HomeMy WebLinkAbout20181638 Ver 1_Mountain Valley Watch April Report_20190401Mountain Valley Wath
April Report
2019
Introduction
In our December 2018 report we compiled examples of the most egregious violations we
reported to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and the State Water Control
Board. Since that report we have continued to compile citizen monitor surveys using
Survey123 and publishing to ArcGIS online. Links to this report and applications
highlighting various aspects of the project can be found on our website:
Mountain Vallev Watch maonine
The link to the Data Dashboard for mapping of reported violations is: Data Dashboard
Citizen Reports
Since our last report in December 2018 to the Water Control Board, a total of 32 citizen
submissions have been compiled in our database as of 4/112019. Volunteers have
consistently documented overwhelmed erosion and sediment control devices throughout
every county in Virginia. For reference, since the beginning of the Mountain Valley Watch
program, our dashboard has compiled 562 reports of issues occurring along the Mountain
Valley Pipeline. Though reports through surveys have slowed in the winter months along
with pipeline construction, the massive number of total reports over 2018 and 2019
indicates a complete disregard of the erosion control regulations along the MVP route.
Figure 1 shows incidents reported in the Mountain Valley Watch Dashboard from 1/1/2018 -
4/1 /2019.
Figure 1: Citizen survey submissions from start of project through 41212019.
Notable Incidents
A review of areas having recurrent issues shows locations continue to see erosion and
sedimentation issues. Piloted flights on September 18, October 12, November 11, 2018 and
March 28, 2019 reveal a number of incidents. The next sections will highlight specific
locations along the route, sometimes with additional field support pictures, to give a more
complete overview of the incidents observed.
Cahas Mountain Road Crossing — Garst Property_
The crossing of Cahas Mountain Road on the Garst Property in Franklin County, Virginia has
seen repeat failures over the course of at least six months. Figure 2 shows an aerial photo
of the area in question from March 28, 2019, highlighting the location of ongoing ESC
failures. This area drains to the North Fork of the Blackwater River. Figure 3 shows an
incident reported September 17, 2018 of a stream of sediment overrunning the erosion
controls at the perimeter of the right-of-way. Figure 4 shows the right-of-way uphill from
the failed perimeter controls in Figure 3, with a lack of adequate stabilization in January
2019. Figure 5 shows the same area with similar problems occurring February 21 and 24,
2419.
Figure 2. Aerial image of the Cahas Mountain Crossing in Franklin County, Virginia from March
28, 2019. The area shown in the subsequent figures outlined in red
Images
from
9/17/19
Figure 3. Large amount of mud streaming off of site at Cohas Mountain Road Crossing, despite
perimeter controls in place. September 17, 2018.
a/e/2ai9
Figure 4: Lack of adequate slope stabilization and ESC maintenance was reported fanuory 6,
2019 — months after this site started seeing the problems depicted above. (Vote the piled jute
fabric below a mound of unstabilized earth, as well as the path of sediment flowing over the
super silt fence at the perimeter and off the right-of-way. There is a stream and wetland below
this site.
2/21/19
2/24/19
Figure 5: !mages showing muddy water overrunning silt socks at the Cahas Mountain Road
crossing in late February 2019.
Grassy HUI. Road Bernard Property
Another site that has seen ongoing stabilization issues is the Bernard Property on Grassy
Hill Road. Previous reports to the DEQ and Board have included multiple images of the
failing banks of a tributary and Teels Creek, notably in May and June 2018 when MVP crews
used black tarps to prevent large volumes of mud and sediment from eroding the creek
bank and entering the waters of Teels Creek and its unnamed tributary. These failures are a
result of ponding water near the edge of the ROW which was installed too close to the
stream bank. The additional weight from ponding water caused piping to occur and
subsequent erosion and failure of the bank along Teels Creek. Figure 6 below, shows a
sequence of photos leading to the bank failure from late May and June of 2018. In Figure 7
below, note the continued erosion of the stream bank despite the jute fabric and perimeter
controls present. Additionally, the photos to the left of Figure 7 show a compost filter sock
that fell into the stream and was subsequently put back on the collapsed bank by MVP
crews, rather than being replaced — particularly notable due to the holes and tears in the
filter sock. This site in particular is an example of construction plan design flaws that did
not take stream bank proximity and ROW drainage areas into account when installing the
perimeter controls. This led to ineffective maintenance and replacement of ESC measures
that continue to fail at this location.
