ALASKA
CALIFORNIA
NORTHWEST
FLORIDA
MID-PACIFIC
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
NORTHEAST
WASHINGTON, DC
N ORTHERN ROC KIES
INTERNATIONAL
April __, 2011
Via Electronic Mail: efiling@ferc.gov
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, NE, Room 1A
Washington, DC 20426
Re:
Request for an environmental impact statement, a 90-day comment period, and public
hearings on environmental review of the MARC I Hub Line Project, Docket No.
CP10-480-000
Dear Ms. Bose:
On behalf of the undersigned organizations and individuals, we respectfully request
that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (the “Commission”) prepare an Environmental
Impact Statement (“EIS”) for the MARC I Hub Line Project (the “Project”), rather than an
Environmental Assessment (“EA”), and we further request that the Commission (1) provide a
90-day comment period and (2) hold public hearings on the environmental review of the
Project. As is set forth below, the Project’s location in one of the few remaining unspoiled areas
in the Marcellus Shale region; its potential for cumulatively significant impacts; its as-yetunknown impacts on the endangered Indiana bat; the unknown risks associated with the
Project’s direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts; the risks the Project poses to public safety;
and the controversy engendered by the Project all call for a finding of significant impact and the
preparation of an EIS. See National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) § 102(2)(C), 42 U.S.C.
§ 4332(2)(C) (2006); 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27 (2010). If the Commission proceeds with an EA
notwithstanding the legal justification for an EIS, the Commission should respond to the
outpouring of public concern and opposition to the Project with an extended comment period
and public hearings in each of the three counties where construction of the Project is proposed.
I.
The Commission Must Prepare an EIS Rather Than an EA Because the MARC I
Project Will Significantly Affect the Quality of the Human Environment.
The intensity of the MARC I Project’s impacts indicates that the Project will
“significantly affect[] the quality of the human environment,” necessitating preparation of an
EIS. NEPA § 102(2)(C); 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27.1 The Project will slice through the Endless
The Project’s context, the other factor to consider in determining significance, 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b),
encompasses not only the pipeline itself, but the gas wells that have been and will be drilled and the
gathering lines that will be constructed on account of the pipeline. In the Applicant’s own words, the
Project will “provide enhanced market access to Marcellus Shale Producers,” and the proposed interim
service of the northern portion of the line “would be directionally limited, from the producer receipt
1
156 WILLIAM STREET
T: 212.791.1881
F: 212.918.1556
SUITE 800
NEW YORK, NY 1 0038
E: neoffice@earthjustice.org
W: www.earthjustice.org
Mountains region of Pennsylvania. See 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(3) (identifying “[u]nique
characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park
lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas” as a
factor to consider in evaluating intensity). This region, which has long attracted recreators,
vacationers, and residents who value its solitude and natural beauty, contains exceptional value
waters and cold water fisheries as well as undisturbed forest tracts that are home to migratory
birds, endangered species, and species of concern. Moreover, as set forth in detail in earlier
submissions,2 the Project, together with the gas drilling and gathering lines it will inevitably
induce, has cumulatively significant impacts – fragmenting intact forests, destroying and
disturbing wildlife habitat, and increasing noise, traffic, air pollution, and greenhouse gas
emissions. See 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(7) (identifying an action’s relationship “to other actions
with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant effects” as a factor to consider in
evaluating intensity).
Additionally, the Project will destroy habitat in an area that already has seen its bat
population, including the endangered Indiana bat population, decimated by white-nose
syndrome.3 See id. § 1508.27(b)(9) (identifying “[t]he degree to which the action may adversely
affect an endangered or threatened species” as a factor to consider in evaluating intensity). The
extent of the Project’s impact on the endangered Indiana bat is as yet unknown. The
Applicant’s field survey for Indiana bats examined only a narrow corridor along the northern
twenty miles of the pipeline. Without a complete survey for the bat in the affected area – which
includes the southern half of the pipeline and the entire swath of land to be affected by the
Project, including the current and reasonably foreseeable wells and gathering lines that will
connect to it – the Project’s potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on this
endangered species simply cannot be determined, as NEPA requires. See 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8.
point(s) northerly to the interconnects of the MARC I Facilities with the Stagecoach South Lateral and
with [the Tennessee Gas Pipeline].” Abbreviated Application of Central New York Oil and Gas
Company LLC For Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (MARC I Project) at 3, 10 (Aug. 6,
2010). Given this admission, the Project’s impacts are not simply the impacts of a single 39-mile pipeline.
Rather, the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts that the Commission must consider, see 40 C.F.R. §
1508.8, include impacts of the wells and gathering lines that will make use of the “enhanced market
access” made possible by the Project. The wide-ranging impacts of the pipeline and this associated
development must be assessed in the context of the affected watersheds, airsheds, ecosystems, and
human communities.
2 See, e.g., Comments of Coalition for Responsible Growth & Resource Conservation, Damascus Citizens
for Sustainability, and Sierra Club under CP10-480, Submittal 20110308-5064 (Mar. 8, 2011); Reply to
Answer of CNYOG to Comments of Earthjustice, by Coalition for Responsible Growth & Resource
Conservation, Damascus Citizens for Sustainability, and Sierra Club under CP10-480, Submittal
20101214-5089 (Dec. 14, 2010); Comments on Scope of Environmental Assessment to be Prepared for
MARC I Hub Line Project, Submittal 20101026-5062 (Oct. 25, 2010).
