Candy Darter

Document Accession #: 20210513-5107 Filed Date: 05/13/2021
May 13, 2021
Via Certified Mail Via Certified Mail, Email, and Efiling
Deb Haaland, Secretary Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary

Department of the Interior Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
1849 C Street, N.W. 888 First Street, NE
Washington DC 20240 Washington, D.C. 20426
[email protected]
Re: Requirement to Reinitiate Consultation and Notice of Violation of the Endangered

Species Act in Connection with the Mountain Valley Pipeline Project
Dear Ms. Haaland and Ms. Bose:
This letter serves as formal notice pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g) by West Virginia
Rivers Coalition, Indian Creek Watershed Association, Appalachian Voices, Preserve Giles
County, Preserve Bent Mountain, Wild Virginia, Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity,
Defenders of Wildlife, Chesapeake Climate Action Network, and Protect Our Water, Heritage,
Rights (POWHR) that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS” or “the Service”) and the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC” or “the Commission”) are in violation of the
Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531–1544 (“ESA”), regarding the failure to reinitiate
ESA Section 7 consultation for the Mountain Valley Pipeline (“MVP”) project. Reinitiation is
required “where discretionary Federal involvement or control over the action has been retained
or is authorized by law” and, inter alia, “[i]f a new species is listed or critical habitat designated
that may be affected by the identified action.” 50 C.F.R. § 402.16(a)(4).
Here, in a final rule published on April 7, 2021 and that became effective on May 7,
2021, the Service designated critical habitat for the candy darter. Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Candy Darter, 86 Fed. Reg. 17956
(April 7, 2021). This habitat would be adversely affected by MVP. The Service’s Biological
Opinion for the MVP project recognizes that reinitiation of consultation is required when new
“critical habitat [is] designated that may be affected by the action.” USFWS, Biological Opinion
and Conference Opinion for the Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Sept. 4, 2020 (“BiOp”) at
185. See also 86 Fed. Reg. at 17957 (recognizing “that there are section 7 consultation
2101 Webster Street, Suite 1300 Oakland, CA 94612 TEL: (415) 977-5500 FAX: (510) 208-3140 www.sierraclub.org
requirements as a result of the listing of the candy darter and the designation of critical habitat”).
Therefore, reinitiation of consultation is now required, and the failure to do so is a violation of
the ESA.
There is no question that the MVP project will adversely affect designated critical habitat
for the candy darter. The Service has acknowledged that the pipeline project will increase
sedimentation and embeddedness in Stony Creek and the Upper Gauley River—some of the last
remaining candy darter habitat—which will affect several physical or biological features
(“PBFs”) that are “essential for the conservation needs” of the candy darter. BiOp at 63. 1 Indeed,
the Biological Opinion acknowledges that changes in the conditions of these PBFs “in the impact
areas in both critical habitat subunits 2b [Stony Creek] and 5b [Upper Gauley River] are
anticipated due to increased sedimentation from upland project activities and due to suspension
and re-deposition of substrate sediments disturbed during storm events.” BiOp at 163. Compare
86 Fed. Reg. at 17967 (“the role of critical habitat is to support physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of a listed species and provide for the conservation of the species”)
with BiOp at 163 (acknowledging that impacts to “water quality and habitat quality are expected
as a result of increased sedimentation reducing visibility, decreasing available prey, increasing
embeddedness, and filling interstitial spaces with fine sediment”). 2
Both the action agency and the consulting agency have a duty to reinitiate consultation
where, as here, such reinitiation is necessary to ensure that the proposed action will not destroy
or adversely modify newly designated critical habitat. See, e.g., Salmon Spawning & Recovery
All. v. Gutierrez, 545 F.3d 1220, 1229 (9th Cir. 2008). Reinitiation of consultation requires
issuance of a new Biological Opinion before the agency action may continue. Envtl. Prot. Info.
Ctr. v. Simpson Timber Co., 255 F.3d 1073, 1076 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). The
Commission and Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC (“Mountain Valley”) are prohibited from
making any “irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources” during the reinitiated
consultation under 16 U.S.C. § 1536(d) and 50 C.F.R. § 402.09. Accordingly, this letter serves as
formal notice that the Service and the Commission are in violation of the ESA as a result of their
failure to reinitiate Section 7 consultation for the MVP project.
1
These include PBF 2 (a blend of unembedded gravel and cobble that allows for normal
breeding, feeding, and sheltering behavior), PBF 3 (adequate water quality characterized by
seasonally moderated temperatures and physical and chemical parameters that support normal
behavior, growth, and viability of all life stages of the candy darter), and PBF 4 (an abundant,
diverse benthic microinvertebrate community that allows for normal feeding behavior). BiOp at
138-39.
2
The Service concluded that “authorization to construct and operate the pipeline, as proposed,
including the activities that have already been completed, is not likely to destroy or adversely
modify proposed critical habitat.” BiOp at 164-65. Several of the undersigned groups filed a
petition for review challenging the validity of the BiOp in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit (Case No. 20-2159). That case is pending.
2
Designation of Critical Habitat
In the Biological Opinion for MVP, the Service recognized that two “proposed critical
habitat units are included in the action area, the Upper Gauley River unit (unit 5) and Middle
New River unit (unit 2).” BiOp at 89. The Service stated in the BiOp that FERC “may ask the
Service to confirm the [conference opinion (“CnOp”)] as a BiOp issued through formal
consultation if the [candy darter] critical habitat is designated.” Id. at 185. See also
Memorandum from J. Schmidt and C. Schulz (USFWS) to J. Baxter, April 18, 2018 (“Any
conference opinions on the critical habitat that are completed between the date when the species
listing is finalized and the date of final critical habitat designation … will need to be confirmed
as biological opinions.”). The Service further noted that if it “reviews the proposed action and
finds that there have been no significant changes in the action as planned or in the information
used during the conference, the Service will confirm the CnOp as the BiOp on the project and no
further Section 7 consultation will be necessary.” BiOp at 185-86.
Of course, the opposite must also hold true: if there have been significant changes, then
the CnOp may not be relied upon, and a new BiOp must be prepared through a reinitiated
consultation. As explained below, further Section 7 consultation is required for MVP due to both
significant changes in the action and information that was not considered during the prior
consultation process.
Significant Changes to the Project
Following the issuance of the CnOp/BiOp in September 2020, Mountain Valley

submitted an application to FERC for an order amending its certificate “to grant Mountain
Valley the ability to change the crossing method” at 120 locations, including to use trenchless
methods to cross 181 waterbodies and wetlands that FERC originally authorized as open-cut.
Letter from M. Eggerding (MVP) to K. Bose (FERC), Feb. 19, 2021 (eLibrary 20210219-5189).
This amendment “would change the crossing method from open cut to trenchless at … tributaries
within the Gauley River and Stony Creek watersheds.” Letter from J. Martin (FERC) to C.
Schulz (USFWS), May 5, 2021 (eLibrary 20210505-3065). As described below, these crossing
methods pose serious risks to aquatic ecosystems that are distinct from the risks posed by open-
cut crossings and have not yet been fully analyzed by any agency overseeing the MVP project, 3
and therefore there has been a significant change warranting reinitiation of consultation.
To the extent the crossing method is modified for tributaries to candy darter extant
streams—or for streams that may have been improperly omitted from consideration as candy
darter extant streams, see infra—the agencies must consider the impacts of this significant
change to the project on the candy darter and its designated critical habitat. The Commission
3
See, e.g., Virginia Scientist-Community Interface, MVP proposal for trenchless stream
crossings lacks critical technical planning, April 15, 2021 at 5–6 (attached as Exhibit E).
3
asserts that, based on the distance of these tributary crossings from the designated critical habitat,
and “the fact that the trenchless crossing method is expected to reduce the potential of any direct
impacts to the streams, [the Commission] expect[s] the change in crossing method at these
locations will be insignificant and discountable.” Letter from J. Martin (FERC) to C. Schulz
(USFWS), May 5, 2021 (eLibrary 20210505-3065). But the Commission’s conclusory
statements regarding its expectations are an insufficient basis for concluding that this significant
change to the project will not affect the candy darter or its designated critical habitat. 4 Trenchless
crossing methods pose risks to waterways that are distinct from the impacts of open-cut crossing
methods. 5 Neither the Commission’s 2017 Final Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) nor
the Service’s BiOp considered the effects of any of the 120 additional trenchless crossings now
proposed by Mountain Valley—let alone their cumulative effects. 6 Accordingly, this change in
construction method—as Mountain Valley’s request for a certificate amendment in a new
Commission docket confirms—constitutes a major change to the project.
Moreover, newly developed information regarding the impacts of trenchless crossing

along the Mountain Valley route warrants reinitiation to analyze the impacts of the methods
previously approved for the Gauley River (microtunnel) and Stony Creek (conventional bore).
Although the 2020 BiOp relied on Mountain Valley’s statements 7 to conclude that “no instream
construction impacts or impacts to [candy darter] are anticipated” at the Gauley River and Stony
Creek crossings, BiOp 73, new information has been developed in the intervening months that
further demonstrates the serious risks posed by trenchless methods. See, e.g., Exhibits A, B, and
C (attached hereto) These impacts were not fully considered in the Commission’s EIS or in the
Service’s 2020 BiOp.
4
The amendment affects tributary crossings in close proximity to their confluence with
designated critical habitat and potential candy darter extant streams. See, e.g., Abbreviated
Application for Limited Amendment to Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and
Request for Expedited Action, Appendix B at B-9 (eLibrary 20210219-5176). Moreover, the
Commission’s conclusory statement that “Mountain Valley will implement best management
practices to minimize any sedimentation attributed to the change in crossing method” is not a
substitute for careful analysis of those sedimentation impacts on candy darter and its newly
designated critical habitat. Letter from J. Martin (FERC) to C. Schulz (USFWS), May 5, 2021
(eLibrary 20210505-3065).
5
See, e.g., Joint NEPA Scoping Comments on Environmental Issues for the Proposed
Amendment to the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the Mountain Valley
Pipeline Project (April 15, 2021) at 10–27 (attached as Exhibit D).
6
See also Matthew Baker, PhD, Comments on Mountain Valley Pipeline’s Requested
Amendment to its Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (2020) at 6 (“Information in
the approved EIS was insufficient to fully appreciate or understand the site-specific hydrologic
implications or risks of borehole crossings.”) (attached as Exhibit A).
7
See, e.g., BiOp at 24-26, 72-73 (citing various letters from Mountain Valley to FERC and
USFWS).
4
This information indicates that the changes to the project’s crossing methods, as well as
the trenchless crossing methods previously approved for the Gauley River and Stony Creek, pose
serious risks to candy darter habitat. For example, to bore under a stream, “MVP must excavate a
pit nearby, which … may increase erosion and sedimentation. And there is risk that drilling fluid
will escape into the surface waters, or that the drilled hole might collapse, causing the waterbed
to collapse as well.” Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC v. North Carolina Dept. of Envtl. Quality,
990 F.3d 818, 822 (4th Cir. 2021). See also Pete Nimmer, Greenstar Environmental Solutions,
LLC, Comments on Mountain Valley Pipeline’s Requested Amendment to its Certificate of
Public Convenience and Necessity at 2 (2020) (“MVP’s assertion in its application that its
proposed actions ‘would have limited, if any, environmental impacts beyond those that have
already been assessed and approved by the Commission’ does not withstand scrutiny.”) (attached
as Exhibit B); FERC, Southgate Project Final Environmental Impact Statement at 4-37, Docket
No. CP19-14 (Feb. 2020) (eLibrary No. 20200214-3010) (describing serious risks associated
with conventional boring). Indeed, “significant adverse consequences are likely to occur from
[Mountain Valley’s proposed] change of waterbody crossing method,” including “disruption of
groundwater flow, harm to drinking water supplies, dewatering of surface waters, inadvertent
return of drilling fluids, and catastrophic failure of the pipe.” Pete Nimmer, Greenstar
Environmental Solutions, Comments on FERC’s January 7, 2021 Environmental Assessment,
Mountain Valley Pipeline’s February 2021 Individual Permit Application, FERC’s March 12,
2021 Environmental Information Request, and Mountain Valley Pipeline’s March 29, 2021
Response at 2 (2021) (attached as Exhibit C).
These hydrogeological effects pose serious risks to candy darter critical habitat. 8 For
example, chronic dewatering caused by boring could result in “reduced sediment transport,
warmer water temperatures, poor aeration, and reductions in aquatic habitat.” Exhibit A at 4.
This would lead to “greater deposition of suspended fine material, increasing the embeddedness
of coarse channel substrate utilized by invertebrates and fish” such as the candy darter. Id. See
also id. (“[C]hronic dewatering would reduce the extent and the quality of aquatic habitat over
space in affected channels, but also through time.”). Similarly, bore pit pumping could result in
large discharges of sediment-laden water that “would represent significant turbidity and
potentially dramatic changes to the fine sediment load in many streams.” Id. at 5. See also id.
(“Spoil transport and relocation will further extend the time on site for any boring operation, and
this increases the potential for erosive losses to water bodies.”).
In sum, the impacts of these crossing methods on candy darter and their critical habitat
that have not yet been fully analyzed, requiring reinitiation of consultation to determine the full
impacts of the project, as the ESA requires. These impacts are particularly concerning in light of
the candy darter’s sensitivity to sedimentation, including its reliance on unembedded substrate
8
The Service also must consider such impacts to the endangered Roanoke logperch.
5
for spawning and feeding. Accordingly, this significant change the project, combined with the
subsequent designation of critical habitat, warrants reinitiation.
Significant Changes to Information Used During the Conference
New Information Indicating that Additional Waterways are Potential Candy Darter
Extant Streams
Mountain Valley initially stated that the project would require eleven crossings of candy
darter streams, though it acknowledged that it did not complete presence/absence surveys or in
situ habitat assessments. 9 Yet in the May 2020 Supplement to the Biological Assessment
(“Supplement to the BA”) for the project, Mountain Valley stated that “[b]ased on USFWS GIS
shapefiles provided in October 2018 (USFWS 2018d), the Project crosses with [sic] extant candy
darter populations in the Gauley River in Nicholas County, West Virginia and Stony Creek in
Giles County, Virginia.” Supplement to the BA at 32. See also id. (“Neither project-specific
candy darter occupancy surveys nor habitat assessments have been completed in-situ along the
Project.”). The streams other than the Gauley River and Stony Creek that were initially presumed
to provide habitat for the species were subsequently eliminated from consideration as candy
darter extant streams. See Exhibit F, attached hereto (revised table, provided by Mountain Valley
to the Service in October 2018, explaining that each of the streams was “not identified as a candy
darter extant stream”). This error must be addressed in a reinitiated consultation.
In comments on the proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the candy darter, the
West Virginia Division of Natural Resources “noted that candy darters may also be present in
several perennial tributaries outside of the streams proposed for designation as critical habitat,
but that these tributaries have not been surveyed.” 86 Fed. Reg. at 17958. See also id. (“The State
… recommend[ed] that these streams should be considered when reviewing projects that may
affect the species.”). The Service “acknowledge[d] that the candy darter may be present in
additional streams or tributaries that have not been surveyed….” Id. Accordingly, in light of this
new information developed during the rulemaking process on the proposed critical habitat
designation, the Service must reinitiate consultation and assess whether it erred in omitting
streams other than the Gauley River and Stony Creek from consideration. 50 C.F.R. §
402.16(a)(2), (4).
9
See also Letter from J. Martin (FERC) to T. Andersen (USFWS), Feb. 14, 2018 (“The Project
would cross 11 perennial streams which could support candy darter populations including:
Strouds Creek (two crossings), Big Beaver Creek (two crossings), Gauley River, Little Laurel
Creek (two crossings), Jims Creek, Hominy Creek (two crossings) in West Virginia and Stony
Creek in Virginia.”); id. (“Mountain Valley did not complete presence/absence surveys or in situ
habitat assessments. Mountain Valley has assumed presence at these locations based on desktop
analysis and agency correspondence.”).
6
New Information Regarding Impacts from Acid Precipitation
In the final rule designating critical habitat for the candy darter, the Service noted that
“[t]he West Virginia [Division of Natural Resources] suggested that [the Service] may have
underestimated the threat of acid precipitation in the Upper Gauley,” and acknowledged that
“[s]tream acidification in some candy darter watersheds is a serious concern” that FWS “will
address … in future recovery planning.” 86 Fed. Reg. at 17958. Because impacts from acid
precipitation were not adequately considered in the environmental baseline or cumulative effects
analyses in the 2020 BiOp, the Service must reinitiate consultation in light of this new
information and properly consider these impacts during the reinitiation process. See 50 C.F.R. §
402.16(a)(2).
Consideration of Long-Term and Cumulative Impacts on Candy Darter Habitat
Although the Service claims that the impacts to PBFs in the relevant critical habitat
subunits “are expected to be limited in relative severity and duration,” BiOp at 163, this
conclusion is not adequately supported. For example, neither the Service nor the Commission
has adequately considered the impacts of multiple crossings within candy darter watersheds, and
the predictions of only short-term or temporary impacts are not well-supported and improperly
ignore studies showing that long-term impacts are likely to result. As a senior endangered
species biologist in the West Virginia Field Office wrote regarding pipeline stream crossings:
[C]aution should be used when interpreting results of short-term studies. Yount &
Niemi (1999, p. 558) cite an example of one study that made a preliminary
determination of stream recovery within one year, but when the site was re-
examined six years later, fish biomass, fish populations, macroinvertebrate
densities, and species composition were still changing. It was suspected that shifts
in sediment and nutrient inputs to the site as a result of construction in and around
the stream contributed to the long-term lack of recovery…. There is also the
potential for cumulative effects. While a single crossing may have only short-term
or minor effects, multiple crossings or multiple sources of disturbance and
sedimentation in a watershed can have cumulative effects on fish survival and
reproduction that exceed the recovery capacity of the river, resulting in permanent
detrimental effects (Levesque & Dube 2007, pp. 406-407).
Exhibit G, attached hereto. Accounting for these long-term impacts is also critical in light of the
Service’s acknowledgment in the critical habitat designation that “high-quality streams within
the candy darter’s historical range might provide the candy darter a competitive advantage over
the introduced variegate darter.” 86 Fed. Reg. at 17958.
Accordingly, reinitiation is required to account for these long-term impacts and other
impacts from multiple crossings within candy darter watersheds, particularly in light of the candy
darter’s relative lack of motility and relatively short lifecycle.
7
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Service and the Commission must immediately reinitiate
consultation and, during that process, take into account information that has not previously been
considered. Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned if we can provide additional
information or otherwise assist in this matter. We look forward to your prompt response.
Sincerely,
Elly Benson
Senior Attorney, Sierra Club
2101 Webster Street, Suite 1300
Oakland, CA 94612
[email protected]
On behalf of West Virginia Rivers Coalition,

Indian Creek Watershed Association,
Appalachian Voices, Preserve Giles County,
Preserve Bent Mountain, Wild Virginia,
Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity,
Defenders of Wildlife, Chesapeake Climate
Action Network, and Protect Our Water,
Heritage, Rights (POWHR)
cc: Cindy Schulz ([email protected])

Wendi Weber ([email protected])
Martha Williams ([email protected])
James Martin ([email protected])
Kevin McArdle ([email protected])
8
Exhibit A
Document Accession #: 20210513-5107
20201221-5392 Filed Date: 05/13/2021
12/21/2020
COMMENTS ON MOUNTAIN VALLEY PIPELINE’S REQUESTED AMENDMENT TO

ITS CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY

To Whom it May Concern:

Qualifications:

I am a Professor of Environmental Science with more than 20 years of experience in
the fields of aquatic ecology and watershed science. I received a PhD in Aquatic
Ecology from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor in 2002 and worked as a
Research Associate at the Smithsonian Institution from 2002-2005. I have expertise
in analyzing biological community data, characterizing and modeling physical and
chemical drivers of habitat, and diagnosing causes of biological change in aquatic
ecosystems using field observations, geospatial analyses and quantitative
techniques. I have applied these approaches to understand variation in community
response to hydrologic, thermal, and chemical gradients in Michigan rivers, to
identify land use thresholds in Maryland watersheds, to evaluate biological
community response to hydrologic and chemical stressors in Maryland, Ohio, West
Virginia, Virginia, and Massachusetts streams. I have experience in analyzing stream
hydrology and geomorphology in basins throughout the Midwest, Chesapeake Bay
watershed, and New England, and I have applied similar techniques to rivers and
streams in Argentina and Brazil. I have served as a manuscript reviewer for over 50
peer-reviewed journals and federal agencies including USEPA, USGS, USFS, and NSF.
I currently serve as an Associate Editor for the international journal Freshwater
Science. Over the past 10 years, I have conducted workshops for federal and state
agencies and at regional aquatic biology meetings in which I trained attendees about
statistical methods for analyzing biological data. I have also held an appointment as
a Research Professor with the USGS where I provided advice to agency scientists
regarding analysis and interpretation of observational data. More information on
my background and qualifications in provided in the attached Curriculum Vitae.