5/21/2018 W.5/2.1/2,018
Figure 6. Sequence leading Co hank failure on Teels Creek.
5
I\,
6/13/2018
� � ■1
a
i
2/3/2019 (above) vs. 2/21/2019 (below)
2/3/2019 (above) vs. 2/2512019 (below)
F FV
Figure 7. Stream bank failure is ongoing at this location, beginning in May 2018 and seen
throughout February 2019. jute fabric used placed only partially over scour at the bridge, and
did not effectively stabilize the site.
Iron Ridge Road — Angle Property
Over the course of several months, MVP's lack of stabilization on the Angle property —
particularly on the pyramid of earth and large workspace near the crossing of Iron Ridge
Road — has caused repeated sedimentation events off the right of way, including sediment
flowing into the Angles' pond, Little Creek, and the Blackwater River. This earth pile was left
unseeded and was not maintained through the winter, despite a lack of construction
activity on the property. Combined with unmaintained ESC measures, the Angles' pond has
been filled with sediment since May 2018, through both heavy storms and regular rain
events. Figures 8 and 9 show images of unseeded earth from the ground and air through
winter and into spring. This site and its ongoing issues have been described to the Board in
previous reports, were seen in person by visiting Board members, and remained in this
condition leading up to and after the March 1 Board meeting.
The Angle property was also impacted by the use of erosion control pellets, which were
dropped on the farm's slopes both on and off the right of way before crews left for the
winter, and most of the pellets were blown from the site by wind.
6
O 35R4f M 6 37.3'1094, 79'64'34'W 216 411 •1124lt
Figure 8. Ground and aerial images of unseeded earth pile on Angle property continuing through
the winter months. Note pond filled with sediment mid -photo in the aerial images and bottom
left in the january .20 ground image.
0 1361S (1) •37'3'5'11.79.54'38'W =16.411 ►103411
Northa
0150'5E (i1 •37.311'H 7B`54 34:V s1B Oft s tt251t
Figure 9: !mages of bare earth and falling silt fences on the Angle property through March and
April 2019. The right of way crosses Little Creek at the treeline in the image to the left Note hole
in silt fence, downhill from unsecured earth, which has remained in this condition leading up to
and in the weeks following the March 1 Board meeting.
The aerial photo of the Angle farm below shows areas of bare soil present since at
least September 2018.
The photo below shows significant sections of bare, unstabilized soil that has been in that
condition since October 2018. In the foreground is a "water bar" which is intended to
channel water across the right-of-way to the settling basin seen in the lower right corner.
Note that this water diversion structure is itself unstabilized and contributing eroded soil to
the flows leaving the site.
ht.a -,
4 .
Angle Property, February 23, 2019
9
An example of failure of an outlet protection structure. Angle Property, August 3, 2018
(outlet from water bar failing).
:� Q
N NE E SE
0 30 60 90 120 150
•€ I I I I . I . I• 1• I I 1• 1 - 1• I . I - I.; .I • 1
- - I
r4
4 /
MSF „ a r
YOct 20181 :50-
kj
r4
4 /
MSF „ a r
YOct 20181 :50-
{
..
Angle Property, February 23, 2018
Sediment -laden water flowing from an impounded area onsite, through an outlet in the
perimeter silt fence on the right, and across the Angle's property in a plume that discharges
to the Blackwater River.
