t use the gas.
• Gas produced in the Appalachian Basin and shipped through the Mountain Valley Pipeline to an interstate connection known as the Transco Pipeline must now compete with cheaper sources of natural gas. Prospects for saving money with gas shipped through the Mountain Valley Pipeline are already on shaky ground; the construction costs of the project have soared 60 percent beyond original estimates, to roughly $6 billion.
• As a result of existing FERC policy, the agency conducted no regulatory evaluation of the need for the Mountain Valley Pipeline beyond the existence of shipping contracts. That approach is particularly inappropriate in the case of the Mountain Valley because it is a supplier-driven pipeline.
• In the seven years since the Mountain Valley Pipeline was first proposed, natural gas markets in the region to be served by the pipeline have evolved. Significant pipeline capacity has been added to take gas out of the Appalachian Basin, even as the outlook for domestic natural gas demand and exports has grown more uncertain.

Additional Links:

• Step-by-Step How To Kit for submitting comments
• DIY Template for Intervenors    

Content for Talking Points provided by West Virginia Rivers Coalition, Sierra Club, POWHR, Appalachian Voices and Wild Virginia.

Have questions? Contact any of the below organizations:

Wild Virginia // david@wildvirginia.org / misty@wildvirginia.org 

POWHR // russell@powhr.org / grace@powhr.org

West Virginia Rivers Coalition // acrowe@wvrivers.org

Appalachian Voices // ridge@appvoices.org / jessica@appvoices.org

Examples of individual comments submitted to CP21-57

Note: The following comments are taken directly from FERC’s eLibrary and can be accessed there. Commenters personal information has been removed here but the comments are otherwise unedited. Please do not copy and paste from here. This section gives you real examples of comments from impacted residents and others opposed to this certificate amendment.

“The comments below address specific concerns about 11 proposed borings in Roanoke County, Virginia on the east side of Poor Mountain and on the Bent Mountain plateau in the Blue Ridge Mountains.

The geology of the Bent Mountain plateau consists of a thin layer of soil and a perched water table that sit atop metamorphic bedrock. Essentially, the rock creates a bowl where water accumulates near the surface, resulting in numerous springs and extensive wetlands. Boring and blasting will likely create new fractures and drainage ways through the bedrock, and, like trenching, will still have the potential to disrupt the wetlands, springs and streams in the area similar to the effect of a French drain.

In addition, it should be noted that all drinking water on Bent Mountain comes from wells and springs that could be significantly altered or contaminated by any drilling and blasting into or near aquifers. As far as we are aware, there are currently no plans by MVP to address the potential disruption of water supplies for the Bent Mountain community.

Furthermore, increased sediment from blasting and drilling will degrade the headwaters of Bottom Creek (which is 1 of only 31 Tier III waterbodies, also known as "Exceptional Waters'', in the State of Virginia). Bottom Creek and all of its named tributaries (including Mill Creek) as well as its unnamed tributaries are also classified as Class VI, subclass ii Natural Trout Waters [See VDEQ Water Quality

Standards 9YAC25-260 and Virginia's 305(b) report which is compiled and submitted biennially in accordance with the Clean Water Act]. In addition, the "Threatened" Orangefin Madtom (Noturus gilberti) has been found at the top of the Bottom Creek watershed on Poor Mountain (at 3740'), in Mill Creek on the plateau (at 2540'), and in Bottom Creek Gorge which begins just 3 miles downstream from the MVP Right of Way (at 2400') and joins the South Fork Roanoke River (at 1520'). These species, as well as other aquatic animals, will be severely impacted by the increased sediment both in intermittent streams (where wild trout spawn) as well as in the perennial streams that they inhabit year round. Likewise, downstream in the Roanoke River the sediment from the Bottom Creek watershed will exacerbate the negative impacts to the "Federally Endangered" Roanoke logperch (Percina rex) -- predicted by MVP's own scientific survey [See ESI biological study submitted to FERC on 4/15/17]. MVP has been cited hundreds of times for erosion and sedimentation violations by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. With this in mind, we are not confident that MVP will be able to contain the fines, mud, and drill cuttings from boring -- especially where steep slopes are involved.

Since MVP rejected consideration of boring under streams early on in the initial stages of the project due to the additional risks it posed, we (and the Bent Mountain community at large) need MVP to provide detailed scientific information on the boring process. A full analysis of all risks must be provided to the community through meetings and outreaches. Otherwise, this is just another attempt to sidestep individual permitting in this area and the full analysis

Finally, MVP should not be allowed to move forward with any further work until all required permits have been approved. The project still lacks some of these permits and has failed to address all relevant issues and comments previously submitted by concerned citizens and Intervenors.”