3 Louis Sahagun, Fungus sweeps across the country, killing bats, L.A. Times, Apr. 3, 2011, available at
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/03/local/la-me-bat-plague-20110403/2 (quoting an endangered animal
specialist from the Pennsylvania Game Commission that white-nose syndrome has killed at least half of
the bats in Pennsylvania).
- 2 -
The unknown risks posed by the Project and its attendant development further weigh in
favor of a finding of significant impact. See id. § 1508.27(b)(5) (identifying “[t]he degree to
which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or
unknown risks” as a factor to consider in evaluating intensity). Little if any research has been
done on the long-term and downstream impacts of pipeline construction and induced gas
development in the mountains of northeastern Pennsylvania. The Applicant itself has admitted
that the terrain “presents considerably greater challenges, including steep slopes.”4 To the
extent the Commission finds uncertainty in the possible effects on the human environment, that
finding only enhances the significance of the Project’s impacts and calls more urgently for an
EIS. See id.
The Project’s effect on public safety also favors a finding of significant impact. See 40
C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(2) (identifying “[t]he degree to which the proposed action affects public
health or safety” as a factor to consider in evaluating intensity). Members of the affected
communities already have vociferously communicated their concerns about the Project’s
impacts on public safety. In an area where traffic lights are rare – we understand that there is
only one stoplight in all of Sullivan County – and roads are narrow, poorly maintained, and
frequented by pedestrians and cyclists, including children and the elderly, pipe-stringing trucks
and heavy construction equipment pose a tremendous risk to public safety. Even beyond
construction risks, moreover, are the safety risks posed by the Project and attendant gas
development in a region with limited emergency response capabilities.
Finally, a finding of significance is called for because the Project’s “effects on the quality
of the human environment” are “highly controversial.” Id. § 1508.27(b)(4). As of April 18, 2011,
the Commission has received nearly 500 comments on the Project, the vast majority of which
raised substantive concerns about and opposition to the Project and its impacts. In addition to
this outpouring of public protest, experts have expressed concern about specific impacts of the
Project, including its effects on water resources and the habitat of migratory birds.5 Clearly, as
indicated by a number of factors, the MARC I Project likely will have significant impacts.6
Compliance with the letter and spirit of NEPA therefore requires nothing short of an EIS to fully
consider the Project’s effects, alternatives to it, and measures to mitigate its impacts.
Abbreviated Application of Central New York Oil and Gas Company LLC For Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity (MARC I Project) at 9 (Aug. 6, 2010).
5 See Comment of Audubon Pennsylvania under CP10-480, Submittal 20110308-5033 (Mar. 8, 2011);
Stroud Water Research Center Comments on Potential for MARC I Hub Line to Impact Water Resources
(Dec. 11, 2010) (Exhibit E of Reply to Answer of CNYOG to Comments of Earthjustice, by Coalition for
Responsible Growth & Resource Conservation, Damascus Citizens for Sustainability, and Sierra Club
under CP10-480, Submittal 20101214-5089 (Dec. 14, 2010)).
6 Indeed, the Commission’s own regulations implementing NEPA indicate that where an action “may
have an effect” on wetlands or endangered species, or where environmental effects are uncertain, the
action may significantly affect the quality of the human environment. See 18 C.F.R. § 380.4 (2010).
4
- 3 -
II.
If the Commission Declines to Prepare an EIS, the Commission Should Acknowledge
Public Concern about the Extensive Impacts of the Project by Providing a 90-Day
Comment Period and Holding Public Hearings on the EA.
The Commission’s Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the MARC I Hub
Line Project, issued March 31, 2011, indicated that an EA would be issued on May 27, 2011.
Commission staff further clarified that the public would be given 30 days to comment on the
EA after its issuance. If the Commission does issue an EA, rather than preparing an EIS, we
request that the Commission recognize the outpouring of local opposition to the Project and
extend the comment period to 90 days, to afford citizens the time they need to review the wide
range of technical issues that the EA must address and to permit full public engagement in the
NEPA process.
Additionally, we request that the Commission schedule public hearings in each of the
three counties that will be crossed by the Project. Public hearings on the Commission’s
environmental review would enable citizens daunted by the prospect of submitting written
comments an opportunity to voice their concerns and would offer the Commission an
opportunity to gauge and respond to the full range of local community concerns. Without such
hearings, the Commission cannot fully assess the context and intensity of the Project’s impacts.
III.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, we urge the Commission to prepare an EIS for the
MARC I Project and, should the Commission decline to do so, to extend opportunities for public
input on the EA. Careful compliance with NEPA is of paramount importance where high
quality wildlife habitat, unspoiled natural beauty, and longstanding rural community character
– along with the attendant value such resources provide by way of ecosystem services and
recreation and tourism dollars – are at stake.
Respectfully submitted,
Deborah Goldberg
Managing Attorney
Hannah Chang
Associate Attorney
Bridget Lee
Associate Attorney
On behalf of:
- 4 -