Cahas Mountain -• Ridge Between Webster Corner Road and paha Mountain Road
The ridge of Cahas Mountain has seen ongoing issues with sedimentation off the right of
way and lack of stabilization through the winter months, during which little to no
construction work was ongoing. Sedimentation from this site flows downhill into a stream.
12
O 312 -NW (17 •37.099998•.-80,038010• x16.4tt A 1575h
f! 7AR-5W m # 171M 7411 RA f1UM41•.IR Ah i 17fgh
Figure 10: Construction on the ridge of Cohas Mountain, unsecured earth above numbered
stream crossing on January 25.
We[ico ter Flyovers
In numerous areas along the route, residents have reported low-flying helicopters over the
pipeline right-of-way, some carrying bags of erosion control seeding pellets to drop on bare
earth. These aircraft have been spotted flying below the treeline. It should be noted that
the helicopters are impacting private property, residents, livestock, and crops in these rural
communities. This method creates an atmosphere of constant surveillance and
intimidation for those who live along or near the pipeline route.
_3
Figure 11: Aerial image of a helicopter taking off from the MVP right-of-way in Franklin County,
Virginia.
These helicopters are used to spread erosion control pellets called EarthGuard on the right
of way. However, reports from both West Virginia and Virginia indicate that this method of
spreading pellets is imprecise and results in pellets being dropped into streams and
waterways. A lawsuit was filed in West Virginia against MVP alleging that the pellets landed
off the right-of-way on the property of an organic farm and violated conditions for organic
certification. The GHS Safety Data Sheet for EarthGuard pellets indicates they contain
acrylamide, which is known to cause cancer, birth defects, and other reproductive harm.
Seeding by helicopter does not meet Standard and Specification 3.31, Temporary Seeding,
in the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. Seedbed preparation requires
liming, fertilization and surface roughing or tracking of seedbed before planting seeds. No
seedbed preparation was performed before seeds were dropped from helicopters.
Seeding by helicopter raises the question of approved methods for temporary seeding. STD
& Spec 3.31 does not mention seeding by helicopter as a method approved by DEQ. Was a
variance approved by DEQ that allows for temporary seeding using helicopters? If not, then
this issue should be revisited and a variance submitted to DEQ for approval.
Minimum Standard 1 requires that "Temporary soil stabilization shall be applied within
seven days to denuded areas that may not be at final grade but will remain dormant for
longer than 14 days". The photos in this report show that many areas along the pipeline
14
right-of-way do not have grass growing as required for periods of construction inactivity. In
addition, Minimum Standard 2 requires that'The applicant is responsible for the
temporary protection and permanent stabilization of all soil stockpiles on site". Photos in
this report show several soil stockpiles that have no stabilization on them.
Responses from State Agencies
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection has issued 27 Notice of violations
for the Mountain Valley Pipeline as of April 3, 2019.
In July, 2018, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) issued a Notice of
Violation to MVP citing violations identified during the May and June complaint
investigations and inspections. Despite over 300 violations cited in the Attorney
General's suit against MVP filed in December 2018, no additional Notice of Violations
have been issued.
From 10/25/18 to 4/8/19, Virginia DEQ documented 54 incidents of erosion problem areas
in the PReP incident reports database for the MVP. The majority of problems recorded
were inadequate stabilization measures, overwhelmed ESC measures, failure to maintain
erosion control devices, standing water in trenches or on the right of way, ongoing
construction in wetlands despite missing Army Corps authorization, and sediment leaving
the pipeline right of way and entering streams and wetlands.
Figure 12: Incidents reported by Mountain Valley Watch since 11/1/18 and their status.