Background:

Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC (MVP), has requested that the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) amend its Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity to allow pipeline construction between Mileposts 0 and 77 by crossing 69
waterbodies using 41 conventional boreholes instead of the open-cut trenching
method addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) currently used to
support MVP’s Certificate. In its request, MVP makes an unsupported assertion that
this change would have limited, if any, environmental impacts beyond those that
have already been assessed in the EIS and approved by the Commission.

At the request of Appalachian Mountain Advocates, I have reviewed MVP’s request
and a statement of potential hydrologic impacts from a hydrogeologist at Greenstar
Environmental Solutions and been asked to provide comment as to potential
1
20201221-5392 Filed Date: 05/13/2021
12/21/2020
environmental impacts. From these materials, I have developed the following

opinions:

(1) The circumstances of the proposed crossings are different from those
considered under the earlier EIS.
(2) Although different from what was considered under the EIS, there remain
significant environmental risks from boring under stream crossings. Thus,
MVP’s assertions are inaccurate.
(3) More information is needed to adequately assess potential consequences of
the proposed amendment.

The report provided by Greenstar lays out in detail the potential for alteration to
surface—groundwater interactions and even wholesale dewatering of surface
water, floodplains and wetlands that are likely to occur as a result of borehole
crossings. Given these conditions, the ecological consequences would be
somewhere between temporarily degraded to catastrophic. Although the pumping
and discharge of groundwater seepage handling of spoils, and associated sediment
erosion may appear similar to what was described in the earlier EIS, the intensity of
bore pit pumping is likely to be higher, the spoils dispersed over a broader area, and
both would occur over longer periods than what was initially described during a
different and arguably more sensitive season in the life history of stream dwelling
organisms. Because of these differences, any claim that the workflow associated
with borehole drilling somehow minimizes the environmental risks over open-cut
crossings lacks credibility and remains entirely unsupported. Because of these
differences and the site-specific nature of many of the potential consequences, the
full scope of the impacts cannot be understood without further assessment.
Similarly, FERC cannot know what it is approving in the requested amendment
because nothing like it was considered by the original EIS. Below, I describe my
opinions in further detail.

Operational Differences in the Proposed Amendment:

MVP’s amendment proposes to replace open-pit trenching with conventional
borehole drilling. MVP contends that conventional augering is preferable to other
forms of drilling because it does not typically require pressurized drilling fluids
which pose an additional threat to aquatic integrity. MVP further maintains that an
additional advantage of borehole drilling over trenching is that it should reduce
direct impacts to the stream channels by avoiding placing heavy equipment on the
beds or on the banks. As a result, a riparian setback will supposedly be left along
each bank. However, it remains unclear how this will be accomplished in practice
since many crossings will likely require moving heavy equipment across streams to
access bore pits on each bank.

One difference associated with borehole drilling is the necessity of developing a
bore hole pit on each site of the crossing. These pits are apparently 30-60 feet deep,
or up to twice as deep as the initial proposed trenching, which apparently needed to
2
20201221-5392 Filed Date: 05/13/2021
12/21/2020
be no deeper than about 24 feet to avoid risks of scour in the EIS. Therefore,
interaction with bedrock is much more likely. The deeper holes are also far more
likely to involve substantial interactions with groundwater aquifers.

Another substantive difference that will affect both hydrology and ecosystem
processes is the timing of the crossing work. In the original open-cut proposal,
crossings were to be accomplished during low water periods to avoid spawning and
reduce the need to dewater or reroute stream flow in low or zero-order channels.
During the late summer, low-flow period, most hollow soils are dry and many
headwater streams may also be dry, flowing slowly, or subterranean (i.e., flowing in
the hyporheos beneath the channel bed). In the amendment, the expedited request
makes it appear as if MVP is expecting to begin crossings as soon as January 2021
(as it has asked FERC to act by December 31, 2020, and proposes to suspend
crossings near bat hibernatories until March 2021), making these wintertime or
springtime crossings, something that was never considered by the approved EIS.

Ecological Impacts:

Dewatering -- An environmental impact report from Greenstar Environmental
Solutions (Nimmer 2020) indicated that surface water, floodplain, and wetlands
dewatering was a potential impact of conventional borehole crossings. The report
characterizes such events as ‘likely’ over the extent of MVP’s proposed amendment.
As opposed to the short-term dewatering considered in the EIS for open trench
crossings, creation of new hydraulic conduits may represent permanent alterations
to the system or a chronic condition. This would represent an entirely different
kind of alteration than previously considered.

Although many headwater and low order streams valleys in this part of Appalachia
experience seasonal drying, the timing of such drying is critical, with biota in these
ecosystems adapted to drought during the later portions of the summer and early
fall. This means many aquatic insect taxa are either in an adult (terrestrial) phase as
winged insects or, having laid their eggs, the eggs are in diapause waiting for more
favorable environmental conditions. Fish species may have moved downstream into
higher order systems with more predictable discharge but, in any case, are well
removed from sensitive spring spawning and rearing periods. In addition, although
many headwater reaches flow over bedrock with limited access to local
groundwater, others flow in colluvium from steep valley walls and still others
(especially second order systems and higher) flow in valley bottom alluvium.
Depending on the depth and configuration of such alluvium and its interaction with
local bedrock, stream reaches can be considered to be ‘gaining’ or ‘losing’ with
respect to stream flow, with water from losing reaches returning to channels at
some point downslope. Thus, disruptions to subsurface layers can reduce or
enhance these connections.

Winter is a prime period for larval growth among aquatic invertebrates in
headwater streams, the principal food supply for many insectivorous fish species
3
20201221-5392 Filed Date: 05/13/2021
12/21/2020
which depend upon that stored energy for reproduction. Short term dewatering
would certainly be lethal for many aquatic organisms or displace them to
downstream habitats (something that is only realistic for more motile taxa), where
they are more vulnerable to predation. Although otherwise undisturbed systems
should be resilient enough to recover over the course of several years if flows
return, interaction with pre-existing degradation is more difficult to predict. If the
system in question is already stressed (e.g., chemically or thermally), recovery
would likely take much longer. On the other hand, chronic or prolonged dewatering
is potentially more serious and that is what has yet to be assessed. Given that the
cause of dewatering would be the creation of new conduits for groundwater flow
away from the waterbody (Nimmer 2020), dewatering created by boring in this case
would likely be a long-term issue.

Dewatering that persists through the spring or early summer could reduce
recruitment of wetland plants that depend on periods of saturated soils or shallow
water tables for germination or seasonal growth, as well as alter redox conditions
that govern many important biogeochemical processes (e.g., nitrification and
denitrification). Further, chronic dewatering in stream channels and floodplains
from hydraulic conduits accessed and/or created through borehole drilling might be
inconspicuous in the wintertime when evapotranspirative demands are low and
losses are masked by higher flows, but result in either reduced flow regimes or
truncated periods of surface flow altogether when evapotranspiration increases in
the spring and summer, with cascading environmental effects.

Detrimental effects of chronic dewatering later in the year include reduced sediment
transport, warmer water temperatures, poor aeration, and reductions in aquatic
habitat. All else being equal, reduced transport capacity would lead to less
turbulence and greater deposition of suspended fine material, increasing the
embeddedness of coarse channel substrate utilized by invertebrates and fish.
Invertebrates rely on pore spaces to shelter from predators but suffer from reduced
aeration when these spaces fill with sediment and constrict water circulation in the
stream bed. Fish also make use of coarse beds for spawning, as the same conditions
allow for protection of eggs and shelter of fry, both of which are notoriously
sensitive to sedimentation in Appalachian streams. Lower flows would also
contribute to more rapid warming of water with air temperatures and greater
diurnal fluctuation of temperatures. Warmer temperatures and slower flow would
contribute to reduced oxygen levels for aerobic respiration while increasing
metabolic rates earlier in the season. Thus, chronic dewatering would reduce the
extent and the quality of aquatic habitat over space in affected channels, but also
through time. The nature, extent, and magnitude of the impacts being described
would likely vary based on network position and the site-specific hydrogeology, but
they would accompany any dewatering caused by boring. None of these issues were
considered in the EIS used to approve MVP’s Certificate because at the time MVP
had asserted that all of its crossings would be accomplished using dry open-cut
methods.

4
20201221-5392 Filed Date: 05/13/2021
12/21/2020
Groundwater Pumping -- Another factor described in the proposed amendment

involves water pumped from bore pit excavations. Information provided by MVP in
its December 11, 2020 Response to Environmental Information Request indicated
that bore pit pumping could accommodate between 396 to 2,750 gallons per
minute, which would then be discharged into downstream reaches. Although MVP
indicates it will take steps to mitigate sediment transport in these pumps, it is
unclear how effective this will be at removing fines, thus the ecological impacts are
once again unknown. However, if the pumped water is laden with fines, discharges
of such magnitude would represent significant turbidity and potentially dramatic
changes to the fine sediment load in many streams. Many aquatic larvae are
sensitive to increases in turbidity and fine sediment, and fine deposition can
degrade fish spawning beds. When trenching was proposed during the low flow
period, the downstream extent of the impacts was limited by reduced transport
capacity. With the shift to high flow periods in winter months, transport capacity of
stream channels should be greater, and that could mean that fines are kept in
suspension or that they impact a much greater extent of the channel network.
Because the EIS only considered temporary pumping of open-cut trenches during
low water periods when many sensitive taxa are not be resident in small streams
(i.e., because many aquatic invertebrates are in terrestrial stages or dormant, and
fish have migrated to downstream habitats), and because the length of time spent
drilling at each site could either be similar to trench or substantially longer due to
geologic strata, the potential impacts of the proposed discharges are unclear, but
entirely distinct in terms of timing, magnitude, and duration from what was
evaluated by the EIS.

Storage of Spoils – In MVPs Response to Environmental Information Request, it
mentions that spoils from bore hole pits will be relocated to relatively flat terrain
within the pipeline right of way. In cases where the terrain does not allow for
adjacent storage, the spoils will be relocated to the closest points of level terrain
which may be elsewhere in the floodplain or up on local ridges. The spoils will be
spread out to reduce the potential for erosion and collapse of large mounds. Once
drilling is completed, the spoils will be transported back to the refill the bore hole
pits. According to the topographic maps provided as an appendix to the proposed
amendment, many of the proposed crossings occur in very narrow valley bottoms,
often with local infrastructure such as roadways or railways. It thus appears that
spoil relocation will be fairly commonplace, whereas such transport of sediment
was not described as part of the original workplan considered by the EIS. Spoil
transport and relocation will further extend the time on site for any boring
operation, and this increases the potential for erosive losses to water bodies. As
spoil is transported farther from the excavation site, especially when displaced to
ridges or other topographic divides, the less certain that any sediment erosion will
impact the same drainage in which the boring is occurring. Because of the timing of
the work in the winter and spring, soils are more likely to be wet and saturate
readily, leading to increased risk of erosion. Without the benefit of annual and
perennial ground cover, the risks that sediment will make its way to rills and gullies
5
20201221-5392 Filed Date: 05/13/2021
12/21/2020
and be staged for later transport to streams is likely greater than it might be if the
work was performed in the drier part of the year.

Control of sediment during construction projects like this is difficult at best and it
becomes more challenging when it remains exposed or when the material is moved
from place to place. According to the history of legal action associated with pipeline
construction thus far, several lawsuits have been filed already by state
environmental agencies with regard to MVP’s management of the project. Because
the timing of the excavation and sediment management would occur in a different
season, the nature of risk to aquatic systems is altered. Further, since the bore hole
pits are likely to be in operation longer than the permitted trenching procedures, it
would appear as if the spoil will remain exposed over longer time periods than what
was originally considered in the EIS. This longer storage period increases the
likelihood that the spoil piles will be subject to erosion and excess sediment
deposited in adjacent waterbodies.

Further information:

Based on the information provided in the proposed amendment and the Response to
Environmental Information Request, several factors seem to play a far more
important role than they did previously in assessing likely environmental impacts.
MVP claims it has already made 35 borehole crossings along the first 77 miles of the
pipeline route. Information about these crossings is missing from their proposed
amendment, which might support their claim about the ecological impacts.
However, there is no mention of any monitoring done at these locations, so it is
unclear how they know the impacts are minimal. From the maps provided by MVP,
it is worth noting that not all surveyed waterbodies are associated with proposed
borehole pits. Given that the amendment requests blanket permission to cross all
waterbodies with boreholes, the discrepancy seems at odds with their request.

Importantly, the switch to borehole crossings has emphasized the need to develop
more detailed and site-specific understanding of valley bottom geology and aquifer
characteristics. Such information is necessary to assess the potential for chronic or
permanent channel, floodplain, or wetland dewatering. Information in the approved
EIS was insufficient to fully appreciate or understand the site-specific hydrologic
implications or risks of borehole crossings. All we know is that the types of
geologies described are those where the development of new hydrologic conduits is
possible. In some cases, the impacts may be minimal as suggested by MVP, yet in
others substantial risks remain.

In developing the EIS, federal agencies never considered the potential impacts of
discharge from excavation operations during the wintertime when many more
aquatic species are resident, from deeper holes where groundwater seepage is likely
to be far greater than the shallower trenches, and when greater stream flows are
likely to transport fine material further downstream. Moreover, the proposed
amendment and MVP’s response for further information suggest a much more
6
20201221-5392 Filed Date: 05/13/2021
12/21/2020
extensive earth moving operation than the local storage of spoils described in the
approved EIS. Because the information about spoil storage is left vague, there is
little ability for any agency to say with certainty whether spoil management will
reduce or enhance risks to the affected waterbodies or other drainages nearby.

As a result of differences in crossing method that expose streams to new threats,
differences in season that have implications for the type, magnitude and extent of
ecological impacts, and because of the lack of necessary information provided to
make an informed assessment, the proposed amendment clearly falls outside of the
scope of impacts considered in the EIS used to support MVP’s Certificate.

Submitted Respectfully,

Matthew Baker, PhD
Professor
Department of Geography and Environmental Systems
University of Maryland, Baltimore County
Baltimore, MD 21250

Materials Reviewed:

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Mountain Valley Project and Equitrans
Expansion Project: Final Environmental Impact Statement (June 2017)
(Docket No. CP16-10; eLibrary No. 20170623-4000)
Abbreviated Application for Limited Amendment to Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity and Request for Expedited Action (Nov. 18, 2020)
(Docket No. CP21-12; eLibrary No. 20201118-5179).
Mountain Valley Pipeline Amendment Project (Project), Docket No. CP21-12-000,
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REQUEST (Dec. 2, 2020) (eLibrary No.
20201202-3040).
Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC, Response to Environmental Information Request
Issued December 2, 2020 (Docket No. CP21-12; eLibrary No. 20201211-
5164).
Joint Motion to Intervene and Comments in Opposition to Request for Extension of
Time by Appalachian Voices, et al. (Sept. 11, 2020) (Docket No. CP16-10;
eLibrary No. 20200911-5288).
Pete Nimmer, Greenstar Environmental Solutions, LLC, Comments on Mountain
Valley Pipeline’s Requested Amendment to its Certificate of Public Convenience
and Necessity (Dec. 2020).
7
20201221-5392 Filed Date: 05/13/2021
12/21/2020
CURRICULUM VITAE
MATTHEW E. BAKER
Department of Geography & Environmental Systems
University of Maryland, Baltimore County
211 Sondheim Hall, 1000 Hilltop Circle
Baltimore, Maryland 21250
Phone: (410) 455-3759
[email protected]
EDUCATION
Ph.D. 2002 University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (Aquatic Ecology)
M.S. 1996 University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (Terrestrial Ecology)
B.A. 1992 Emory University, Atlanta, GA (English and Ecology)
EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
2016-present Professor, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Department of Geography

and Environmental Systems
2015-2016 Interim Chair, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Department of
Geography and Environmental Systems
2015-present Graduate Program Director, University of Maryland, Baltimore County (Shady
Grove Campus), Professional Studies Program in Geographic Information Systems, Department
of Geography and Environmental Systems
2011-2016 Associate Professor, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Department of
2009-present Faculty Fellow, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Center for Urban
Environmental Research and Education
2008-2011 Assistant Professor, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Department of
2008-2013 Adjunct Assistant Professor, Utah State University, Department of Watershed
Sciences, The Ecology Center
2005-2008 Assistant Professor, Utah State University, Department of Watershed Sciences,
The Ecology Center, Western Center for Monitoring and Assessment of Freshwater Ecosystems
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
2018-2020 Expert Witness, Whiteford, Taylor & Preston L.L.P., Baltimore, Maryland
1
20201221-5392 Filed Date: 05/13/2021
12/21/2020
Matthew E. Baker Curriculum Vitae
2014-present Expert Witness, Appalachian Mountain Advocates, Charleston, West Virginia
2014-2015 Maryland Fellow, National Center for Socio-Ecological Synthesis (SESYNC)

2014-2015 Expert Witness, Internal Revenue Service, Office of Chief Counsel, Baltimore,
Maryland
2011-2017 Research Professor, U.S. Geological Survey, New England Water Science Center
2002-2005 Research Associate, Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Ecological
Modeling and Spatial Analysis Laboratory
HONORS RECEIVED
2015 IRC Summer Faculty Fellowship, College of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences, UMBC
2014 Finalist, Boggess Best Paper Award, American Water Resources Association (Weller &
Baker 2014)
2014-2015 Faculty Research Fellowship, College of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences,
UMBC
2011-12 UMBC Faculty Teaching Scholar
2010 Faculty1000 selection for recommended reading (Baker & King 2010)
2009 Summer Faculty Fellowship, UMBC
2007 William B. Gardner Foreign Travel Award
2006 Finalist, New Faculty Advisor of the Year
2005 Faculty1000 selection for recommended reading (King et al. 2005)
2002 US-IALE, Best Student Presentation Award Winner
2002 US-IALE NASA-MSU Award Winner
2000-1 Jeffery Lund Award for outstanding scholarship in Forest Ecology
2000-1 Samuel A. Graham Award for excellence in Forest Biology
1996-8 Merit based scholarships
1995-6 Samuel A. Graham Award for excellence in Forest Biology
1993 Xi Sigma Pi Forestry Honor Society
1992-5 Merit based scholarships
RESEARCH SUPPORT
2020-2023 Baker M (Co-I), Alonzo, M (Principal) “Understanding tree species response to urban
heat using high resolution remote sensing”, Sponsored by the National Science Foundation
(NSF-GSS) $416,659
2019-2020 Baker M (Principal) “Mapping woodland patches across major urban areas of the
Eastern US”, USDA Forest Service $15,000
2018-2024 Baker M (Principal) “High-resolution stream mapping across the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed” Sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program,
2
20201221-5392 Filed Date: 05/13/2021
12/21/2020
$1,200,000
2018-2020 Baker M (Principal) “Patapsco River Restoration Phase II: Post-Removal Survey”
Sponsored by American Rivers/NOAA, $107,380
2018-2019 Baker M (Principal) “Patapsco River Restoration Phase II: Pre-Removal Survey”
Sponsored by the American Rivers/NOAA, $93,680
2017-2019 Baker (Principal) “Continuous mapping of channel features for monitoring

aquatic habitat and sediment flux in coastal systems” Sponsored by Maryland SeaGrant,
$44,974
2017-2019 Baker (Principal) “New measures of aquatic habitat for assessing restoration
resilience” Sponsored by Maryland SeaGrant, $43,706
2017-2020 Baker M (Co-PI), Yu M (Principal) “Acquisition of Hybrid CPU/GPU Nodes for the
Interdisciplinary UMBC High Performance Computing Facility” Sponsored by the National
Science Foundation (NSF-MRI), $550,000
2016-2018 Baker M (Principal) “Scalable applications for mapping stream channels from
high resolution terrain data” Sponsored by the Chesapeake Bay Trust, $74,997
2015-2016 Baker M (Co-Principal), Miller A (Co-Principal) “Long term monitoring—physical

response to lower Patapsco River dam removals: Patapsco River restoration project” Sponsored
by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, $170,189
2014-2017 Baker M (Co-Principal), Armstrong D (Principal) “Urbanization and Massachusetts

streams: Unpacking the biological effects of impervious cover” Sponsored by Massachusetts
Department of Fish & Game, $405,000
2013-2015 Baker (Principal) “Riparian Indicators of Eco-Hydraulic Function for Improved