“I am writing to oppose the MVP and to protest the manner in which MVP LLC has proceeded. Originally, MVP rejected calls to consider borings. They claimed borings were too costly and presented additional risks. MVP has not provided adequate scientific support to ensure these operations will fully protect waters resources and the public. I ask that FERC must not allow a rushed process but must require full analyses of these risks. I also urge FERC not to authorize work to proceed on MVP, because the project still lacks other necessary permits. Further impacts should not be allowed, because those permits may not be issued.”

“MVP's request to bore under  streams  should NOT be approved.  By MVP's own words, that method presents ‘too many risks.’  Massive bornings would be an unacceptable harm for the tributaries to the Roanoke River which is crossed over 120 times by the MVP.  Those tributaries make up the municipal drinking water for the City of Salem.  Borings would deposit too much sediment into streams in our watershed and the large amount of sediment would also greatly harm aquatic life--especially the endangered Roanoke Logperch. FERC must not authorize this work to proceed on MVP because the project still lacks other necessary permits. It is time to stop unnecessary environmental damage because those permits may not be issued.”

“Too many Risks in this project, especially considering the many steep changes in pathway grade and the many known damages from heavy rains/storms. At the start of the project, MVP rejected calls to consider borings, claiming they were too costly and presented additional risks. FERC must not allow changes now without strong technical justification. MVP has not provided adequate scientific support to ensure these operations will fully protect water resources, maintain applicable Va. Water Quality Standards and ensure health of the public and wildlife dependent on streams. FERC must not allow a rushed process; but, must require full analyses of the risks- both short and long-term. FERC must HOLD all this work because the project still lacks other necessary permits, which MUST be approved before this MVP work may proceed. Further impacts should not be allowed, because those permits may not be issued.”

“It is my understanding that MVP wants to bore under streams and wetlands to install a pipeline in federal lands. I oppose this request. MVP rejected calls to consider boring claiming they were too costly and presented additional risks. MVP has not provided adequate scientific support to ensure these operations will fully protect waters resources and the public. This request should not be considered or approved because the project lacks other necessary permits and those permits may not be issued. The USA does not have a coherent pipeline system and relies on the private sector to determine pipeline installation routes - that may be appropriate on private land but not on public land. On public land the overwhelming burden is on those wishing to disrupt protected areas. Do not approve this request by MVP.”

“Dear FERC:  I am a resident of Richmond, community organizer for sustainable agriculture and local food systems, and member of the VA Grassroots Coalition. Climate change is an existential threat, and natural gas demand in VA is stagnant, so we do not need any new gas pipelines. It is time to pull the plug on the Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP). It endangers our water and will ruin our communities and natural areas, in addition to contribution to global warming. Please deny this request by MVP to loosen the review and approval process. MVP has not provided scientific support to ensure its operations will fully protect waters resources and the public. Full analyses of the risks of this dangerous and horribly polluting project is essential, and FERC must not allow a rushed process. FERC should require construction work to stop on MVP, because the project still lacks other necessary permits.

Thank you for your consideration.”

“I live in Nelson County Virginia and often participate in recreation in the areas affected by the proposed MVP (I say proposed because I continue to hope it will be cancelled and the areas already so badly damaged will be fully restored). The new proposal from the MVP to bore under waterways is untenable. In fact, at the outset of the process, MVP rejected calls to consider borings at the start, claiming they were too costly and presented additional risks. FERC must not allow changes now without strong justification. The additional risks have not changed and MVP has demonstrated that it is a bad faith partner when it comes to abiding by required waterway protections. MVP has not provided adequate scientific support to ensure these operations will fully protect waters resources and the public. There is no need for a rush to begin a complex engineering process. The opposite is true – the greater complexity means the analysis of the risks must be thorough and advance will all due caution. I urge FERC to require full analyses of the risks. I respectfully request that FERC not authorize this work to proceed on MVP, because the project still lacks other necessary permits. Further impacts should not be allowed, because those permits may not be issued. As with the cancelled ACP, to allow MVP to proceed guarantees harm to landowners that may be extremely difficult to mitigate retroactively. You can’t install 50 year old trees. You can’t replace wildlife into vanished habitat, and you can’t repair damaged waterways with a snap of the fingers.”