15
Regulatory Reported Incidents
1113 AD
G A,J rAuntY
ON ed Owl/ unlace Ad JuvLArg • 37 "S7. 00 461 If.;
I W Y i 7
Closed
1111/36
Franklin County
o0learing Oar M (La(Aong. 37.0l1'Jgh, 7n963711
151718
eased
11/1/18
Franklin County
1" 7 CteCk, OM at C.-"Wy KU Ad. (,at/long 37.118584, 79 940%)
157719
Closed
1101/18
Fmnklln County
levels Creek elf C"Itsy H91 Rd. (Iot/Inng. 37.08441, 79.'"7711
IS777o
(weed
1111/18
Fmnklln Ceunry
near leve- Creek and (tisrM "dl Aa (1 ate ong. 3J.tJ4361, /9 94668]
157771
Closed
11/2/28
Mantgornm Ca: tv
C1we Hollow AC Cl at/L ong1 37 ]31111. 60 198:177)
157814
Closed
I1/1/itl
Fromwin Ceu,Ny
ice 1 Cre" Mt leaning t7ak Ad (Lot/LOng: 37-91J0S, *9617k]
757817
Cloyed
I TO/ Ia
Frn ialn, r, wntY
Imill CrrrK dl claw" P. It Ad. 41 out Ong, J7.08/tr, " 9S02)
157818
Closed
1112119
Fmnklln county
rc4r resew CUrneY7 •arm o•.o lilted A bels Grc. tI n[/t.C.op J7 US71i6. )1191,171)
151819
Cldfnd
1112/38
Manlso-Cry Caurtty
Cove Hdl-a.. Ad Cl otic ono- J11 lit 1, 80 &965)
157870
Closed
11/2/18
Fmnklln County
Aunbmal: !'l'a Ad. Ll ate nr10, !7,061., 79. r'/5)
151677
Clad
i 1&7/38
Manrannlery ca:ely
Cove Hallow Arae (.. 4V4org. 77 731, 80 199)
15809&
Closed
1/19229
Fmnlrlln Caway
Comas Mounta4l Ad-, MP 753.5-J5J.6 (I OVLOng JF,UUJUG..8*42912)
191075
Closed
V 1/75/19
Franklin Couiuy
Sauen of MCA Church Ad, Mel 763.11.761 9 (LAVlsing 17.05%7, M 910873
197495
Closed
I12WI9
Fmnklln County
Saul" Of Ion" cnuren Ad.. Mir 761 / (rar/Lono: 31 o611S, -J !7117)
192496
Closed
1!75/79
Fmnklln County
5lh d MCA Cho" Aa. MP 761 8 L1al/Lnng3), 06001, /9 97CEa)
192491
Closed
�. 1/75/19
Fmnklln Ckwnty
South of FM— Church Ad, Ma 763 5761 6 (:. aVILa rg. 17 06.367, :7 911877
1974"
r,]a.ad
1/75119
Franklin county
mea• liar Aldgr Ar .. MP 761J (I aVLnng' 3105 *1J. 19.91397)
197499
Closed
° 1/15/29
Fmnklln Gaiety
sa,11n d Isrlc4 CM1rC+Ady MIr 767 (] aUl nog: 3/.pSBlY, 19.911751)
197500
Clased
1175/79
Frnnrlln County
Sumrors Creek Any 1llndn Hall, 4A at f1P 776 (Lat/I no. 36.99944, 79 73136)
197509
Closed
2/17/[7
Franklin County
Aen•J Ion.ng Oak Ad.MI 7511 (8 at/Lneg. 37 U1J74, 1911607)
194775
Called
7/12/19
Fmnklln County
37.06457, 79,943](1)
194776
Clcsnd
7/12/19
Frnnkllrl County
New Onlmv NJ] Ad. M+ 738.6 (tat/''-dag 31.Oa87r 79.9501)
194777
cased
'j 7/71/19
Fmnklln County
Free- (Lary HAI Ad, MP 761 8 (LaVLwg 37 05999, .79 970971
195335
Closed
i 1175/19
Frpnkltn County
off Cams Meuemn Ad., Ca-1a..my, MP 753 6 (lal/Ldro, J1 O')lni. a0 07757)
1959[6
CJasatl
2/2S/39
Fram County
OH (UT.h3lr HU3 K9L, MP 7SA fi 4LxVLWg 31 0887, 79.9S01)
195977
Closed
3121/29
Fmnklln county
Lear ng 4a41CA., Me 757.9.750 CLOVLer-2 31001011), M %1111
700615
!lased
V 3121/39
Fmnklln County
Cana■ Mdunrnu7 Ad . MP 753.6 1'I a1n nog '17.09774° 80.0761]71
700617
Closed
G 2471/99
Fmnklln COwtty
C.sha1 Mourxwn Ad. MM 753..4 (Lat/1449' 37,039, 110 0307)
70061.8
Closed
�i N22119
F.anklln County
17MOrnsmp Hae A4, MP 758 3.758.4 (tat/long:.l7 0901, Y!) 054)
710619
Closed
X3/7]/l9
FrnrWon County
pff Orden level Ad-F17r ?596ILaVlan4 77.01844, 19.94$8 )
700670
Clened
2421/19
Fr1,nklln County
OM Green level Ad, MR 75'1436.3/6 arttl 37.07848, 79941031