Watershed Management and Monitoring” Sponsored by Maryland SeaGrant, $82,500
2012-2015 Baker M (Sen. Pers.), Gobbert M (Principal) “Acquisition of Hybrid CPU/GPU

Nodes for the Interdisciplinary UMBC High Performance Computing Facility” Sponsored by the
National Science Foundation (NSF-MRI), $300,000
2011-12 Baker M (Co-Principal), Armstrong D (Principal) “Application of Threshold

Indicator Taxa Analysis (TITAN) to assess the effects of land-use, impervious cover, dams, and
water withdrawals on fish taxa in Massachusetts” Sponsored by the US Geological Survey and
Massachusetts Department of Fish & Game, $34,000 
2010-11 Baker M (Principal) “Thresholds in aquatic communities in response to

exurbanization and environmental change” Sponsored by Maryland SeaGrant, $58,010
3
20201221-5392 Filed Date: 05/13/2021
12/21/2020
2010-15 Baker M (Co-Principal), Swan C (Principal) “The role of network topology and
environmental filtering in shaping the ecology of spatially structured communities” Sponsored
by the National Science Foundation, $410,000 
2010-11 Baker M (Co-Principal), Armstrong D (Principal) “Coordinated Assessment and

Protection of New England’s Coldwater Fishery Resources: Development of a multivariate
TITAN” Sponsored by US Environmental Protection Agency and Massachusetts Department of
Fish & Game, $50,000 
2010-2015 Baker M (Collaborator), Vigliano P (Principal) “Habitat template and stream fish
assemblages of sub basins of Nahuel Huapi lake, Patagonia Argentina” Sponsored by the
Argentinian National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET), $70,000
(approximate)
2010-14 Baker M (Sen. Pers.), Welty C (Principal) “Acquisition of Liquid Water Isotope
Analyzer Capability for Advancing Hydrologic Research in Baltimore Ecosystem Study LTER”
Sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF-MRI), $244,694
2009-14 Baker M (Co-Principal), Vidon P (Principal) “Greenhouse gas emissions form

riparian zones across a regional hydrogeomorphic gradient” Sponsored by the US Department
of Agriculture, $399,000 
2007-09 Baker M (Co-Principal), Ramsey D (Principal), “Assessment of ecosystem

condition in Grand Teton National Park” Sponsored by the US Department of Interior National
Park Service, $100,000
2007-09 Baker M (Principal) “A pilot study of trout invasions in low productivity

environments of Andean Patagonia” Utah State University Community Research Initiative,
$19,000 
2007 Baker M (Principal) “Remote analysis of watershed attributes using Shuttle Radar
Topography Mission data: Andean Patagonia” Utah State University Water Initiative, $6,000
2007-09 Baker M (Co-Principal), Kasahara T (Principal) “Evaluating the effect of climate

and topography on water residence time and hydrologic scaling in semi-arid, alpine
catchments” Sponsored by the Inland Northwest Research Alliance Water Research
Consortium,  $62,500 
2007 Baker M (Collaborator), Beard K (Principal), “Spatial distribution of frog invasions on

tropical islands” Sponsored by the National Science Foundation-ADVANCE, $7200
2007 Baker M (Principal) Utah State University New Faculty Competitive Research Grant,
4
20201221-5392 Filed Date: 05/13/2021
12/21/2020
$15,000
 
2006-10 Baker M (Principal) “A strategic planning tool for targeted buffer restoration and
enhanced coastal stewardship ” Sponsored by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration, $308,968
2005-08 Baker M (Sen. Pers.) Prince S (Principal), “A watershed Classification System for
improved Monitoring and Restoration: Indicators of Watershed Impairment” Sponsored by the
US Environmental Protection Agency, $800,000
1998-02 Baker M (Graduate Student author) Wiley M (Principal), “Ecosystem Structure

and Function at the Land-Water Interface” Sponsored by the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources, $250,000
1997 Baker M (Graduate Student Supervisor) Wiley M (Principal), “Aquatic Community

Assemblage Structure in Relation to Macro-Habitat Units in Lower Michigan” Sponsored by The
Nature Conservancy, $60,000
Ph.D. STUDENTS
Tanushree Biswas, 2009, committee member, USU

John Lowry, 2010, committee member, USU
Daniel Miles, 2011, committee member, UMBC
John Olsen, 2012, committee member, USU
Nicholas Magliocca, 2012, committee member, UMBC
Garth Linder, 2014, committee member, UMBC
Jonathan Dandois, 2014, committee member, UMBC
Anna Johnson, 2015, committee member, UMBC
Molly Van Appledorn, 2016, Chair, UMBC
Maira Bezerra, 2017, committee member, UMCP
Mariya Shcheglovitova, 2020, committee member, UMBC
Peter Chirico, PhD candidate, committee member, UMBC
Dorothy Bowory, 2020, committee member, UMBC
April Sparkman, PhD candidate, committee member, UMBC
Peter Claggett, 4th year, Chair, UMBC
Alex Rittle, PhD candidate, Chair, UMBC
Adam Dixon, PhD candidate, committee member, UMBC
Gina Lee, PhD candidate, committee member, UMBC
Ohad Paris, 4th year, committee member, UMBC
Ben Daniels, 2nd year, committee member, UMBC
MASTER’S STUDENTS
Kristi Green, 2008, committee member, USU
5
20201221-5392 Filed Date: 05/13/2021
12/21/2020
S. Kirk Dahle, 2009, committee member, USU

Molly Van Appledorn, 2009, Chair, USU
Andrew Hill, 2010, Co-Chair, USU
Amanda Schulz, 2010, Co-Chair, USU
Jennifer Li, 2011, committee member, UMBC
Mattie Whitmore, 2011, Co-Chair, UMBC
Matthew Panunto, 2012, Chair, UMBC
Christina Simini, 2012, Chair, UMBC
Daniel Jones, 2013, Co-Chair, UMBC
Haley Martin, 2013, Co-Chair, UMBC
Mitchell Donovan, 2014, committee member, UMBC
Christopher Zink, 2014, Chair, UMBC
Janet Fairbank, 2014, Chair, UMBC
Michael Glassman (withdrew 2015), Chair, UMBC
Alex Martin, 2016, committee member, UMBC
Charles Wahl, 2015, committee member, UMBC
Katherine Ralston, 2017, Chair, UMBC
Marina Metes, 2018, committee member, UMBC
Zach Clifton, 2018, Chair, UMBC
Rikke Jepsen, 2018, committee member, UMBC
Daniel Cunningham, 2019, committee member, UMBC
Hayley Oakland, 2020, Chair, UMBC
Beatriz Shobe, 3rd year, committee member, UMBC
Kaitlyn Holtsclaw, 3rd year, Chair, UMBC
Nicati Robidoux, 2nd year, Chair, UMBC
Michelle, Katoski, 2nd year, Chair, UMBC
UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
Leah Rubin, Research Assistant, 2020, UMBC

Ioana Dragichi, Research Assistant, 2020, UMBC
Michelle Chan, Research Assistant, 2020, UMBC
Ethan Crookshank, Research Assistant, 2020, UMBC
Breanna Byrd, Research Assistant, 2020, UMBC
Will Jones, Research Assistant, 2020, UMBC
Meagan Allison, Research Assistant, 2019, UMBC
Ioana Dragichi, Research Assistant, 2019, UMBC
Santiago Muevar, Research Assistant, 2018, UMBC
Ryan Woolbridge, Research Assistant, 2018, UMBC
Kristian Nelson, Research Assistant, 2018, UMBC
Chiamaka Chuckwuma, Research Assistant, 2018, UMBC
Carly Toulon, Research Assistant, 2018, UMBC
Jessica Whitacre, Research Assistant, 2018, UMBC
6
20201221-5392 Filed Date: 05/13/2021
12/21/2020
Adam Segal, Research Assistant, 2018, UMBC

Juan Camacho, Research Assistant, 2017, UMBC
Michelle Katoski, Research Assistant, 2017-2018, UMBC
Siarah Beall, Research Assistant, 2017, UMBC
Jaelyn Bos, Research Intern 2017, UMBC
Dan Cunningham, Research Intern 2015, UMBC
Alyssa Houde, Research Intern 2015, UMBC
Parker Damm, Research Intern 2015, UMBC
Ellen Woytowitz, Research Intern 2015, UMBC
Jaelyn Bos, Research Intern 2015, UMBC
Meghna Bhatt, Research Assistant 2014-2015 UMBC
Briana Diacopopulous, Research Assistant 2014-2015 UMBC
Zach Clifton, Research Assistant 2014-2015 UMBC
Jaelyn Bos, Research Intern 2014-2015 UMBC
Patrice Matthews, Service Learning Intern, 2013, UMBC
Gabrielle Filippi, Service Learning Intern 2012, UMBC
Matthew Schley, URA advisee, 2012-2013, UMBC
Matthew Schley, Research Intern, Fall 2011, UMBC
Haley Martin, Research Intern, Spring 2010, UMBC
Matthew Schley, Research Fellow, Spring 2010, UMBC
Sean Kain, Research Technician, Spring-Summer 2009, Mentor, UMBC
Doug Call, Research Intern, Summer 2002, mentor, UVA
James Graves, Research Intern, Summer 2002, Mentor, Earlham College
Kristina Herz, Research Intern, Summer 2003, Mentor, PSU
Michael Marshall, Research Intern, Summer 2003, Mentor, Clark University
Medora Hackler, Research Intern, Summer 2004, Mentor, Sweet Briar College
PUBLICATIONS, PRESENTATIONS, and CREATIVE ACHIEVEMENTS
PEER-REVIEWED WORKS (>3400 Google Scholar Citations, H index = 27, i10 index = 44)
Package TITAN2; Threshold Indicator Taxa Analysis (v2.2), published on the Comprehensive R
Analysis Network (CRAN), December 2019: https://cran.r-
project.org/web/packages/TITAN2/index.html
Articles (co-lead in bold, *student author)
2020
52. Davies, SJ et al. 2020. ForestGEO: Understanding Forest Diversity and Dynamics through a
Global Observatory Network. Biological Conservation (in press)
51. Dixon*, A, M Baker, E Ellis. 2020. Agricultural landscape composition linked with acoustic
measures of avian diversity. Land https://doi.org/10.3390/land9050145.
7
20201221-5392 Filed Date: 05/13/2021
12/21/2020
50. Bezerra*, M, M Baker, M Palmer, S Filoso. 2020. Sugarcane agriculture exacerbates gully
formation in headwater catchments in Brazil. Journal of Env. Management 110271.
49. Pickett, ST, et al. 2020. Theoretical perspectives of the Baltimore Ecosystem Study:
conceptual evolution in a social-ecological research project. Bioscience 70(4):297–314.
https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz166
2019
48. Baker, ME, ML Schley*, JO Sexton. 2019. Impacts of expanding impervious surface on
specific conductance in urbanizing streams. Water Resources Research
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR025014.
47. Van Appledorn* M, ME Baker, AJ Miller. 2019. Empirical evaluation of 2D unsteady
hydraulic models for applications in floodplain forest ecology. Physical Geography
https://doi.org/10.1080/02723646.2019.1676186.
46. Phillips* T, M Baker, K Lautar, I Yessalonis, M Pavao-Zuckerman. 2019. The capacity of urban
forest patches to infiltrate stormwater is influenced by soil physical properties and soil
moisture. Journal of Environmental Management 246: 11-18.
45. Macchi, L, C Levers, M Baumann, M Baker, T Kummerle. 2019. Satellite-based tree and
shrub cover reveal thresholds in bird community in the South American dry Chaco. J.
Applied Ecology.
44. Van Appledorn* M, ME Baker, AJ Miller.2019. River-valley morphology, basin size, and flow-
event magnitude interact to produce wide variation in flooding dynamics. Ecosphere
10(1):e02546.
2018
2017
43. Dandois*, J, M Baker, M Olano, G Parker, E Ellis. 2017. What is the Point? Using Computer
Vision Point Clouds to Observe Vegetation Structure and Spectral Properties. Remote
Sensing 9(4), 355; doi:10.3390/rs9040355.
42. Collins, MJ, NP Snyder, G Boardman, WSL Banks, M Andrews, ME Baker, M Conlon, A Gellis,
S McClain, A Miller, P Wilcock. 2017. Channel response to sediment release: insights from a
paired dam-removal analysis. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 10.1002/esp.4108.
2016
41. Donovan* M, AJ Miller, ME Baker. 2016. Reassessing the role of milldams in Piedmont
floodplain development and remobilization. Geomorphology 268:133-145.
40. Utz, R, K Hopkins , L Beesley, D Booth , R Hawley , ME Baker, M Freeman, and K Jones. 2016.
Do specific natural watershed and channel attributes confer ecological resistance to
urbanization in streams? Freshwater Science 35(1):380-397.
39. Lallement* M, P Macchi, P Vigliano, S Juarez, M Baker, N Bouwes, T Crowl. 2016. Rising from
the ashes: changes in salmonid fish assemblages after 30 months of the Puyehue-Cordon
Caulle volcanic eruption. Science of the Total Environment 541:1041-1051.
2015
38. Koch, BJ, CM Febria, RM Cooke, JD Hosen*, ME Baker, MA Palmer. 2015. Suburban
8
20201221-5392 Filed Date: 05/13/2021
12/21/2020
watershed nitrogen retention: estimating the effectiveness of stormwater management

structures. Elementa 3:63 doi: 10.12952/journal.elementa.000063.
37. Smith, R, PD Venugopal, ME Baker, and WO Lamp. 2015. Regional and local processes
structure a stream insect metacommunity in a partially urbanized landscape. Freshwater
Biology doi: 10.1111/fwb.12605.
36. Dandois*, JP, D. Nadwodny*, E. Anderson*, A. Bofto*, ME Baker, and EC Ellis. 2015. Forest
census and map data for two temperate deciduous forest edge woodlot patches in
Baltimore MD, USA. Ecology 96(6):1734-1734.
35. Suding, K, E Higgs, M Palmer, JB Callicott, CB Anderson, ME Baker, JJ Gutrich, KL Hondula,
MC LaFevor, BMH Larson, A Randall, JB Ruhl, KZS Schwartz. 2015. Committing to ecological
restoration. Science 348(6235):638-640
34. Donovan, M*, AJ Miller, ME Baker, and A Gellis 2015. Long-term sediment erosion from
Mid-Atlantic tributaries of Chesapeake Bay. Geomorphology
DOI: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2015.01.025.
33. Jacinthe PA, P Vidon, K Fisher, X Liu, ME Baker. 2015. Soil Methane and Carbon Dioxide
Fluxes from Cropland and Riparian Buffers in Different Hydrogeomorphic Settings. Journal
of Environmental Quality 44(4):1080.
2014
32. Jones, DK*, ME Baker, AJ Miller, T Jarnigan, and DM Hogan. 2014. Tracking geomorphic
signatures of watershed suburbanization with multi-temporal LiDAR. Geomorphology
219:42-52.
31. Liu, X*, P Vidon, P Jacinthe, K Fisher*, M Baker. 2014. Seasonal and geomorphic controls on
N and P removal in riparian zones of the US Midwest. Biogeochemistry 19(1):245-257
30. Fisher, K*, Jacinthe PA, P Vidon, X Liu*, M Baker. 2014. Nitrous oxide emission from
cropland and adjacent riparian buffers in contrasting hydrogeomorphic settings. Journal of
Environmental Quality. 43:338-348.
29. Vidon, P, P Jacinthe, X Liu*, K Fisher*, M Baker. 2014. Hydrobiogeochemical controls on
riparian nutrient and greenhouse gas dynamics: 10 years post-restoration. Journal of the
American Water Resources Association 50(3):639-652.
28. Weller, DE and ME Baker. 2014. Cropland riparian buffers throughout Chesapeake Bay
watershed: spatial patterns and effects on nitrate loads delivered to streams. Journal of
the American Water Resources Association 50(3):696-710.
2013
27. Vidon, P, Mitchell C.P.J., Jacinthe P.A., Baker M., Liu X.*, and Fisher K.* 2013. Mercury
Dynamics in Groundwater across Three Distinct Riparian Zones of the US Midwest.
Environmental Science: Process and Impacts 15(11), 2131-2141.
26. Baker, ME and RS King. 2013. Of TITAN and straw men: an appeal for greater understanding
of community data. Freshwater Science 32(2):489-506.
25. Sexton, JO, X-P Song*, C Huang, ME Baker, and JR Townshend. 2013. Urban growth of the
Washington, D.C – Baltimore, MD metropolitan region from 1984 to 2010 by annual
continuous fields of impervious cover. Remote Sensing of the Environment 129:42-53.
2012
24. Ramsey, RD, CM McGinty, JH Lowry*, EI Leydsman-McGinty*, L.A Langs* Stoner, BA
Crabb*, WA Adair*, A Hernandez*, ME Baker, JC Schmidt, M Majerova, B Hudson, and AK
9
20201221-5392 Filed Date: 05/13/2021
12/21/2020
Montrone. 2012. Grand Teton National Park and John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial
Parkway: Natural resource condition assessment. Natural Resource Report
NPS/GRYN/NRR—2012/550. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.
23. Studds, C, WV Deluca*, ME Baker, RS King, and PP Marra. 2012. Land cover and climatic
variation interact to shape waterbird community composition. PLoS ONE 7(4):e35969.
22. Lowry, JH*, DR Ramsey and ME Baker. 2012. Determinants of urban tree canopy in
residential neighborhoods: Household characteristics, urban form, and geophysical
landscape. Urban Ecosystems doi: 10.1007/s11252-011-0185-4.
2011
21. Tesfa, T*. DG Tarboton, DW Watson, KA Schreuders, ME Baker, RM Wallace. 2011. Parallel
evaluation of a class of new topographic variables fro distributed hydrological modeling.
Environmental Modeling and Software doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2011.07.018
20. Budy, P, K Dahle* and ME Baker. 2011. Predicting Fish Growth Potential and Identifying
Water Quality Constraints: A Spatially-Explicit Bioenergetics Approach. Environmental
Management doi: 10.1007/s00267-011-9717-1.
19. King, RS, ME Baker, PF Kazyak, and DE Weller. 2011. How novel is too novel? Stream
community thresholds at exceptionally low levels of watershed urbanization. Ecological
Applications doi: 10.1890/10-1357-1.
18. Weller, DE, ME Baker, and TE Jordan. 2011. Empirical tests for effects of riparian buffers on
watershed nitrate discharges. Ecological Applications doi:10.1890/10-0789-1.
17. King, RS and ME Baker. 2011. An alternative view of ecological community thresholds and
appropriate analyses for their detection. Comment. Ecological Applications
doi:10.1890/10-0882- 1.
2010
16. King, RS and ME Baker. 2010. Considerations for identifying and interpreting ecological
community thresholds. Journal of the North American Benthological Association 29(3):998-
1008.
15. Baker ME and RS King. 2010. A new method for identifying and interpreting ecological
community thresholds. Methods in Ecology & Evolution 1:25-37.
2009
14. Stanfield, LW, B Kilgour, K Todd, S Holysh, A Piggott, and ME Baker. 2009. Estimating
summer low- flow in streams of the Oak Ridges Moraine ecoregion using spatial models.
Canadian Water Resources Journal 34(3):269-284.
13. Baker, ME and MJ Wiley. 2009. Multiscale controls of flooding in riparian forests of Lower
Michigan. Ecology 90(1):145-159.
2008
12. Baker, ME, MJ Wiley, and PW Seelbach. 2008. Map-based predictions of riparian ecotopes:
relating climate and hydrology to streamside forests in Lower Michigan. Michigan
Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Technical Report 2008-2, Ann Arbor.
2007
11. Baker, ME, DE Weller, and TE Jordan. 2007. Effects of stream map resolution on measures
of riparian buffer distribution and nutrient retention potential. Landscape Ecology 22:973-
992.
2006
10
20201221-5392 Filed Date: 05/13/2021
12/21/2020
10. Baker, ME, DE Weller, and TE Jordan. 2006. Improved methods for quantifying potential
nutrient interception by riparian buffers. Landscape Ecology 21(8):1327-1345.
9. Baker, ME, DE Weller, and TE Jordan. 2006. Comparison of automated watershed
delineations: effects on land cover areas, percentages, and relationships to nutrient
discharges. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing 72(2):159-168.
2005
8. King, RS, ME Baker, DF Whigham, DE Weller, TE Jordan, PF Kazyak, and MK Hurd. 2005.
Spatial considerations for linking watershed land cover to ecological indicators in streams.
Ecological Applications 15(1):137-152.
2004
7. King, RS, J Beaman, DF Whigham, AH Hines, ME Baker, and DE Weller. 2004. Watershed land
use is strongly linked to PCBs in white perch from Chesapeake Bay subestuaries.
Environmental Science and Technology 38:6546-6552.
6. Baker, ME and MJ Wiley. 2004. Characterization of woody species distribution in riparian
forests of Lower Michigan using map-based models. Wetlands 24(3):500-561.
2003
5. Baker, ME, MJ Wiley, PW Seelbach, and ML Carlson. 2003. A GIS-based index of groundwater
potential for aquatic resource inventory, assessment, and environmental management.
Environmental Management 32:706-719.
4. Baker, ME, MJ Wiley, and PW Seelbach. 2003. Spatially-explicit models of groundwater
loading in glaciated landscapes: considerations and development in Lower Michigan.
Fisheries Research Report No. 2064, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Ann
Arbor.
Pre-2002
3. Baker, ME, MJ Wiley, and PW Seelbach. 2001. GIS-based hydrologic modeling of riparian
areas: implications for stream water quality. Journal of the American Water Resources
Association 37(6): 1615-1628.
2. Baker, ME and BV Barnes. 1998. Landscape ecosystem diversity of river floodplains in
northwestern Lower Michigan, USA. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 28:1405-1418.
1. Seelbach, PW, MJ Wiley, JC Kotanchik and ME Baker.1997. A landscape-based ecological
classification system for river valley segments in Lower Michigan. Fisheries Research
Report No. 2036, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Ann Arbor.
Peer-reviewed Book Chapters
5. King, RS and ME Baker. 2014. Use, misuse, and limitations of Threshold Indicator Taxa
Analysis (TITAN) for estimating ecological community thresholds. In: G. Guntenspergen
(editor), Application of Threshold Concepts in Natural Resource Decision Making, Springer,
New York.
4. Tarboton, DG and ME Baker. 2008. Toward an algebra for terrain-based flow analysis.
Chapter 12 in N. Mount, G. Harvey, G. Priesthall, and P. Apin. (eds). Representing,
Modelling, and Visualizing the Natural Environment. Innovations in GIS series. CRC Press-
Taylor & Francis, London.
3. Gregory, S, A Allen, M Baker, K Boyer, T Dillaha, and J Elliott. 2007. Realistic expectations of
11
20201221-5392 Filed Date: 05/13/2021
12/21/2020
timing between conservation and restoration actions and ecological responses. In M.

Schnepf (ed.), Managing Agricultural Landscapes for Environmental Quality. Soil and Water
Conservation Society.
2. Seelbach, PW, MJ Wiley, ME Baker, and KE Wehrly. 2006. Initial Classification of river valley
segments across Michigan's Lower Peninsula. Chapter 1 in RM Hughes, L Wang, and PW
Seelbach, editors. Influences of landscape on stream habitats and biological assemblages.
American Fisheries Society Symposium 48:25-48.
1. Crow, TR, ME Baker, and BV Barnes. 2000. Diversity in riparian landscapes. In ES Verry, JW
Hornbeck, and CA Dollloff (eds.) Riparian Management in Forests of the Continental
Eastern United States. Lewis Publishers, New York.
Conference Proceedings
2. Tarboton, DG, KAT Schreuders, DW Watson, and ME Baker. 2009. Generalized terrain-based
flow analysis of digital elevation models. 18th World IMACS/MODSIM Congress, Cairns,
Australia, July 2009.
1. Nielson, BT, C. Bandaraogoda, ME Baker, JS Horsburgh, DK Stevens. 2009. Watershed
modeling for water quality trading. Proceedings of the AWRA summer specialty
conference, Snowbird, Utah, June 2009.
NON-PEER-REVIEWED WORKS
3. Miller, A., M. Baker, K. Boomer, D. Merritts, K. Prestegaard, and S. Smith.2019. Legacy

Sediment, Riparian Corridors, and Total Maximum Daily Loads. STAC Publication Number
19-001, Edgewater, MD. 64pp.
2. Morzillo, AT, JW Hollister, CA Drew, ME Baker, JM Bossenbroek, ME Rocca, and C Mazzarella.
2008. A young scientist’s guide to gainful employment: recent graduates’ experiences and
successful strategies. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 89(2):193-203.
1. Wiley, MJ and ME Baker. 1997. Fish assemblage structure in relation to macro-habitat (valley
segment) units in Lower Michigan. The Nature Conservancy, Freshwater Initiative.
WORKS SUBMITTED OR IN PREPARATION
Submitted
Swan, CM, ME Baker, D Borowy*, A Johnson, M Shcheglovitova, A Sparkman*, F Valente Neto,

M Van Appledorn, N Voelker. (submitted) Loss of Phylogenetic Diversity under Landscape
Change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.
Mertes, M, DK Jones, ME Baker, AJ Miller, D Hogan, JV Loperfido, KH Hopkins. (submitted)

Considerations for Drainage Network Extraction from High-Resolution Topographic Data
Across Variable Land Uses. Journal of the American Water Resources Association.
Morzillo, AT, KJ Lautar, KL King, L Rhodes, L Scott, M Johnson, M Clarke, LK Campbell, LR
12
20201221-5392 Filed Date: 05/13/2021
12/21/2020
Johnson, S Pincetl, NF Sonti, DH Locke, JP Schmit, RT Fahey, ME Baker. (submitted) A tale of

urban forest patch governance in four eastern US cities. Nature & Society.
In Preparation
Baker, M, S Van Ryswick, A Miller. (In prep) Tracking channel change following dam removal
using low altitude remote imagery. Earth Processes and Landforms
Miller A, M Baker, S Van Ryswick, M Andrews, M Collins. (in Prep) New evidence of process-
based evacuation following dam removals. Earth Processes and Landforms
Baker ME, J Bos*, and RS King. (in prep). Reconsidering taxon-specific contributions to measures
of community change: updates to Threshold Indicator Taxa Analysis. Freshwater Science.
Baker ME and D Saavedra. (in prep).ValChanMap: geomorphic delineation of valley and channel
networks. Water Resources Research
Oakland, H, M Baker, and S Kroll. (in prep). Assessing aquatic habitat using low altitude remote
imagery. Freshwater Science.
Oakland, H, M Baker, and S Kroll. (in prep). Some restorations reduce habitat heterogeneity.
Ecological Applications.
Baker ME, I Yessalonis, K Lautar, and Nancy Sonti. (in prep) Rapid urban forest patch
characterization for monitoring and management. Ecological Applications
Baker ME and DS Rich (in prep) Observations regarding the causal consequences of
mountaintop mining. Environmental Science & Technology.
Van Appledorn* M and ME Baker. (in prep). Regional correspondence of woody riparian plant
functional traits subject to different flood regimes. Freshwater Biology.
Van Appledorn* M and ME Baker. (in prep). Regional patterns of flood regime across the
conterminous United States. Water Resources Research.
Van Appledorn* M, AJ Miller, and ME Baker. (in prep). Differentiation of functional traits along
flood regime gradients reveal role of hydraulic signals in structuring floodplain forests.
Ecology.
PRESENTATIONS
Presentations and Posters (Non-juried/Refereed)
Oakland, H and ME Baker. 2020. Continuous assessment reveals homogenization of stream

habitat following restoration. Maryland Water Monitoring Council, Dec 2020, Baltimore,
Maryland .
Baker ME. 2020. Hyper resolution stream channel delineation and dimensions. Cascade Cities
& Fire, Portland, Oregon, October 2020.
Baker ME and D Saavedra. 2020. Development and application of hyper resolution stream
channels in Chesapeake Bay Watersheds. US EPA Region 3, Stream Resilience Working
Group, October 2020, Philadelphia Pennsylvania.
Baker ME and D Saavedra. 2019. Development and application of automated channel extraction
from LiDAR in Chesapeake Bay Watersheds. Society for Freshwater Science, May 2019, Salt
Lake City Utah.
Oakland, H, M Baker, and S Kroll. 2019. Assessing aquatic habitat in stream restorations using
13
20201221-5392 Filed Date: 05/13/2021
12/21/2020
low altitude remote imagery. Society for Freshwater Science, May 2019, Salt Lake City
Utah.
Baker, ME, A Miller, S Van Ryswick, E Boyd, M Cashman, M Collins, M Andrews. Tracing
geomorphic change and downstream progress of sediment released by removal of Bloede
Dam, Patapsco River, Maryland. American Geophysical Union, December 2018,
Washington, DC.
Baker, ME. Assessing causality in stream assessment and restoration: a case study in
Appalachian surface mining. Invited speaker, Smithsonian Environmental Research Center,
November 2018.
Baker ME and D Saavedra. 2018. Development of automated channel extraction from LiDAR in
Chesapeake Bay Watersheds. American Water Resources Association, November 2018,
Baltimore Maryland.
Baker, ME. What We Have Learned About Baltimore’s Forests. Oral Presentation for
Baltimore’s Fantastic Forest Forum, Cylburn Arboretum, November 2017, Baltimore MD.
Rittle, A, M Baker, M Cashman, and A Miller. Workflow Evaluation of Error and Distortion in
SfM-Derived Point Clouds in Fluvial Environments. Oral Presentation for the American
Geophysical Union. Dec 2017. New Orleans, LA.
Baker, ME, D Jones, E Woytowitz, A Miller. Alternative models of hydrogeomorphic connectivity
in urbanizing Piedmont landscaps. Society for Freshwater Science Annual Meeting. May,
2017. Raleigh, NC.
Rittle, A, ME Baker, and AJ Miller. A UAV-SfM Approach fro extracting Channel Bathymetry and
Fluvial Features. Oral Presentation for the American Association of Geographers. April
2017. Boston, MA.
Clifton, Z and ME Baker.Assessing the limits of aerial detection of floodplain sediment storage
via multi-temporal LiDAR. Oral Presentation for the US- International Association for
Landscape Ecology Annual Symposium. April 2017. Baltimore, MD.
Van Appledorn, M and ME Baker. Incorporating 2D hydraulic modeling in floodplain ecosystem
investigation. Oral Presentation for the US- International Association for Landscape Ecology
Annual Symposium. April 2017. Baltimore, MD.
Van Appledorn, M and ME Baker. Flooding does not always constrain riparian species
composition: evidence of environmental filtering and limiting similarity in floodplain
forests. Oral Presentation for the US- International Association for Landscape Ecology
Annual Symposium. April 2016. Ashville, NC.
Van Appledorn, M and ME Baker. Flooding does not always constrain riparian species
composition: evidence of environmental filtering and limiting similarity in floodplain
forests. Oral Presentation for the Ecological Society of America Annual Meeting. August
2015. Baltimore, MD.
Baker, ME. Landscape approaches to nutrient and sediment management in streams: past
research and future directions . Invited presentation Society for Freshwater Science Annual
Meeting. May, 2015. Milwaukee, WI.
Van Appledorn, M and ME Baker. Quantifying hydrologic and functional diversity of riparian
forest ecosystems in Maryland: towards a more mechanistic understanding of abiotic-
biotic interactions for cost-effective restoration. Invited Oral Presentation for the
Chesapeake Modeling Symposium. May 28-29, 2014. Annapolis, MD.
14
20201221-5392 Filed Date: 05/13/2021
12/21/2020
Baker, ME. Taxon-specific contributions to community change: updates to Threshold Indicator

Taxon Analysis. Oral Presentation for the Joint Aquatic Science Meetings. May, 2014.
Portland, OR.
Van Appledorn, M and ME Baker. Regional comparison of flood regimes and functional trait
distributions. Oral Presentation for the Joint Aquatic Science Meetings. May, 2014.
Portland, OR.
Baker, ME. Impacts of urbanization on stream conductance over 25 years. Oral Presentation for
the Society for Urban Stream Ecology. May, 2014. Portland, OR
Van Appledorn, M and ME Baker. A comparison of functional trait distributions among riparian
floodplain landforms. Oral Presentation for the Ecological Society of America Annual
Meeting. August, 2013. Minneapolis, MN.
Van Appledorn, M and ME Baker. A comparison of functional trait distributions of riparian plant
species from floodplain landscapes in Michigan and Maryland. Poster Presentation for the
US- International Association for Landscape Ecology Annual Symposium. April, 2013.
Austin, TX.
Baker, ME and RS King. Reconciling perspectives of community change: refinements to
Threshold Indicator Taxa Analysis. North American Benthological Society (NABS), Louisville,
KY, June 2012.
King, RS and ME Baker. Multiple lines of evidence of nonlinear ecological community response
to novel environmental gradients. North American Benthological Society (NABS), Louisville,
KY, June 2012.
Van Appledorn, M. and M.E. Baker. Evaluating the role of environmental controls on riparian
plant communities: relative importance of climate and hydrologic processes varies by
riparian plant community type. US-International Association for Landscape Ecology Annual
Symposium. April, 2012. Newport, RI.
Baker, ME and JC Schmidt. Some Implications of recent climate change in Grand Teton National
Park. 2012 US-IALE Annual Meeting, Newport Rhode Island.
VanAppledorn M and ME Baker. Evaluating the role of environmental controls on riparian plant
communities: relative importance of climate and hydrologic processes varies by riparian
plant community type. . 2012 US-IALE Annual Meeting, Newport Rhode Island.
Panunto MH and ME Baker. River Network Path-Dependence: effects of valley segment
sequencing on floodplain hydroperiods. . 2012 US-IALE Annual Meeting, Newport Rhode
Island.
VanAppledorn M and ME Baker. How do longitudinal patterns of in-channel sediment transport
relate to floodplain heterogeneity. 2011 US-IALE Annual Meeting Portland, OR.
Panunto MH and ME Baker. Effect of valley segment sequencing on floodplain hydroperiod.
2011 US-IALE Annual Meeting Portland, OR.
Baker, ME, RS King, and PF Kazyak. 2010. Strikingly consistent biodiversity losses to watershed
impervious cover across taxonomic groups revealed by Threshold Indicator Taxa Analysis
(TITAN). ALSO/NABS Joint Meeting, Santa Fe, NM.
Weller, DE, ME Baker, and TE Jordan. 2010. Nitrate removal by riparian buffers and in-stream
processes in Chesapeake Bay Catchments. ALSO/NABS Joint Meeting, Santa Fe, NM.
King, RS and ME Baker. 2010. Considerations for analyzing ecological community thresholds in
response to anthropogenic environmental gradients. ALSO/NABS Joint Meeting, Santa Fe,
15
20201221-5392 Filed Date: 05/13/2021
12/21/2020
NM.
Baker ME and RS King 2010. A new method for detecting biodiversity and ecological community
thresholds. US-IALE Annual Meeting Athens, GA.
VanAppledorn M and ME Baker. New software tools for strategic prioritization of riparian
coservation and restoration. 2010 US-IALE Annual Meeting Athens, GA.
Panunto M and ME Baker. Using a hydrogeomorhic typology to understand distributions of
riparian buffers in Central Indiana. US-IALE Annual Meeting Athens, GA.
Van Appledorn M and ME Baker 2009 Effects of relative wetness on riparian buffers potential in
Maryland. NABS Grand rapids, MI.
Baker, ME, DE Weller, TE Jordan 2009 Effects of riparian buffers on watershed nitrate
discharges: new models and m management implications. NABS annual meeting, Grand
Rapids, MI.
King RS and ME Baker. 2009. Threshold Indicator Taxa Analysis (TITAN): a new method for
detecting biodiversity and ecological community thresholds NABS, Grand Rapids, MI.
Van Appledorn M and ME Baker 2009 Effects of relative wetness on riparian buffers potential in
Maryland. IALE Annual meeting, Snowbird, UT.
Weller, DE, ME Baker, and TE Jordan Effects of riparian buffers on watershed nitrate discharges:
new models and m management implications. IALE Snowbird, UT.
Baker ME and RS King Threshold Indicator Taxa Analysis (TITAN): a new method for detecting
biodiversity and ecological community thresholds IALE ,Snowbird, UT.
Weller, DE, ME Baker, and TE Jordan Effects of riparian buffers on watershed nitrate discharges:
new models and m management implications. EBM Baltimore, MD.
Baker, ME, DE Weller, TE Jordan New tools for measuring the effects of riparian buffers. EBM
Baltimore, MD.
Baker, ME and DG Tarboton. Generalized models of flow across terrain using digital elevation
models. American Geophysical Union, San Francisco, CA December 2008.
Van Appledorn, M and ME Baker. A Comparison of Riparian Restoration Strategies for Water
Quality Improvement within and Among Watersheds. AWRA Summer specialty conference
Virginia Beach, VA June 2008.
Boomer K, DE Weller, ME Baker, and TE Jordan. Using Fine-Resolution Topography Data to Infer
Groundwater Flowpaths and Denitrification Potential in Riparian Wetlands in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed. AWRA Summer specialty conference Virginia Beach, VA June
2008.
Van Appledorn, M and ME Baker. A simulation comparing spatially-explicit riparian restoration
strategies for water quality improvement within and among watersheds. International
Association of Landscape Ecology (US-IALE), Madison, WI, April 2008.
Baker, ME and DG Tarboton. New approaches for representing uncertainty in watershed
connectivity. International Association of Landscape Ecology (US-IALE), Madison, WI, April
2008.
Tarboton, DG, KA Schreuders, ME Baker. New TauDEM tools for deriving hydrologic information
 from digital elevation models. AWRA 2008 Spring Specialty Conference, San Mateo, CA,
March  2008.
Tarboton, DG, ME Baker, KA, Schreuders. Terrain analysis and the modeling of catchment
 architecture. European Geophysical Union, Vienna, Austria, April 2008.
16
20201221-5392 Filed Date: 05/13/2021
12/21/2020
Baker, ME, MJ Wiley. Using structural equations to explore multi-scale predictions of riparian
 hydrology. Invited: North American Benthological Society (NABS), Columbia, SC, May
2007.
Baker, ME, MA White, DE Weller, TE Jordan. Using land surface phenology to explore the
effects  of landscape and riparian features on nutrient discharges in tributary watersheds
of Chesapeake  Bay. International Association of Landscape Ecology (US-IALE), Tucson, AZ,
April 2007.
White, MA, ME Baker, DE Weller, TE Jordan. Land surface phenology in eastern United Stated
watersheds: relationships between remote sensing metrics, stream chemistry, snow cover,
and  leaf and bird phenology. American Geophysical Union, Sand Francisco, CA.
Baker, ME, DE Weller, TE Jordan. Effects of Stream Map Resolution on Measures of Riparian
 Buffer Distribution and Nutrient Retention Potential. American Geophysical Union,
Baltimore, MD  May 2006.
Baker, ME, DE Weller, TE Jordan. Watershed-scale thresholds in the potential effectiveness of
 riparian buffers. US-IALE, San Diego, CA, March, 2006.
Baker, ME, DE Weller, TE Jordan. Transport-distance effects in regional predictions of nitrate
 discharge: implications for nitrogen transformation. NABS/AGU Joint Session, New
Orleans, LA,  June 2005.
Baker, ME, DE Weller, TE Jordan. Improved methods for quantifying patterns of riparian buffers
 US-IALE, Syracuse, NY, April, 2005.
Baker, ME, DE Weller, TE Jordan. Effect of within-watershed land cover arrangement on nutrient
 discharge. NABS, Vancouver, BC, June 2004.
Baker, ME, DE Weller, TE Jordan. Landscape-level effects of riparian buffers: considering spatial
configuration and hydrologic routing in geographic predictions of nutrient discharge. US-
IALE, Las Vegas, NV, April, 2004
Baker, ME, DE Weller, TE Jordan. Landscape-level effects of riparian buffers: considering spatial
configuration and hydrologic routing in geographic predictions of nutrient discharge.
Invited: Soil Science Society of America, Denver, CO, October, 2003.
Baker, ME, DE Weller, TE Jordan. The effect of distance-weighted source areas in geographic
predictions of nutrient discharge from coastal-plain watersheds. NABS, Athens, GA, May,
2003.
Baker, ME, DE Weller, TE Jordan. The effect of distance-weighted source areas in geographic
predictions of nutrient discharge. US-IALE, Banff, Alberta, Canada, April, 2003.
Baker, ME, MJ Wiley. Climatic and hydrologic influences on the spatial variation of riparian
forests. NABS, Pittsburgh, PA, May 2002.
Baker, ME, MJ Wiley, PW Seelbach. GIS-based modeling of riparian hydrology and stream water
quality. US-IALE, Lincoln, NE, April 2002.
Baker, ME, MJ Wiley. Predicting spatial variation in riparian hydrology and forest composition
across Lower Michigan. US-IALE, Tempe, AZ, April 2001.
Baker, ME, MJ Wiley. Using GIS-based models to understand riparian function and forest
composition. 62nd Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference, Minneapolis, MN, December
2000.
Baker, ME, MJ Wiley. Predicting the structure and function of riparian ecosystems. AWRA
17
20201221-5392 Filed Date: 05/13/2021
12/21/2020
conference on Riparian Ecology and Management, Portland, OR, July 2000.