700[.7.7
€lased
' 3!71/39
Fmnklln County
Off Ca+us Mdurraun All., My 753 5 753 6 (L7V9ong; 37 07306, AU OJ 7773
700671i
ansed
Figure 12: Incidents reported by Mountain Valley Watch since 11/1/18 and their status.
15
Rate -Lawsuit Against MVP
In Mark Herrings lawsuit filed on behalf of DEQ and the Water Control Board in December
2018,16 DEQ inspections found violations between May 21 and October 17. From the
beginning of June through November 15, MBP inspectors contracted through DEQ found
180 instances in which MVP failed to meet erosion and sedimentation standards and failed
to repair issues within 24 hours of citation.
The suit requests that the Court do the following:
1. Order MVP to immediately come into compliance with State Water Control Law, the
Virginia Stormwater Management Act, the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control
Law, and the Board's regulations;
2. Assess a civil penalty against MVP to the maximum allowed by law;
3. Award DEQ and the Board costs and reasonable attorneys' fees; and
4. Grant any and all further relief that the Court deems just and proper.
DEQ has since reported that MVP has come into compliance with the relevant regulations
on the issues filed in the lawsuit, which renders the first request essentially moot. If the
second and third requests of the lawsuit are granted, any money awarded will go to the
state to use as it sees fit, not to any of those impacted directly by damage done. Unless the
Court determines that the violations of law are so egregious as to require the revocation of
the 401 Certification altogether, the residents of Southwest Virginia impacted by this
pipeline can expect no relief, meaningful or otherwise, to result from this lawsuit.
FERC Compliance Context
The Roanoke Times published an update on MVP's compliance reports from FERC
inspectors March 31, 2019. In this report, local journalist Laurence Hammack found that
MVP had reported that environmental compliance monitors found the following up to
March 9:
• "2,724 acceptable reports - no problems found.
• 1,564 communication reports -- issues that came to the attention of FERC monitors
and were resolved through meetings with construction crews, landowners or other
agencies.
• "36 problem area reports - an activity that is not acceptable, but is not considered a
noncompliance of regulations.
• "45 noncompliance reports - activity that violates regulations, results in damage to
resources, or places them at risk.
• "0 serious violation reports — activity or compliance failures that caused substantial
harm or serious threats to a sensitive area or species. Determined on a case-by-case
basis, serious violations can lead to a formal enforcement action by FERC, such as a
fine or stop -work order."
Of particular note in the article, however, is the statement that a contractor working for
MVP in Pittsylvania County reported in February that erosion maintenance repairs had
been made, when they had not. The contractor filed a false report which is indicative of a
trend to falsify information concerning erosion control violations.