Baker, ME, MJ Wiley, PW Seelbach. GIS modeling of potential groundwater sources to rivers.
IMAGINE GIS conference, Lansing, MI, May 2000.
Baker, ME, MJ Wiley, PW Seelbach. A spatially-explicit groundwater model for river and
watershed management. US-IALE, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, April 2000.
Baker, ME, BV Barnes, LE Cablk. Considering the diversity of river valley and wetland
ecosystems in both regional and local contexts. Invited: The role of embedded wetlands in
an upland matrix. Ecological Society of America, Baltimore, MD, July 1998.
Baker, ME, BV Barnes. Landscape controls on riparian ecosystems. 59th Midwest Fish and
Wildlife Conference, Milwaukee, WI, December 1997.
Other Professional Presentations
Baker, ME. 2014. Impacts of development on Ten Mile Creek. Testimony before the
Montgomery County Council. Jan-Feb. Rockville, MD
Baker, ME. 2010. Opportunities at the interface of hydrology and ecology. National Research
Council’s Committee on Challenges and Opportunities in the Hydrologic Sciences. National
Academy of Sciences, Washington DC, Invited Speaker, Sept 9th, 2010.
Baker ME and RS King 2009 Threshold Indicator Taxa Analysis (TITAN): a new method for
detecting biodiversity and ecological community thresholds. Fall BES meeting, Baltimore,
MD.
Baker ME and RS King 2009 Threshold Indicator Taxa Analysis (TITAN): a new method for
detecting biodiversity and ecological community thresholds. EPA Regional Stormwater
meeting, Edison NJ.
Media Activities
Chicago Tribune. Sept 5th, 2018: http://www.chicagotribune.com/sns-drones-to-track-one-of-

the-largest-dam-removals-on-the-eastern-seaboard-100071-20180905-story.html
US News & World Report, Sept 5th, 2018: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-

states/articles/2018-09-05/commentary-drones-to-track-one-of-the-largest-dam-removals-on-
the-east-coast
The Conversation, Sept 5th, 2018: http://theconversation.com/drones-to-track-one-of-the-

largest-dam-removals-on-the-eastern-seaboard-100071
Technical.ly, July 24, 2018: https://technical.ly/baltimore/2018/08/24/a-new-mapping-effort-will-

provide-a-closer-look-at-the-streams-that-feed-the-chesapeake-bay/
NPR Here and Now, April 13th 2017: http://www.npr.org/2017/04/13/522607589/in-coal-

country-environmental-regulations-are-creating-jobs
Ohio Valley Resource, March 31st, 2017: http://ohiovalleyresource.org/2017/03/31/restoration-
18
20201221-5392 Filed Date: 05/13/2021
12/21/2020
scientists-concerns/
Charleston Gazette-Mail, January 4th, 2017: http://www.wvgazettemail.com/news-cops-and-

courts/20170104/us-court-upholds-mountaintop-removal-pollution-ruling
Bay Journal, December 2016:

http://www.bayjournal.com/article/baltimore_group_can_see_the_urban_forests_amid_the_t
rees
Washington Post, February 4th 2014: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-

politics/council-members-push-proposal-to-sharply-limit-new-construction-in-ten-mile-
creek/2014/02/03/a40c6cd0-8d3b-11e3-98ab-fe5228217bd1_story.html
WYPR Maryland in the Morning with Shelia Kast, February 10, 2010:
 http://mdmorn.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/210102-measuring-the-biological-effects-of-
 development/
Environmental Protection online, February 4th, 2010:
 http://eponline.com/articles/2010/02/04/ecologists-create-a-more-precise-way-to-measure-
human-  impacts.aspx
Baltimore Sun, B’more Green with Meredith Cohn, February 3rd, 2010:
 http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/features/green/2010/02/new_way_found_to_tell_when_s
pe.html
Science Centric, February 3rd, 2010: http://www.sciencecentric.com/news/10020331-
researcher-  develops-new-method-detecting-biodiversity-losses.htm
B,more media interview with Walaika Haskins, February 1st,
2010:http://www.bmoremedia.com/innovationnews/umbcecologist020210.aspx
Legal Activities (in which I have been deposed or provided expert testimony)
1. IRS easement assessment (146 Tax Court No. Docket 5445-13, Baltimore, MD)
2. Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition v. Fola Coal, (S.D. W.Va. 2:13-21588) Liability
3. Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition v. Fola Coal, (S.D. W.Va. 2:13-5006) Remedy
4. Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition v. Fola Coal, (S.D. W.Va. 2:13-21588) Remedy
5. Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition v. Fola Coal, (S.D. W.Va. 2:15-1371) Liability
6. Canaan Christian Church and Burtonsville Crossing, LLC and Burtonsville Associates, LLC and
Jennifer M. Sarem and Marion G. Sarem v. Montgomery County, Maryland and Montgomery
County Council and Isiah Leggett, (MD Case No.:16-cv-03698-TDC)
19
20201221-5392 Filed Date: 05/13/2021
12/21/2020
Courses Taught
Workshop: Threshold Indicator Taxa Analysis (TITAN) and analysis of biological community data
in R. Society for Freshwater Science: Mid-Atlantic Chapter, January 30th, 2015, Philadelphia,
PA.
Workshop: Threshold Indicator Taxa Analysis (TITAN) and analysis of biological community data
in R. Association of Mid-Atlantic Aquatic Biologists, March 27th-28th, 2014, Berkeley Springs,
WV.
Workshop: Statistical Workshop for water resource managers: Analysis of biological
community data in R. New England Association of Environmental Biologists, March 25-26th,
2014, Burlington, VT.
Workshop: R statistical computing and training and Threshold Indicator Taxa Analysis (TITAN).
New England Association of Environmental Biologists, March 19-20th, 2013, Lake Placid, NY.
Workshop: 2011. R statistical computing and Threshold Indicator Taxa Analysis (TITAN). USGS
New England Water Resource Center. Feb.
Workshop: 2010. R statistical computing and Threshold Indicator Taxa Analysis (TITAN). USGS
Maryland-Delaware-Virginia Water Resource Center. Oct.
Geography and Environmental Systems (UMBC) 600 Quantitative Methods
Geography and Environmental Systems (UMBC) 405 Applied Landscape Ecology
Geography and Environmental Systems (UMBC) 110 Physical Geography
Geography and Environmental Systems (UMBC) 404 Forest Ecology
Geography and Environmental Systems (UMBC) 419 Watershed Analysis and Modeling
Geography and Environmental Systems (UMBC) 319 Watershed Science and Management
Geography and Environmental Systems (UMBC) 400 Ecology and Management of Riparian
Ecosystems
Geography and Environmental Systems (UMBC) 602 Research Methods
Geography and Environmental Systems (UMBC) 689 Departmental Seminar
Watershed Sciences (USU) 4930/6920 Geographic Information Science.
Watershed Sciences (USU) 6200 Watershed Analysis.
Watershed Sciences (USU) 5640 Riparian Ecology and Management.
Watershed Sciences (USU) 5490 Small Watershed Hydrology, Guest lectured on GIS applications
in hydrology and watershed modeling.
Environment and Society (USU) 6200 Bioregional Analysis and Planning, Guest lectured on
analysis and assessment of watershed hydrology, four 2-hr class periods.
Natural Resources and Environment (UMich) 511 Introduction to Aquatic Ecosystems, TA
20
20201221-5392 Filed Date: 05/13/2021
12/21/2020
responsible for laboratory content delivery, taught 5-hr laboratory sections and led field trips
for two semesters.
Natural Resources and Environment (UMich) 435 Forest Ecology, TA and assisted in content
delivery, taught field laboratory section.
Natural Resources and Environment (UMich) 337/437 Biology and Identification of Woody
Plants, TA, fully responsible for two 5-hr field laboratory sections, taught 4 semesters.
Environmental Law Program (Vermont Law School) Watershed Management and Protection, TA
developed and delivered field laboratory for a capstone course.
Maine Conservation School, Forest Ecology and Limnology, assisted in developing content, fully
responsible for instruction to high-school and continuing education students
SERVICE TO THE DEPARTMENT, UNIVERSITY, COMMUNITY, and PROFESSION
SERVICE TO THE DEPARTMENT
2019-2020 Chair, Promotion & Tenure Committee (2)

2018-19 Human Geography Search Committee, GES, UMBC
2016-17 Chair, GIS/Geovisualizaton Search Committee, GES, UMBC
2015-present Undergraduate Committee, GES, UMBC
2015-2016 Graduate Committee, GES, UMBC
2015-present Graduate Program Director, MPS in GIS program
2012-present Junior Faculty Mentor
2011-present GES Promotion & Tenure Committee
2011-2019 Chair, GIS committee, GES, UMBC
2014-15 GIS Search Committee, GES, UMBC
2012-13 Chair, Biogeography Search Committee, GES, UMBC
2012-2013 Writing Across the Geography Curriculum committee, GES, UMBC
2010-2014 Graduate Committee, GES, UMBC
2009-2011 GIS Committee, GES, UMBC
2008-9 Environmental Policy Search Committee, GES, UMBC
2008-present Undergraduate Advisor, GES, UMBC
2008 Watershed Management Faculty Search Committee, WATS, USU
2008 Instructor of record, Graduate Student Seminar, GES, UMBC
21
20201221-5392 Filed Date: 05/13/2021
12/21/2020
2005-8 Undergraduate Advisor, Dept. of Watershed Sciences, USU

2005-8 Graduate Affairs Committee, Dept. of Watershed Sciences, USU
SERVICE TO THE UNIVERSITY
2019 Member, Search Committee, UMBC Athletic Director

2019-2020 Co-leader, Transfer Student Success Pilot, Office of the Provost
2017-present Faculty Athletic Representative to the NCAA, UMBC
2017-present Athletic Policy Committee, UMBC
2016-2017 Vice President, Faculty Senate, UMBC
2016-2017 Executive Committee, UMBC
2016-2017 Academic Planning & Budget Committee, UMBC
2016-2017 University Steering Committee, UMBC
2016-2017 Academic Programming and Budget Committee, UMBC
2015-2020 Co-Chair, Climate Action Steering Committee, UMBC
2015-2020 CERA steering committee, UMBC
2014-2018 ILSB Research Technical Advisory Committee, UMBC
2012-2016 Co-Chair, Course Evaluation Implementation Committee, UMBC
2012-2013 Executive Committee, UMBC
2012-2013 Chair, Faculty Affairs Committee, UMBC
2012 Faculty Development Center, Search Committee, UMBC
2011-14 iCubed Faculty Mentor
2011-2013 Faculty Affairs Committee, UMBC
2006-8 Chair, Information Technology Committee, College of Natural Resources,
Utah State University
2000-1 Dean Search Committee, School of Natural Resources and Environment, U. of
Michigan
1998-2001 Newcomb Tract Caretaker, School of Natural Resources & Environment, U. of
Michigan
1997-9 Graduate Student Representative, School of Natural Resources & Environment,
U. of Michigan
1997-8 Ecosystem Management Committee, , School of Natural Resources &
Environment, U. of Michigan
SERVICE TO THE COMMUNTIY
22
20201221-5392 Filed Date: 05/13/2021
12/21/2020
2020 Panelist, White River International Earth Day Film Festival

2020 Member, Science Advisory Council, The Nature Conservancy Upper Allegheny Flow
Management Plan
2016-2018 Advisory Committee, Baltimore Green Network Plan
2014-2017 Technical Review Committee, Anne Arundel County Biological Monitoring and
Assessment Program
2012-present Advisor, Baltimore Greenspace
2001-08 Member, Science Advisory Council, The Nature Conservancy Emiquon Floodplain
Restoration Project
2001-05 Member, Board of Directors. The Lake Michigan Federation (Now Alliance for the
Great Lakes)
SERVICE TO THE PROFESSION
2019 Promotion & Tenure Review (University of Connecticut)

2018 Promotion & Tenure Review (Vassar College)
2018-present Associate Editor, Freshwater Science
2016 Promotion & Tenure review (University of Maryland, College Park)
2016 Promotion & Tenure review (University of Michigan)
2016-2017 Local Host, 2017 Annual Meeting, International Association of Landscape Ecology
(IALE), U.S. Chapter
2015-2018 International Association of Landscape Ecology (IALE), U.S. Chapter: Executive
Board
2015 Promotion & Tenure review (University of Maryland, Center for Environmental &
Estuarine Science)
2014 Convening Co-Chair, Special Session: Modeling and mapping spatiotemporal patterns of
stream biodiversity in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Chesapeake Research Consortium
Modeling Symposium, Annapolis, MD
2013 Promotion & Tenure review (Pennsylvania State University)
2010-2016 IALE, U.S. Chapter: Site Selection Committee
2010-2011 National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Challenges and
Opportunities in the Hydrologic Sciences, Contributor
2009-10 National Science Foundation Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant Panel
2008-10 IALE, U.S. Chapter: Executive Board
2008-10 IALE, U.S. Chapter: Chair-Site Selection Committee
2006 Convening Chair, AGU Special Session: Interactions between Watershed Characteristics,
23
20201221-5392 Filed Date: 05/13/2021
12/21/2020
Stream Dynamics, and Water Quality, Baltimore, MD

2005-08 American Geophysical Union, Water Quality Committee
2003-05 IALE, U.S. Chapter: Strategic Planning Review Committee
Ad Hoc Reviewer for:
American Fisheries Society; American Geophysical Union; Aquatic Ecology; Biological

Conservation; Biological Invasions; CALFED Ecosystem Restoration Program; CALFED Science
Program; Ecology; Chesapeake Bay Trust; Conservation Biology; Delaware SeaGrant; Ecography;
Ecological Applications; Ecological Engineering; Ecological Indicators; Ecological Monographs;
Ecological Restoration; Ecology; Ecosphere; Ecosystems; Environmental Management;
Environmental Modeling & Software; Environmental Monitoring & Assessment; Environmental
Reviews; Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts; Environmental Science & Technology;
Fisheries Management & Ecology; Freshwater Biology; Freshwater Science; Geomorphology;
Hydrobiologia; Hydrological Processes; International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and
Geoinformation; International Journal of the Digital Earth; Journal of the American Water
Resources Association; Journal of Applied Ecology; Journal of Applied Geography; Journal of
Ecology; Journal of Environmental Management; Journal of Forestry; Journal of Hydrology;
Journal of the North American Benthological Society (now Freshwater Science); Journal of
Urban Ecology; Journal of Vegetation Science; Landscape Ecology; Limnology and
Oceanography; Methods in Ecology & Evolution; Michigan SeaGrant; National Science
Foundation; New Phytologist; Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing; PLoS One;
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences; Restoration Ecology; Science of the Total
Environment; Urban Forestry and Urban Greening; US Geological Survey; Water Research;
Water Resources Research; Wetlands
24
Exhibit B
Greenstar Environmental Solutions, LLC

6 Gellatly Drive
Wappingers Falls, NY 12590
December 18, 2020
Ben Luckett
Senior Attorney
Appalachian Mountain Advocates
PO Box 507
Lewisburg, WV 24901
RE: Hydrogeologic Review of Mountain Valley Pipeline Documents
Dear Mr. Luckett:
Greenstar appreciates the opportunity to submit the attached hydrogeologic comments for the
documents associated with the Mountain Valley Pipeline.
Comments are attached to this letter.
Please do not hesitate to contact Pete Nimmer at (917) 655-5123 with questions.
Sincerely,
GREENSTAR ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
Pete Nimmer, PG, LSRP

Senior Geologist
Page 2
COMMENTS ON MOUNTAIN VALLEY PIPELINE’S REQUESTED AMENDMENT

TO ITS CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC (MVP), has requested that the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) amend its Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to allow the
construction of the Project between Mileposts 0 and 77 by crossing 69 waterbodies using 41
conventional boreholes instead of the open-cut method addressed in the Final Environmental
Impact Statement (FEIS) and currently authorized by MVP’s Certificate. MVP contends this
requested change would have limited, if any, environmental impacts beyond those that have
already been assessed in the FEIS and approved by the Commission. Additionally, MVP notes
the requested change to conventional borehole crossings will not result in a change in land
requirements compared to what was previously reviewed.
However, a review of the limited documentation MVP provided establishes that significant
adverse consequences are likely to occur from this change of waterbody crossing method.
Moreover, the information MVP has provided is incomplete and inadequate to fully assess the
environmental impacts that may occur.
MVP’s assertion in its application that its proposed actions “would have limited, if any,
environmental impacts beyond those that have already been assessed and approved by the
Commission” does not withstand scrutiny. The requested change includes drilling below water
bodies, construction of pits, significant dewatering operations, and other industrial activities
which were not considered in the FEIS approved by the Commission. The potential adverse
consequences of these actions—including disruption of groundwater flow, harm to drinking
water supplies, dewatering of surface waters, and catastrophic failure of the pipe—will present
significant harm to surface water and groundwater resources. These impacts were likewise not
considered in the FEIS. MVP’s proposed methodologies threaten significant adverse
consequences, but the information MVP has provided to date does not allow FERC to adequately
assess the environmental impacts of the proposed actions. Accordingly, FERC should not
authorize the proposed actions until it gathers sufficient information regarding the boring
operations, as detailed below, such that it can rationally assess, consider, and disclose to the
public the likely impacts of MVP’s proposal.
POTENTIAL ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES
Numerous adverse consequences are likely when using conventional boreholes to cross
waterbodies. Major issues are raised by using conventional boring techniques, and those issues
were not addressed in the original Environmental Impact Statement, in which only open-trench
crossing methods were assessed for the waterbodies implicated by MVP’s pending application.
 Surface Water, Flood Plain, and Wetlands Dewatering - The construction of

boreholes through or below wetlands and surface water bodies and flood plains is likely
to create hydraulic conduits that can change groundwater flow conditions and
groundwater/surface water interaction. Use of conventional boring increases the
likelihood of dewatering compared to the open-cut crossing methods discussed in the
FEIS. Conventional boring creates dewatering risks because of its significant impacts on
soil characteristics, which lead to the formation of preferential hydraulic conduits along
Page 3
the borehole due to increases in soil porosity and/or permeability. The disruption of these
areas, and increased turbidity caused by the project, will adversely impact ecosystems
within the surrounding surface water bodies, flood plains and wetland areas, as well as
the wildlife habitats in these areas. Information provided by MVP in the December 11,
2020 Response to Environmental Information Request notes that pumping from bore pits
can accommodate up to 396 gallons per minute and MVP will run pumps sufficient to
control infiltration rates up to 2,750 gallons per minute. These values provide an
understanding of the volume groundwater that may be pumped from bore pits depending
on soil types and groundwater conditions. Dewatering rates of this magnitude are likely
to result in significant changes to surface water bodies, although the applicant does not
discuss what effects may result or how effects will be mitigated, or where water will be
pumped and how turbidity of the discharge will be managed to prevent fouling of surface
water resources. Further, MVP notes that groundwater withdrawal may result in short
term changes in groundwater in the immediate vicinity of bore pits. A groundwater
modeling study is cited which notes measurable affects for groundwater withdrawal up to
300 ft from the bore pits. The large volumes of water which may be pumped (hundreds
to thousands of gallons per minute) have a significant likelihood to affect nearby surface
water or groundwater. As discussed further below, it is clear there are more residences
within 150 ft than have been identified. MVP notes that measurable effects of
groundwater pumping is at least 300 ft based on similar projects. The radius of influence
from dewatering at bore pits may be larger than 300 ft depending on geologic conditions,
soil types, bedrock geology, well depth, and other variables.
 Changes in Groundwater and Surface Water Interaction - Formation of preferential

flow conduits will cause changes in groundwater flow compared to current conditions
due to creating a hydraulic connection that does not currently exist. These new hydraulic
connections pose potentially very serious risks to wetlands and surface waters. Drilling
boreholes can cause changes to long term groundwater flow patterns or wetland
conditions resulting in significant degradation of wetland, surface water or aquatic habitat
or groundwater use. Borehole-created conduits can cause dewatering of wetland areas,
significant changes in the size and quality of wetlands, or permanent drying of wetlands
and subsequent loss of habitat in these areas1. These potential impacts from drilling were
not considered in the Final Environmental Impact Statement.
 Groundwater Use - Groundwater resources in the area of the crossings may be used for
residential or commercial uses. The proposed drilling methods have a significant
likelihood of threatening groundwater use through degradation of groundwater quality
which can cause drinking water well failure or pollution, changes in groundwater yield
rates and adverse changes in groundwater quality. These issues were not considered in
the Final Environmental Impact Statement when open-cut crossings were considered and
approved.
 Current and Future Flooding - Crossing depths may not be adequate to prevent
pipeline surfacing within or adjacent to a water body, or damage during flood events. If
flooding results in unanticipated amounts of lateral and/or vertical erosion, pipeline
damage may occur which could cause the release of pressurized gas directly into surface
1 A related issue is the result of a failed borehole. If a borehole cannot be completed the failed borehole has the
potential to become a major underground hydraulic conduit which may result in dewatering of surface water bodies.
Page 4
water bodies, and subsequently, the atmosphere, resulting in significant damage to

groundwater, surface water, and water resources, and threatening a catastrophic explosion
event. Moreover, consideration must be given to the increased frequency and size of
flood events due to climate change as related to crossing depths. Future conditions may
have an increased likelihood of pipeline damage at water body crossings.
This report takes at face value Mountain Valley’s statement that conventional bores will be used
for all crossings and other technologies (i.e., HDD or Microtunneling) will not be used which
require pressurized drilling fluids. If other boring technologies and drilling fluids were used,
these would add significant risk to water bodies. For example, near surface injection of these
drilling fluids poses a major potential risk that was not considered in the FEIS. Large volumes of
pressurized fluids can be injected during drilling. Because the fluids are pressurized, they can
move in unexpected directions, including upwards, and discharge into surface water or wetlands
or into aquifers used for drinking water. The crossings being proposed are very close to the
surface and therefore, should pressurized drilling fluids be used, they would have a significant
risk of moving into surface water. Additionally, fluids may be stored in pits near surface water
or wetlands which also have a potential for release. A release of drilling fluids into surface
waters or groundwater will have significant environmental affects due to the high pH of fluids,
elevated turbidity and chemicals in the drilling fluid. Any release has the potential to cause acute
or chronic human health or ecological impacts. Releases of drilling fluids are frequent
occurrences during drilling operations. At these locations, should drilling fluids reach wetlands,
surface water bodies, or groundwater resources, significant short term and long term impacts
would result. The speed at which a drilling fluid release is detected is largely governed by the
magnitude of the release. Therefore, small or moderate releases are not likely to be recognized
before damage is done to sensitive resources and water bodies.
MISSING INFORMATION AND DATA GAPS
The information provided in the application and its supporting materials does not provide critical
information necessary to determine the extent of the significant environmental issues that may
result from the proposed change in crossing method. Most significantly, necessary information
is not included to assess how changes in groundwater or surface water flow and quality may be
affected during boring or in the future. At a minimum, the following information needs to be
provided by the applicant—and considered by FERC—to assess the potential environmental
impacts related to the proposed change in crossing method.
 Geologic Conditions at Borehole Locations - The documents do not include pre-

borehole characterization of geologic conditions at crossings. Without this information it
is not possible to assess the likelihood of encountering geologic conditions which may
prevent completion of boreholes, or to anticipate and prevent problems with the proposed
drilling method. For example, the presence of boulders or weathered bedrock that may
prevent borehole completion should be expected at crossings unless sufficient site-
specific data has been collected that demonstrate favorable conditions are present.
Similarly, the depth of the soil/bedrock interface is not discussed and no information is
provided related to soil thickness, bedrock hardness which may affect drilling, or
presence of fracturing or permeability that may increase the likelihood of forming an
unintentional hydraulic connection between surface water and groundwater. Without
characterization of subsurface conditions in advance of the borehole there is an increased
risk of failure or encountering unexpected conditions such as borehole collapse.
Page 5
 Groundwater Use – There is limited information provided regarding current

groundwater use, documenting current conditions, or addressing how the proposed
drilling activities will protect drinking water aquifers. Information provided in the
December 11, 2020 Response to Environmental Information Request notes one former
well is known to be present, although this data is based on publicly available databases.
However, other documentation provided by MVP related to noise indicates at least 2
other residences are located within 150 ft and 10 additional residences are located within
300 ft of the drilling locations. Therefore, it is very likely that other drinking water wells
are located near all or some of the crossings, and further investigation is needed to
quantify the actual number of residences and private wells that may be affected by the
proposed drilling. The documentation provided does not demonstrate that the borehole
depths are properly located away from aquifers that are currently used for drinking water,
or may be in the future. There is no discussion on the radius of potential impacts
associated with the borehole drilling relative to public and private drinking water
supplies. For example, the boreholes and tunneling excavation activities can potentially
interfere with groundwater aquifers, whether unconsolidated or bedrock aquifers and have
the potential to alter the groundwater flow pattern and aquifer capacity. These alterations
can lead to unsafe drinking water conditions or impacts to private wells and/or public
water supply sources in the surrounding area. Since any groundwater drawdown alters
the natural hydrogeological flow system, it can consequently impact groundwater-
dependent vegetation, surface streams, lakes, wetlands, and associated aquatic
ecosystems, including springs and wells. Information must be provided by the applicant
and addressed by FERC to assess the potential hydrological and drinking water impact of
the proposed Certificate amendment and to ensure that appropriate measures are
implemented to minimize effects on people nearby.
 Surface Water, Flood Plain and Wetland Conditions – No information is provided

regarding depths of water bodies, bathometry of surface water at crossings, cross-
sections, an understanding of bank conditions and how these compare to the proposed
depth of the each borehole. Without this information, it cannot be determined that the
burial depth of boreholes will be sufficient to prevent the conventional bore from
surfacing within water bodies, whether during drilling or later during flood events. No
information is provided about the geologic conditions or substrates of each water body
(bedrock, clay, sand, etc.) or whether streambeds are likely to be eroded laterally or
horizontally during flood. The expected amount of lateral migration of waterbodies at
crossing and how this compares to the proposed pipeline burial extent and depth and
locations is not discussed. Upstream conditions which may affect the erosion rate at the
crossings are not discussed. The amount of vertical and lateral safety margins are not
discussed. The process for future maintenance of the pipeline within water bodies, and
how this will be completed, is not discussed. This information is necessary to assess
whether the proposed drilling method is likely to be successful, and the degree of
environmental impacts that could result.
 Identification and Preventing of Drilling Fluid Release – Although Mountain Valley’s

application asserts that it is seeking permission only to implement the conventional bore
method, and that such a method does not use pressurized drilling fluids, if Mountain
Valley were to employ a method requiring pressurized drilling fluid, further information
would be required. A review of MVP’s Inadvertent Return Plan that it included as part of
Page 6
its preconstruction notification to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers when it sought
verification that it was authorized to construct its stream crossings under Nationwide
Permit 12 reveals that neither that plan nor anything else in the docket for the pending
application provides detail on how an inadvertent return or release of drilling fluids into
wetlands or surface water will be adequately prevented. The Inadvertent Return Plan has
general descriptions of what steps may occur after an inadvertent release but no details
are provided on how drilling fluid releases will be prevented from occurring. Before it
approves a method that requires the use of pressurized drilling fluids, FERC should
require further information addressing how the release of drilling fluids will be
prevented. Given that the magnitude of the release is directly related to how quickly the
release will be identified, small or moderate releases are not likely to be recognized
before damage is done to sensitive resources and water bodies. There are no specifics
included which may address how releases of drilling fluids will be quickly identified.
Similarly, the Supplemental Environmental Report for Proposed Conventional Bore
Waterbody and Wetland Crossings from Mileposts 0 to 77, November 2020 notes boring
operations may require 24-hour operation. Visual observations are a primary method
identified in the Boring Procedures and Inadvertent Return Plan to identify if drilling
fluid releases occur. The plan does not indicate how visual observations will be made if
drilling activities are occurring after dark.
 Prevention and Contingencies for Failed Boreholes – One or more failed boreholes
should be considered a likely possibility given the size of the individual crossings (up to
260 ft long), the cumulative total borehole distance (4,295 ft), and varying geologic
conditions at the 41 different locations. Several such conditions would result in a
borehole that cannot be completed to its intended length such as unexpected geology,
problematic geology or soils, or equipment issues. The descriptions of the proposed
boring technology provided in the Supplemental Environmental Report for Proposed
Conventional Bore Waterbody and Wetland Crossings from Mileposts 0 to 77, November
2020 Section 1.4 (i.e., Conventional Bore) note that boulders and cobbles up to one third
of the diameter of the installed pipe can be accommodated by the drilling method.
However, there is a very limited discussion of what actions will be taken if obstacles are
encountered which cannot be accommodated by the drilling method, or what will occur if
boreholes are abandoned to prevent environmental impacts. The December 11, 2020
Response to Environmental Information Request Issued December 2, 2020 notes:
If the bore is determined to be unsuccessful based on encountering one or

more issues identified above, Mountain Valley will notify FERC inspectors
it intends to shift the bore entry ten feet to either side of the original bore
entry and attempt another conventional bore. Should the failed bore
involve stuck pipe, following an attempt at standard recovery techniques,
the pipe from the failed bore will be abandoned in place and backfilled
with grout. In the event of a bore failure, Mountain Valley would seek any
necessary variances or applicable approvals to revise the proposed
crossing method.
This limited description is not a contingency plan for how a failed borehole will be
properly abandoned to prevent forming a major hydraulic conduit underlying wetlands or
surface water which may cause dewatering of surface water bodies. The large diameter
Page 7
of the proposed boreholes has the potential to result in formation of a very large conduit
that could result in the diversion of significant quantities of surface water or groundwater.
In addition to a comprehensive plan to prevent failed boreholes to identify contingencies,
information should be provided on how often boreholes fail to reach their objective
length, which collapse or have an inadvertent return resulting in release of drilling
lubricants or water. Although it claims in its Response to Environmental Information
Request to have “successfully completed more than 35 conventional bore crossings of
more than 45 streams and wetlands between MP 0 and 77” MVP should provide
information on the number of failed, incomplete or collapsed boreholes which have
occurred on this or similar projects to evaluate how likely these occurrences may be.
 Assessment of Climate Change – There is no information provided regarding how

conditions at each crossing may change due to the future effects of climate change.
Climate change is likely to increase the magnitude of future flood events. Larger and
more frequent hurricanes and tropical storms are forecast to occur due to a warming
climate. It is necessary to understand the hydrogeological features that may be affected
by greater water inflow into the borehole from the surface water. Rainfall events with
larger magnitude than current conditions will result in greater channel responses such as
increased erosion and/or aggradation such as channel bank and bed erosion, lateral
migration and/or channel changes, and inundation of floodplains and wetlands. These
significant potential risks, which were not discussed in the FEIS as related to borehole
drilling and pipeline placement, need to be carefully assessed, discussed, and addressed.
These factors should not be ignored because of their powerful ability to exceed the design
capacity of the bore or pipeline construction. A range of flood event discharges that
adequately represent current and future flood hydrographs over time need to be modeled
to assess hydraulic processes and channel responses when quantifying design
considerations for surface water crossings.
 Impact Detection Procedures - There is no information provided about how impacts

will be monitored to reduce likelihood of damage to surface water or groundwater
resources. To identify impacts to water resources, first baseline monitoring should be
conducted prior to construction so current conditions are identified, understood and
documented. Next, close monitoring of groundwater and surface water resources should
be conducted during drilling so any impacts will be observed early before significant
damage to resources can occur. Lastly, long term data should be collected and assessed
to demonstrate there have been no long term changes that may result in resource harm.
Plans including these elements should be provided so impacts of the proposed waterbody
crossings can be evaluated. These monitoring elements were not included in the FEIS for
the previous crossing methods.
It is clear that numerous adverse consequences are likely when using boreholes to cross below or
within waterbodies. Direct harm to sensitive receptors and important water resources should be
considered as possible or likely occurrences. Issues related to drilling were not considered in the
original Environmental Impact Statement when open trench crossing methods were assessed.
Providing additional information to address these issues is necessary to fully evaluate the
significant environmental harm that may result from the proposed drilling activities.
Page 8
December 11, 2020 Response to Environmental Information Request

Issued December 2, 2020
Mountain Valley submitted a letter dated December 11, 2020 to address FERC’s December 2,
2020 Environmental Information Request. Comments on that submission are provided below.
Response to Comment No. 2
Original Comment: Indicate the timing for determining whether or not a particular conventional
bore is infeasible based on conditions. Describe the contingency plan for the conventional bore
crossings if the bore is deemed infeasible.
The information provided by MVP in this response indicates a contingency plan will be
implemented if the bore is deemed infeasible. However, the response does not provide a
description of an actual contingency plan. Among other issues, a contingency plan should assess
how the decision will be made to terminate a bore, how the bore will be properly abandoned so it
does not create a hydraulic conduit or damage overlying surface water, inspections, or what
actions will be taken to prevent bore collapse or limit the potential for a release of pressurized
drilling fluids. The location of the bore will be an important variable to consider, because a
failed bore under a large stream has the potential for a much larger impact than under a smaller
tributary. These issues are not discussed in the response to comment.
Original Comment: Identify all private and public groundwater wells and springs within
150 feet of the proposed bore pits.
Response: Based on publicly available databases and contacts with landowners that
began in 2017 and has continued to the present, one private groundwater well is located
within 150 feet of the proposed bore pits. A private well is located at MP 25.8
approximately 30 feet southwest of the bore pit on the northern side of crossing A-013.
This well is on a vacant parcel that previously contained a house trailer that was
removed in 2017, and the well is currently not in use. No known springs or public
groundwater wells are located within 150 feet of the proposed bore pits.
Information provided by MVP the December 11, 2020 letter notes one former well is known to
be present although this data is based on publicly available databases and land owner outreach.
However, other documentation provided by MVP in in Attachment 11-A – Nearest Noise
Sensitive Area documents there are 2 residences located within 150 ft of bore pits (at crossings
A-013 and A-014) and at least 10 additional residences are located within 300 ft of the drilling
locations. Therefore, it is clear there are more residences within 150 ft than have been identified.
Moreover, the groundwater modeling study cited notes measurable affects for groundwater
withdrawal up to 300 ft from the bore pits. Therefore, 300 ft should be used as a minimum
estimate of the distance groundwater impacts may extend from each location. A brief review of
USGS maps and Google Street View suggests there may be other residences or commercial
buildings close to bore pits or drilling areas. These are all likely to have shallow drinking water
wells which may be impacted by drilling activities or are subject to potential degradation of
water quality.
Page 9
It is worth noting that private wells in rural areas are not likely to be represented in publicly
available databases that MVP used to search for drinking water wells. Also, the number of
residences that were successfully contacted during public outreach is not known. Instead of
relying on databases and limited outreach, a comprehensive survey should be completed to
accurately identify how many residences and wells are within 500 feet of drilling areas, or which
may be affected by bore operations. Springs are another potential source of potable water, and
the presence or absence of nearby springs should also be quantified. A monitoring plan should
be developed for these receptors to assess current conditions and ascertain what effects may be
due to drilling work in the near or long term.
Original Comment 4. Section 1.4.1 of the Supplemental Plan states “Bore-pit dewatering may
be required 24 hours per day.” and “The specific need for, and amount of, dewatering required
for each waterbody or wetland crossing cannot be determined until each individual trench or
bore-pit excavation begins.” The depths of many of the pits shown in Appendix C exceed the
practical lifting capacity of centrifugal surface pumps and may require additional pumping
schemes such as well points or combination of surface pumps and deeper dewatering. Given the
number and depth of the bore pits, and the potential duration of pumping to keep the pits dry in
order to advance the bore(s), provide:
a. a description of the means and methods necessary to pump water from each
of the proposed bore pits;
b. an assessment of the rate and volume of water pumped from the bore pits
and the anticipated duration of pumping needed; and
c. a description of possible water-level drawdown impacts on nearby wells,
springs, and wetlands within 150 feet of the bore pits.
The response provided by MVP to Comment 4a and b notes that pumping from bore pits can
accommodate up to 396 gallons per minute and MVP will run pumps sufficient to control
infiltration rates up to 2,750 gallons per minute. These values provide an understanding of the
potential volume groundwater which may be pumped from bore pits depending on soil types and
groundwater conditions. The response to Comment 4c notes that groundwater withdrawal may
result in short term changes in groundwater in the immediate vicinity of bore pits. A
groundwater modeling study is cited which notes measurable affects for groundwater withdrawal
up to 300 ft from the bore pits.
The large volumes of water which may be pumped (hundreds to thousands of gallons per minute)
have a significant likelihood to affect nearby streams and drinking water sources. As noted
above, it is clear there are more residences within 150 ft than have been identified. MVP notes
that measurable effects of groundwater pumping is at least 300 ft based on similar projects. The
radius of influence from bore pits may be larger than 300 ft depending on geologic conditions,
soil types, bedrock geology, well depth, and other variables. For these reasons a comprehensive
assessment of groundwater drinking water wells within at least 300 ft should be developed for
each crossing location. Location specific data on wells, well depths, flow rates and water
elevation should be collected and provided to document baseline conditions and how future
conditions will be monitored to ensure there is no lasting environmental impacts due to the
proposed borehole drilling. Significant changes to water table elevations due to pumping, even if
temporary, can result in significant long term degradation of water quality at nearby drinking
water wells.