16
The report from the Roanoke Times gives a summary of the kind of enforcement that the
Board can rely on from federal agencies for this "federally -permitted" project, which is
none. The lack of meaningful enforcement action taken by FERC in the face of falsified
reports and inadequate work indicates little concern for Virginia's erosion and sediment
control regulations.
Conclusions
The purposes of the State Water Control Regulations are to:
(1) protect existing high quality state waters and restore all other state waters to such
condition of quality that any such waters will permit all reasonable public uses and will
support the propagation and growth of all aquatic life which might reasonably be expected
to inhabit them;
(2) safeguard the clean waters of the Commonwealth from pollution;
(3) prevent any increase in pollution; and
(4) reduce existing pollution.
The Commonwealth has developed a regulatory framework designed to minimize the
environmental impacts associated with land disturbing activities that imposes strict
requirements on entities in advance of engaging in any such activity and continuing until
land disturbing activity is complete and permanent stabilization is achieved.
However, the release of sediment and sediment -laden stormwater off of the MVP right of
way onto adjacent private property and into surface waters of the Commonwealth
continues as documented by MVW volunteers and DEQ inspectors. Numerous instances
of inadequate stabilization in violation of Minimum Standard 1 and instances of
inadequate stabilization in violation of Minimum Standard 2 were documented by MVW
volunteers.
Primary issues contributing to continuing erosion control problems and violation of State
regulations include:
1. The construction plans as designed are not adequate. The erosion control devices
selected for use do not have the capacity to prevent erosion from flowing offsite.
Sediment trapping devices were not included in the plan. See photo below for
illustration of inadequate plan design. The plans should have included a sediment
trap at the toe of slope to contain sediment onsite. Instead, the plans show silt
fence at the toe of the slope. Engineering design criteria for silt fence was not
followed when the engineer designed the plan. Sediment flows offsite onto
adjacent property despite efforts by the contractor to contain sediment with one
straw bale. This is one of numerous examples where the construction plans fail to
adequately contain sediment on site. See photo below.
17
2. Lack of adequate vegetative cover on disturbed areas per Standards and
Specifications and Minimum Standards 1 and 2. Despite efforts to seed the
construction right of way by the contractor, there are many areas where grass is
not growing. Aerial flyovers and observations by individuals have recorded many
areas where soil stockpiles are not growing vegetative cover and are eroding into
nearby streams and creeks. See soil stockpile photo below.
Many areas have not been actively under construction for several months, yet they
are not seeded adequately to grow grass. No areas have been re -seeded to try to
get an adequate stand of grass on bare areas.
A Basic premise of erosion control is to disturb as little soil as possible and to
quickly build the project in order to minimize environmental impacts. MVP has
disturbed large areas of land and left these areas open to the elements exposing
them to continuing erosion. MVP has exceeded Minimum Standard 1 repeatedly by
not seeding open areas after 14 days of construction inactivity. This is a repeat
pattern that deserves the Board's attention. See soil stockpile photo below for an
example of lack of vegetative cover after prolonged exposure to the elements.
18
I
19
3. Construction of the pipeline began with tree felling in January 2018. Since then, MVP
has lost several key permits and experienced ongoing delays. Currently, crews
cannot construct across any streams or wetlands that have been designated under
Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction, and cannot construct along 25 miles of the
route in Giles and Montgomery Counties due to permits issued by the US Forest
Service and Bureau of Land Management subsequently vacated by the Fourth
Circuit court. The required comment periods for reissuing these permits could
prevent construction in these areas for another three to six months.
With multiple permits still missing, lawsuits still pending, and no clear route for
reinstating stream and wetland crossing permits, construction in the Jefferson
National Forest and across the Appalachian Trail, this would be an opportune time
to re-evaluate the construction plans and issue a Stop Work Notice on the MVP
until re -designed plans are proven to be adequate, and there is grass growing on
the pipeline right of way in accordance with Standards and Specifications.