Senior Geologist, Professional Geologist
Licensed Site Remediation Professional
Education:
• M.S. Geology 1991, University of Iowa
• B.S. Geology, 1989, State University of New York at Stony Brook
Licenses/Certifications:
• New Jersey Licensed Site Remediation Professional (LSRP) No. 513636
• Professional Geologist License, State of New York, License No. 000794-1
• Professional Geologist License, State of Washington No. 2404
• 40 Hour OSHA with annual updates
Experience:
• Extensive experience with geology, hydrogeology and environmental sites involving groundwater flow and
contamination
• Groundwater modeling for sites with complex hydrogeology
• Remediation of groundwater within fractured bedrock
• Planning and management of complex hydrogeology projects including karst settings
• Assessment of surface water interaction with groundwater
• Aquifer yield assessments using pumping tests and computer modeling
• Optimizing long-term monitoring programs using statistics
• Assessment of complex sites involving numerous individual source areas
• Development of groundwater models used to assist in remedial design and predictive scenarios
Professional Overview:
Mr. Nimmer is a licensed Professional Geologist and New Jersey Licensed Site Remediation Professional with
experience with technical oversight for numerous environmental projects and a founding partner of Greenstar
Environmental Solutions, LLC. He has extensive experience designing, managing, and executing investigation of
groundwater issues. He has extensive experience designing, managing, and executing aquifer studies in bedrock and
karst, well yield assessments and hydrogeology investigations. He has worked extensively on-site cleanups from
initial investigation to site closeout. Clients include commercial entities, insurance companies, government
agencies, attorneys and not-for-profit clients.
Mr. Nimmer is currently the LSRP of record for several sites involving groundwater flow and cleanup. He has over
27 years of experience in the environmental industry. Mr. Nimmer has completed site assessment and closure at
numerous sites nation-wide. He has managed programs with numerous sites undergoing simultaneous investigation
and remediation.
Project Experience:
Bedrock Extraction Well Installation, New Jersey; 2005 – Present; Project Manager and Technical Leader—
Greenstar has completed several large pumping tests in conjunction with locating and designing groundwater
extraction wells. Pumping tests have included multi-day flow assessments, use of data loggers to monitor water
elevations in numerous observation wells, calculation of aquifer parameters, well design, well installation and
connection to pumping system. Completed slug testing to determine hydraulic conductivity at over 100 locations as
part of aquifer assessment. A total of 13 extraction wells have been installed in fractured bedrock at this site.
Bedrock Groundwater Yield Assessment, New Jersey, 2011 – Present; Technical Lead — As part of pre-design
study, completed aquifer flow assessments including slug testing, calculation of hydraulic conductivity, groundwater
yield and reporting.
Multi-Year Groundwater Flow Assessment, Calvert City, Kentucky; 2011 – Present; Project Manager and
Technical Leader — Completed a multi-year groundwater flow assessment in support of remedial design at
Superfund site undergoing remediation using groundwater extraction system. Deployed pressure transducers,
collected data and provided detailed groundwater flow assessment based on results. This site is a complex
overburden site with interbedded clay, silt and sand and complex flow conditions.
Hydrogeology Assessments; Project Manager and LSRP of Record—Completed hydrogeology assessments for
numerous sites throughout the Northeast. Sites include those with impacted groundwater, assessment of
groundwater flow related to collection trenches, pump and treat systems, closed landfills and sites in complex
geologic conditions such as fractured bedrock. Prepared reports for Federal, State and community groups.
Groundwater Modeling of Groundwater Flow; Project Manager and Technical Lead—Manager of numerous
groundwater modeling assessments completed to assess groundwater and surface water interactions, effects on
surface water or wetlands due to groundwater withdrawal or injection.
Chlorinated Solvent Release, Somerset, New Jersey; 2005 – Present; Project Manager and LSRP of Record—
LSRP of record for a former research laboratory. Managed soil remediation and obtained No Further Action
approval for all site soils. Completed Remedial Investigation for groundwater and sub-slab vapor concerns of
chlorinated solvent with significant groundwater flow concerns. Completed all aspects of large scale bedrock
groundwater investigation including installation of numerous monitoring wells, low flow groundwater sampling,
groundwater remediation using combined pump and treat and in-situ chemical reduction of solvents using zero
valiance iron. Planned and managed sub-slab vapor investigation and remediation program. Submitted numerous
documents to NJDEP and other agencies including public notices, vapor intrusion work plans and reports, Remedial
Investigation Report, Remedial Action Reports, Classification Exemption Area, Well Search, groundwater remedial
action permits, groundwater remediation reports, Quality Assurance Project Plans and Data of Known Quality
reviews.
Petroleum Release Site, Elizabeth, New Jersey; 2012 – Present; Project Manager and LSRP of Record—
LSRP of record for a former industrial site with gasoline and fuel oil release. Overseen site remediation,
groundwater remediation via monitored natural attenuation, and remedial action.
Petroleum Release Site, South Hackensack, New Jersey; 2013 – Present; LSRP of Record—LSRP of Record
for a property with petroleum release and groundwater lead plume. Overseeing all aspects of LSRP program
including groundwater sampling via low flow sampling method, assessment of groundwater trends, and review of
historic fill issues.
Numerous Sites Undergoing PA/RI/RA, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Massachusetts; 2010 –
Present; GPR and Geophysical Technical Lead —Technical manager for ground penetrating radar and
geophysics for numerous sites in New Jersey and the North East United States. Has overseen and completed
numerous site assessments using GPR to locate tanks, lines, landfills, underground lines, septic fields, and extent of
previous soil remedial excavations. Sites have included former gas stations, dry cleaners, industrial sites, vehicle
maintenance and operation facilities and military facilities.
National Phase 2 Program, Nation Wide, 2010 – 2012; Project Manager — Project manager for nation-wide
Phase 2 investigation program. Investigated numerous properties undergoing property transfer to assess
environmental conditions and provide recommendations for remediation. Managed technical and subcontractor
resources during completion of numerous Phase 2 environmental site investigations.
Former Gasoline Station Brown Field Site, New York, 2010 – Present; Project Manager — Project manager
for investigation and remediation of former gasoline filling station impacted by petroleum from leaking USTs.
Completed soil and groundwater remedial investigation of site, developed alternative analysis plans for property and
negotiated with State regulators. Site is an unused Brownfield that is being renovated for commercial and
residential use.
OTHER PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:
Technical Report Preparation and Review—Prepared planning documents for landfills and hazardous site
activities, including environmental Phase 1 and 2 reports, Work Plans, Field Sampling Plans, and Safety and Health
Plans. Has completed CERCLA documents for Superfund sites on the National Priority List, including Remedial
Investigations, Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, Long-Term Monitoring Plans, Monitoring Event Reports, Five
Year Reviews, Annual Sampling reports, Health and Safety Plans, and Quality Assurance / Quality Control Plans.
Provided review for FERC documents related to the Falls Street Tunnel Improvements for the Lewiston Reservoir in
Niagara Falls, New York.
Not-For-Profit Experience- Not for profit experience includes completing environmental assessments prior to
property purchase for Open Space Institute for multiple properties in New York State. Professional assessment of
sub-slab vapor concern for Dutchess County Community Action in New York. Provided consulting services related
to wetlands issues and surface water flow for the Harvey School in Millbrook, New York. Provided environmental
assessments of 14 properties in Middletown, New York to facilitate grant funding.
Exhibit C
Greenstar Environmental Solutions, LLC

6 Gellatly Drive
Wappingers Falls, NY 12590
April 15, 2021
Ben Luckett
Senior Attorney
Appalachian Mountain Advocates
PO Box 507
Lewisburg, WV 24901
RE: Hydrogeologic Review of Mountain Valley Pipeline Documents
Dear Mr. Luckett:
Greenstar appreciates the opportunity to submit the attached hydrogeologic comments for the
documents associated with the Mountain Valley Pipeline.
Comments are attached to this letter.
Please do not hesitate to contact Pete Nimmer at (917) 655-5123 with questions.
Sincerely,
GREENSTAR ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS

Senior Geologist
Page 2
COMMENTS ON
FERC’S JANUARY 7, 2021 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT,
MOUNTAIN VALLEY PIPELINE’S FEBRUARY 2021 APPLICATIONS TO AMEND
ITS CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY AND FOR AN
INDIVIDUAL SECTION 404 PERMIT, FERC’S MARCH 12, 2021 ENVIRONMENTAL
INFORMATION REQUEST, AND MOUNTAIN VALLEY PIPELINE’S MARCH 29,
2021 RESPONSE
Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC (MVP), has requested that the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) amend its Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to allow the use
of several boring methods at 120 locations to cross 182 streams and wetlands instead of the
open-cut method addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and currently
authorized by MVP’s Certificate.
MVP’s assertion that its project will have “negligible effect on water supply and conservation” 1
is not supported by the provided documentation. As noted in previous comments provided in
December 2020, the requested change includes the possibility of potential adverse consequences
including drilling below water bodies, construction of pits, significant dewatering operations, and
other industrial activities which were not considered in the FEIS approved by the Commission. 2
The potential adverse consequences of these actions—including disruption of groundwater flow,

harm to drinking water supplies, dewatering of surface waters, inadvertent return of drilling
fluids, and catastrophic failure of the pipe—present significant harm to surface water and
groundwater resources. Accordingly, FERC should not authorize the proposed actions until it
gathers sufficient information regarding the boring operations and potable wells, as detailed
below, such that it can rationally assess, consider, and disclose to the public the likely impacts of
MVP’s proposal.
COMMENTS ON FERC’S JANUARY 7, 2021 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
This document addressed a variety of public comments received on MVP’s proposed amendment
to change the crossing method for all remaining wetlands and waterbodies from mile post 0 to 77
from open-cut crossing that were authorized by the Certificate to conventional bore methods.
The following issues were not fully addressed by FERC’s responses.
Section A, 5.0 Conventional Bore Construction Procedures – This section notes that for
conventional bores, “boulders and cobbles up to one third of the diameter of the installed pipe
can be accommodated,” and further observes that if boreholes cannot be completed a
contingency plan will be initiated and the borehole moved. However, should boreholes fail to be
fully installed or collapse, several adverse consequences are likely which were summarized in
previous comments (i.e., surface water or wetlands dewatering, changes in groundwater or
surface water interaction and groundwater use). The information provided in the response
indicates how these issues will be addressed after occurring (i.e., default to contingency plan) but
1 As noted in Section 4.4.12 Water Supply and Conservation in the Individual Permit Application dated February
2021.
2 On December 18, 2020, Greenstar Environmental Solutions, LLC, provided to Appalachian Mountain Advocates a
report entitled Comments on Mountain Valley Pipeline’s Requested Amendment to its Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity, which was then submitted to FERC. See Accession No. 20201221-5392. These
comments incorporate those December 2020 comments by reference, as if fully set forth herein.
Page 3
significantly, does not indicate how these issues will be prevented from occurring. Due to the
serious adverse potential effects of a failed borehole, significant efforts should be made prior to
and during drilling to prevent borehole failures, deviation from the planned bore path or
encountering boulders greater than on third of the diameter of the installed pipe that may prevent
bore completion. MVP’s plan for preventing borehole completion issues should be fully
discussed.
Similarly, the use of grout to fill or seal incomplete or failed boreholes is not without risk. Use
of grout is not necessarily going to fully seal off all potential conduits. Grout is known to move
in unexpected directions and is susceptible to bridging which can leave portions of a failed
borehole open to the environment. Grout injection into horizontal bores would need to be done
under pressure and therefore potential release of the pressurized fluids into wetlands or overlying
waterbodies is a risk. Cement grout may have other materials mixed in, such as bentonite or
other additives, and release of this material can have adverse consequences in sensitive receptor
communities. Additional information regarding grouting of failed bores, such as detailed
monitoring plans and pollution prevention plans, should be provided such as detailed monitoring
plans and pollution prevention plans.
Section B, 2.1 Groundwater – This section addressed comments regarding how the proposed
crossing may affect groundwater and potable water supplies. In response to questions about how
water supplies may be affected this section states on Page 17 that
• “any groundwater-level drawdown and related impacts would be short term and
temporary and are expected to recover to non-pumping conditions following
construction[;]”
• “[t]he drilling of the borehole and installation of the product pipeline would not
permanently alter the groundwater flow or groundwater/surface water interactions near
the resource[;]” and
• “the physical pipeline would occupy only a negligible portion of the aquifer and have no
permeant influence on groundwater flow[.]”
These definitive statements are made without providing supporting evidence detailing how these
conclusions were developed. Due to the significant potential impacts that may be caused by
conventional bore crossings additional supporting evidence should be provided by FERC to
demonstrate how the proposed crossing methods will be safeguarded from causing potentially
significant impacts to water bodies and groundwater resources.
Page 18 notes, “in the event of landowner complaints that nearby wells or springs are impacted
by the dewatering activities, Mountain Valley would evaluate any complaints and identify a
suitable solution with the landowner[,]” and that “Mountain Valley would also need to continue
to fully comply with its Water Resource Identification and Testing Plan[.]” The 2017 Water
Resource Identification and Testing Plan specifies that private water supplies within 150 ft (or
500 ft in karst terrain) of the pipeline alignment will be offered water quality and quantity
testing. That discussion raises several questions:
• Were the additional structures identified within 150 of the alignment added to the water
testing program as per the requirements of the 2017 Water Resource Identification and
Testing Plan?
• Potential karst terrain is noted to be present at crossings G-017, G-024, G-023, H-017 and
H-020 (as noted in the March 29, 2021 MVP Response, Resource Report 6 – Geological
Page 4
Resources). Have potable water supply locations within 500 ft of these crossings been
added to the monitoring program as per the 2017 Water Resource Identification and
Testing Plan?
• What do the results of the data collected so far as per the Water Resource Identification
and Testing Plan show regarding changes in baseline conditions after drilling has
occurred?
• How confident is FERC that all potable water wells have been identified?
The issue of conclusively identifying all potable resources within 150 ft to 500 ft from the
alignment and protecting potable water resources from potential adverse impacts must be more
clearly discussed in FERC and MVP documents.
The January 2021 Environmental Assessment and other documents indicate MVP is the entity
that will decide if significant impacts to water resources have occurred, and MVP will then
decide on how to address impacts. This approach appears to set up a conflict of interest and does
not seem to be protective of the public who count on water supply for daily needs.
General Comment - Assessment of Climate Change – There is no information provided in this

report or previous reports regarding how conditions at each crossing may change due to the
future effects of climate change. Climate change is likely to increase the magnitude of future
flood events. Larger and more frequent hurricanes and tropical storms are forecast to occur due
to a warming climate. It is necessary to understand the hydrogeological features that may be
affected by greater water inflow into the borehole from the surface water. Rainfall events with
larger magnitude than current conditions will result in greater channel responses such as
increased erosion and/or aggradation such as channel bank and bed erosion, lateral migration
and/or channel changes, and inundation of floodplains and wetlands. These significant potential
risks, which were not discussed in this document or the FEIS as related to borehole drilling and
pipeline placement, need to be carefully assessed, discussed, and addressed. These factors
should not be ignored because of their powerful ability to exceed the design capacity of the bore
or pipeline construction. A range of flood event discharges that adequately represent current and
future flood hydrographs over time need to be modeled to assess hydraulic processes and channel
responses when quantifying design considerations for surface water crossings.
General Comment – Groundwater Resource Impacts. Previous documents note that pumping
from bore pits can accommodate up to 396 gallons per minute and MVP will run pumps
sufficient to control infiltration rates up to 2,750 gallons per minute. These values provide an
understanding of the potential groundwater volume which may be pumped from bore pits
depending on soil types and groundwater conditions. The large volumes of water which may be
pumped (hundreds to thousands of gallons per minute) have a significant likelihood of affecting
nearby streams and drinking water sources. As noted in previous comments, it is clear there are
more residences within 150 ft than have been identified. MVP has cited a study concluding that
the radius of measurable effects of groundwater pumping is at least 300 ft based on similar
projects. The radius of influence from bore pits may be larger than 300 ft depending on geologic
conditions, soil types, bedrock geology, well depth, and other variables. For these reasons a
comprehensive assessment of groundwater drinking water wells within at least 300 ft should be
developed for each crossing location. Location specific data on wells, well depths, flow rates
and water elevation should be collected and provided to document baseline conditions and how
future conditions will be monitored to ensure there is no lasting environmental impacts due to the
proposed borehole drilling. Significant changes to water table elevations due to pumping, even if
temporary, can result in significant long term degradation of water quality at nearby drinking
Page 5
water wells.
COMMENTS ON MVP’S INDIVIDUAL SECTION 404 PERMIT APPLICATION

DATED FEBRUARY 2021
The proposed crossing method at two major water bodies (Elk River C-002 and Greenbrier River
F-021) are proposed using the guided conventional bore and direct pipe methods, respectively. If
drilling fluids or bentonite/water mixtures will be used during these crossings, significant risks
will be present to these sensitive water bodies. If pressurized drilling fluids are injected into the
subsurface during completion of these bores, the fluids can move in unexpected directions
including upwards and discharge into surface water or downwards into aquifers used for drinking
water. If a bentonite or a bentonite/water mixture is used during the pilot hole drilling, similar
risks of a release are present. A release of drilling fluids into surface waters or groundwater
could have significant environmental effects due to the high pH of fluids, elevated turbidity and
chemicals in the drilling fluid. Any release has the potential to cause acute or chronic human
health or ecological impacts. For example, there is evidence that the short-term effects of
releasing drilling fluid into wetlands include temporary displacement of resident fauna,
smothering of benthic organisms and plant root systems, increased turbidity of water quality, and
changes to water chemistry and wetland hydrology. Releases of drilling fluids are frequent
occurrences during drilling operations. At these locations, should drilling fluids or bentonite
reach surface water bodies or groundwater resources, significant short term and long term
impacts could result. Additional discussion should be provided to address how these type of
releases will be prevented.
The crossing length at the Greenbrier River is shown to be 1,250 ft long, which is one of the
longest crossings being proposed. Longer crossing have greater potential for adverse results
such as encountering unfavorable geologic conditions, borehole failure or mechanical issues that
may prevent borehole completion. Additionally, 24-hour operation of the drilling work may be
required, which will make identification of problems more difficult especially during overnight
work hours. FERC must require additional site-specific exploration to determine geological
conditions at this site, as well as special monitoring during construction of this crossing to ensure
surface water resources are protected from adverse impacts, and explain how that monitoring
will accomplish its goals.
COMMENTS ON MVP’S MARCH 29, 2021 RESPONSE TO ENVIRONMENTAL

INFORMATION REQUEST
Resource Report 1 – General Project Description No. 4. For the proposed guided bore
crossings, the MVP response does not indicate the volume or amounts of bentonite or slurry that
will be used, whether the slurry will be pressurized, or what pressures will be used. This
information is an important consideration for the potential for inadvertent releases of drilling
fluids. Addition of bentonite can increase turbidity and alter pH. Release of water containing
bentonite into surface water can result in significant impacts.
Resource Report 1 – General Project Description No. 5. For the proposed crossing of the Elk
River using guided conventional bore and the Greenbrier River using direct pipe, this response
indicates water used for the bore will be obtained from each water source from the same basin.
However, the response does not indicate how turbidity and/or pH will be controlled when the
water is returned to the water source. The addition of bentonite (noted in comment above) to
drilling water would result in increased turbidity and alter the pH. The likelihood of significant
Page 6
impacts to surface water or groundwater are increased at these crossings because of the long
crossing lengths and the potential for large volumes of bentonite impacted water being used and
stored.
Resource Report 6 – Geological Resources, No. 21. This comment and response indicate five
crossings are underlain by carbonate bedrock and potential karst features. As noted in comments
above, the 2017 Water Resource Identification and Testing Plan specifies that private water
supplies within 500 ft in karst terrain of the pipeline alignment will be offered water quality and
quantity testing. Have potable water supply locations within 500 ft of these crossings been
identified and added to the monitoring program as per the 2017 Water Resource Identification
and Testing Plan? This information should be provided to clearly document which potential
potable wells are present and ensure adequate monitoring is occurring.
The presence of karst features can increase potential risks for borehole crossings due to the
presence of large voids which may dramatically increase or slow drilling rates, or act as sinks for
drilling fluids or recirculation water. Encountering voids can also reduce the accuracy of guided
bore crossings. The existing information does not adequately map karst features which can
cause these undesirable drilling effects. Therefore the potential risk of how karst may affect
drilling and bore failures should be fully examined.
Resource Report 6 – Geological Resources, No. 22. This comment and response indicate
discharge of construction related water within karst areas will be prevented from discharging
directly into a karst feature and no karst features been identified in the vicinity of the work areas.
It is important to note that the lack of surface expression does not mean the area in question is
not karst. Karst features may be present in these areas although the surface expression can be
obscured by overlying soil, partial collapse of the features, or vegetation. Rather an just relying
on visual observations for karst, the discharge receiving rates should be monitored to assess
whether unseen karst features may be accepting flow at a very high rate. If unexpectedly large
receiving rates are observed the presence of unseen karst features can be inferred and the
discharge locations should be changed. Further study of karst features using a systematic
approach is warranted due to the potential presence of karst at these locations. This should
include drainage basin testing using dye, use of LIDAR or other remote sensing technologies to
assess these areas, and monitoring well installation and hydraulic testing to investigate whether
karst features are present that may be impacted. Protection of karst groundwater is very
important to prevent groundwater impacts to potential drinking water resources.
GENERAL COMMENTS
Consideration should be given to the regional effects which may result from using so many
trenchless crossings along the length of the pipeline alignment. Several distinct aquifer units will
be crossed resulting in regional impacts such as establishing unexpected conduits between
groundwater resources, mixing of surface water and groundwater, or impacts to regional
groundwater flow conditions. The documentation provided by MVP and FERC focuses on each
site being considered for a crossing without review of potential regional impacts or cumulative
effects. Establishing multiple new conduits in the same watershed increases the risk of
significant impacts. Impacts of unintended water withdrawals due to conduit formation include
flow reduction in streams and aquifers, changes in water quality such as temperature, dissolved
oxygen, flow reduction in streams especially during summer and fall when flows are generally
low, and changes to regional aquifer conditions. These impacts can be compounded due to the
large number of crossings that are proposed. It is clear that numerous adverse consequences are
Page 7
likely when using boreholes to cross below or within waterbodies. Direct harm to sensitive
receptors and important water resources should be considered as possible or likely occurrences.
The potential for wider impacts should be considered and assessed to prevent impacts before
they occur.
Many of the borehole crossings included in this application are within the Giles County Seismic
Zone. As a result, FERC and MVP must consider the potential impact of seismicity on the
proposed plans for drilling and on completed bores. This zone has experienced earthquakes up to
a magnitude 5.9 which is classified as a moderate earthquake. Smaller earthquakes occur more
frequently which can also cause immediate damages or long-term damage of fixed infrastructure.
Exhibit D
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
In the Matter of
MOUNTAIN VALLEY PIPELINE, LLC Docket Nos. CP21-57-000

CP16-10-000
JOINT NEPA SCOPING COMMENTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES FOR

THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR THE MOUNTAIN VALLEY
PIPELINE PROJECT BY ALLEGHENY-BLUE RIDGE ALLIANCE,
APPALACHIAN VOICES, BLUE RIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE
LEAGUE, CHESAPEAKE CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK, DEFENDERS OF
WILDLIFE, INDIAN CREEK WATERSHED ASSOCIATION, NATURAL
RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, PRESERVE BENT MOUNTAIN,
PRESERVE CRAIG, INC., PRESERVE FRANKLIN, PRESERVE GILES,
PRESERVE MONTGOMERY COUNTY VA (PMCVA), PRESERVE SALEM,
PROTECT OUR WATER HERITAGE RIGHTS (POWHR), SIERRA CLUB,
VIRGINIA CONSERVATION NETWORK, WEST VIRGINIA HIGHLANDS
CONSERVANCY, WEST VIRGINIA RIVERS COALITION, AND WILD
VIRGINIA
In accordance with the Commission’s March 16, 2021 Notice of Scoping
Period,1 Allegheny-Blue Ridge Alliance, Appalachian Voices, Blue Ridge
Environmental Defense League, Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Defenders of
Wildlife, Indian Creek Watershed Association, Natural Resources Defense Council,
Preserve Bent Mountain, Preserve Craig, Inc., Preserve Franklin, Preserve Giles,
Preserve Montgomery County VA (PMCVA), Preserve Salem, Protect Our Water
Heritage Rights (POWHR), Sierra Club, Virginia Conservation Network, West
Virginia Highlands Conservancy, West Virginia Rivers Coalition, and Wild Virginia
1Accession No. 20210316-3075. See also Mountain Valley Pipeline. LLC, Abbreviated
Application for Limited Amendment to Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and
Request for Expedited Action (Accession No. 20210219-5176) (“Amendment Application”).
1
(hereinafter “Commenters”) submit comments on the scope of environmental issues
that must be considered as part of the Commission’s National Environmental Policy
Act2 (NEPA) analysis of Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC’s (“Mountain Valley”)
proposed amendment to the certificate of public convenience and necessity for the
Mountain Valley Pipeline (“MVP”). Mountain Valley has requested authorization to
change the method of waterbody crossing for 182 waterbodies at 120 locations along
the route of the MVP from a dry open-cut method to one of several trenchless
methods.3 The actions for which Mountain Valley has requested authorization pose
serious environmental risks that were not disclosed in the 2017 Final
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on which the certificate of public
convenience and necessity for the MVP relies, nor in the Commission’s more recent
Environmental Assessment for the similar, now withdrawn, amendment application
in FERC Docket No. CP21-12. And neither Mountain Valley’s new Amendment
Application nor its supplemental materials provide adequate information to allow
the Commission to fully and rationally assess the impacts of its proposed activities.
Accordingly, FERC cannot grant Mountain Valley’s application until it has collected
2 42 U.S.C. § 4332 et seq.
3 Mountain Valley seeks the amendment because its authorization to cross these streams
and wetlands pursuant to Clean Water Act section 404, 33 U.S.C. § 1344, has been stayed
by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. See Sierra Club v. Army Corps of
Eng’rs, __ F.3d __, 2020 WL 7039300, at *7 (4th Cir. Dec. 1, 2020) (staying Army Corps of
Engineers’ stream and wetland crossing authorizations pursuant to Nationwide Permit 12);
Amendment Application at 2 (noting that it is seeking coverage under an individual section
404 permit for the MVP’s remaining waterbody crossings). Thus, under the status quo that
would be altered by a grant of Mountain Valley’s amendment application, Mountain Valley
is not allowed to impact any of the waterbodies along the pipeline route.
2
substantial additional information necessary to evaluate the impacts of Mountain
Valley’s proposal and put that evaluation out for public review and comment in a
Supplemental EIS in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(d)(3).4
4 See Dubois v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 102 F.3d 1273, 1291 (1st Cir. 1996) cert. denied, 521
U.S. 1119 (1997) (“The question of a supplemental EIS is premised on the dual purposes of
the EIS: to assure that the public who might be affected by the proposed project be fully
informed of the proposal, its impacts and all major points of view; and to give the agency
the benefit of informed comments and suggestions as it takes a ‘hard look’ at the
consequences of proposed actions.”).
FERC’s timing of any actions on Mountain Valley’s application for a certificate amendment
is further constrained by Condition 9 of Mountain Valley’s existing certificate and the need
for additional action by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. Condition 9 of Mountain Valley’s Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity prohibits construction on the project in the absence of all required federal
approvals. Order Issuing Certificates and Granting Abandonment Authority, 161 F.E.R.C.
¶ 61043, App. C, Cond. 9, 2017 WL 4925425, at *76 (Oct. 13, 2017). Mountain Valley’s
proposed changes to its stream crossing methods requires authorization under the
Endangered Species Act from the Fish and Wildlife Service and under Section 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Action from the Army Corps of
Engineers See generally Mountain Valley Pipeline Project Amendment Environmental
Assessment, FERC Docket No. CP21-12 (Jan. 2021) (Accession No. 20210107-3064) at 43
(explaining that FERC must consult with USFWS regarding the impacts of the previously-
proposed boring activities); Amendment Application at 1-9 Table 1.10-1 (noting that
additional consultation may be required for the amendment); Mountain Valley Pipeline
Project, Individual Permit Application at 62 (Feb. 2021) (Accession No. 20210304-5122)).
Consistent with Environmental Condition 9, the earliest FERC should take action on
Mountain Valley’s pending application is when the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Corps
have both completed their decisionmaking processes.
3
I. FERC Must Prepare a Supplemental EIS for the Amendment
The Commission cannot authorize Mountain Valley to bore under more than
180 waterbodies5 without preparing a supplemental environmental impact
statement for the project. The activities for which Mountain Valley seeks
authorization pose significant risks to the environment that have not been analyzed
in the Commission’s or any other agency’s previous NEPA documents for the MVP.
The Commission retains discretion to prevent those distinct impacts by denying
Mountain Valley’s application. Therefore, there is remaining major federal action on
Mountain Valley’s amendment application for which NEPA analysis is required.
A supplemental EIS is required where “there remains ‘major Federal actio[n]’
to occur, and . . . the new information is sufficient to show that the remaining action
will ‘affec[t] the quality of the human environment’ in a significant manner or to a
significant extent not already considered.”6
5Mountain Valley proposes to use the conventional bore technique at most waterbody
crossings but also proposes the use of the guided conventional bore and Direct Pipe methods
at certain locations. Amendment Application at 1 n.3.
6Marsh v. Oregon Nat. Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360, 374 (1989) (internal citations omitted);
see also Webster v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 685 F.3d 411, 418 (4th Cir. 2012) (“A supplemental
EIS [is] mandatory if the agency ‘makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are
relevant to environmental concerns’ or if ‘significant new circumstances or information
relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts’
arise.”) (citing 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c)) (emphasis added); Envtl. Def. Fund v. Tennessee Val.
Auth., 468 F.2d 1164, 1177 (6th Cir. 1972) (“We believe it more consonant with
congressional intent to hold that an agency must file an impact statement whenever the
agency intends to take steps that will result in a significant environmental impact …
whether or not the proposed steps represent simply the last phase of an integrated
operation most of which was completed before that date.”); Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands
Ctr. v. Boody, 468 F.3d 549, 560 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted) (“[I]f the proposed action
might significantly affect the quality of the environment, a supplemental EIS is required.”).
4
The Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) NEPA regulations require
that agencies:
(1) Shall prepare supplements to either draft or final environmental

impact statements if:
(i) The agency makes substantial changes in the proposed
action that are relevant to environmental concerns; or
(ii) There are significant new circumstances or information
relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the
proposed action or its impacts.
(2) May also prepare supplements when the agency determines that
the purposes of the Act will be furthered by doing so.7
The use of the word “shall” is mandatory and creates a duty on the part of the
agency to prepare a supplement to the EIS if there are significant new
circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns.8
Changes to projects require a supplemental EIS when they are “not
‘qualitatively within the spectrum of alternatives that were discussed’ in a prior
FEIS.”9 Changes require NEPA supplementation not only when they increase the
740 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c) (2019). As explained in Section C, infra, FERC and the Corps should
apply the pre-2020 version of the CEQ NEPA regulations. There is no substantive
difference, however, between the pre-2020 supplemental EIS regulations and the 2020
regulation. Compare id. with 40 C.F.R. § 1502(9)(d) (2020).
8 See Marsh, 490 U.S. at 372 (“The CEQ regulations, which we have held are entitled to
substantial deference, impose a duty on all federal agencies to prepare supplements to
either draft or final EIS's if there “are significant new circumstances or information
relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts.”)
(quoting 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(d)) (citations omitted); Price Rd. Neighborhood Ass’n, Inc. v.
U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 113 F.3d 1505, 1509 (9th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted) (explaining
that NEPA “imposes a continuing duty to supplement previous environmental documents”).
9 In re Operation of Missouri River Sys. Litig., 516 F.3d 688, 693 (8th Cir. 2008) (citing
Dubois, 102 F.3d at 1292, quoting Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's National
Environmental Policy Act Regulations, 46 Fed. Reg. 18026, # 29b (March 23, 1981)
(emphasis in original).
5
magnitude or extent of impacts, but also when they will cause the project to impact
the environment “in a significant manner” not previously considered.10 That is,
significance can “be viewed in either quantitative or qualitative terms.”11 A
supplemental EIS is therefore required even where a proposed change reduces
certain previously analyzed impacts if the change presents different risks that may
significantly affect the environment.12
Here, Mountain Valley proposes to employ trenchless crossing methods that
were not analyzed in the EIS for the MVP. As discussed below, these crossing
methods present the risk of significant environmental impacts that are distinct
from those of the open-cut crossing methods that were previously evaluated.
Moreover, the baseline environmental conditions have likely changed significantly
since FERC’s 2017 EIS, in many instances as a result of the failures of Mountain
10Marsh, 490 U.S. at 374 (emphasis added); see also Davis v. Latschar, 202 F.3d 359, 369
(D.C. Cir. 2000) (supplementation required where the effects of proposed changes are
“significantly different from those already studied”) (quoting Corridor H Alternatives, Inc. v.
Slater, 982 F.Supp. 24, 30 (D.D.C.1997)); Westlands Water Dist. v. U.S. Dep't of Interior,
376 F.3d 853, 873 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining that supplementation is required when a
proposed change “will have a significant impact on the environment in a manner not
previously evaluated or considered.”); Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. United States,
420 F. Supp. 2d 1324, 1333–35 (S.D. Fla. 2006) (finding that changes to a project were
significant enough to require a supplemental EIS, which was required to include
“hydrologic modeling results”).
11 Hodges v. Abraham, 253 F. Supp. 2d 846, 853 (D.S.C. 2002) (emphasis added).
12See Dubois, 102 F.3d 1292–93 (“It would be one thing if the Forest Service had adopted a
new alternative that was actually within the range of previously considered alternatives,
e.g., simply reducing the scale of every relevant particular. It is quite another thing to adopt
a proposal that is configured differently, in which case public commenters might have
pointed out, if given the opportunity—and the Forest Service might have seriously
considered—wholly new problems posed by the new configuration (even if some of the
environmental problems present in the prior alternatives have been eliminated).”).
6
Valley to control erosion, sedimentation, and landslides along the MVP route. A
supplemental EIS is thus required. A supplemental EIS, including an evaluation of
a full range of alternatives to the proposed amendment, is particularly necessary
here because this NEPA document will inform not only FERC’s consideration of
Mountain Valley’s amendment request, but also the cooperating agency U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers’ review pursuant to Clean Water Act Section 404.13
A. FERC and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Should Not Rely on CEQ’s 2020
NEPA Regulations
It is unclear the extent to which FERC intends to rely on the new NEPA
regulations promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) in 2020
for additional environmental review of the MVP. On July 15, 2020, CEQ finalized a
revision to its regulations implementing NEPA; that revision became effective two
months later on September 14, 2020.14 The effective date for CEQ’s new NEPA
regulations was September 14, 2020. Notwithstanding this change, we urge FERC
to apply the prior NEPA regulations to the MVP, rather than these new rules, for
several critical reasons.
1333 U.S.C. § 1344. See Acceptance of Cooperating Agency Responsibility (Accession No.
20210310-5059) at 1-2 (explaining that the information in the NEPA document must be
“adequate to fulfill the Corps’ statutory requirements, including the requirements of
Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act (40 CFR 230) and the Corps’ public interest review
(33 CFR § 320.4)”); see also 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(a)(4) (requiring supplementation of NEPA
documents that do not consider alternatives in sufficient detail to address the “least
environmentally damaging practicable alternatives” requirements of the Section 404(b)(1)
guidelines).
Update to the Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National

14
Environmental Policy Act, 85 Fed. Reg. 43304 (July 16, 2020).
7
First, the fundamental obligations governing NEPA reviews arise from the
statute itself, as interpreted by courts for fifty years. FERC must meet these
statutory requirements “to the fullest extent possible.”15 Rather than attempt to
find daylight between its statutory obligations and CEQ’s new NEPA regulations,
FERC should continue to apply the long-standing NEPA standards in place when
Mountain Valley initiated the MVP in 2015 and when FERC issued its original EIS
for the project in 2017. This choice matters: CEQ’s new regulations eschew the
requirement that agencies evaluate the cumulative impacts of proposed actions,16 a
foundational part of the review process since Congress enacted NEPA in 1970.17
Cumulative impacts are an especially important consideration for projects like the
MVP, which spans portions of two states and would cross hundreds of rivers,
streams, and wetlands.18
Second, the new regulations expressly authorize agencies to use the prior
regulations for ongoing processes.19 Mountain Valley simplistically asserts that
15 42 U.S.C. § 4332.
1640 C.F.R. § 1508.1(g)(3) (2021) (“Cumulative impact, defined in 40 C.F.R. 1508.7 (1978), is
repealed.”).
17See, e.g., Hanly v. Kleindienst, 471 F.2d 823, 830-31 (2d Cir. 1972) (interpreting the
statutory term “significantly” to include the absolute quantitative adverse environmental
effects of the action itself, including the cumulative harm that results from its contribution
to existing adverse conditions or uses in the affected area”).
18As hydrogeologist Pete Nimmer observes, cumulative effects of the proposed borings
could be significant. See Nimmer Update at 6–7, infra n. 35 (concluding that impacts on
surface and ground water quality and quantity “can be compounded due to the large
number of crossings that are proposed”).
1940 C.F.R. § 1506.13; see e.g., Notice of Intent To Prepare a Draft Integrated Feasibility
Report and Environmental Impact Statement, 86 Fed. Reg. 15470 (Mar. 23, 2021) (“[The
8
FERC is bound by the new NEPA rules (and thus the company waves off any need
to provide information about the cumulative impacts of its proposal).20 But the new
regulations give FERC a choice that is not Mountain Valley’s to make. Mountain
Valley initiated this pipeline project in 2015, and the proposed certificate
amendment now at issue is a continuation of the existing project and its original
NEPA review from 2017. Indeed, FERC and cooperating agencies like the Corps
may intend to rely on portions of the 2017 EIS to fulfill their present NEPA
obligations for the proposed certificate amendment. The only consistent and orderly
approach is for FERC to continue to apply CEQ’s prior NEPA regulations to the
MVP project.
Third, reliance on the new NEPA regulations will place the MVP in
additional legal jeopardy. The new regulations are the subject of multiple ongoing
lawsuits that identify a number of legal deficiencies.21 Further, the Biden
Administration’s CEQ announced in March 2021 that it is reconsidering the 2020
regulations because it has
substantial concerns about the effects of the 2020 Rule on public health,
the nation’s land, water, and air quality, communities that have been
Corps of Engineers] is exercising its discretion to employ the 1978 CEQ NEPA
Implementing Regulations to this ongoing process . . . .”).
20Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC, Suppl. Envtl. Rep. for Proposed Certificate Amend. for
Avoidance of Waters of the U.S., Dkt. No. CP21-57, at 2-11 (Feb. 19, 2021), available at
Accession No. 2021-0219-5176 (citing 18 C.F.R. § 380.1).
21 Wild Virginia v. Council on Environmental Quality, No. 3:20-cv-00045-MFU (W.D. Va.

filed Aug. 18, 2020); California v. CEQ, No. 3:20-cv-06057-RS (N.D. Cal. filed Aug. 28,
2020); Env’t Just. Health All. v. CEQ, No. 1:20-cv-06143-CM (S.D.N.Y. filed Aug. 6, 2020);
and Alaska Cmty. Action on Toxics v. CEQ, No. 3:20-cv-05199-RS (N.D. Cal. filed July 29,
2020).
9
historically marginalized and overburdened by pollution, the ability of

citizens to have their voices heard in federal decision-making processes,
and other issues, including the process by which the 2020 Rule was
promulgated and the lawfulness of aspects of the 2020 Rule.22
A FERC environmental review for this project based on the 2020 NEPA regulations
may be defective or delayed if those regulations are later struck down or repealed.
For these reasons, FERC should apply CEQ’s prior NEPA regulations and the
caselaw interpreting those regulations when preparing the Supplemental EIS for
Mountain Valley’s requested amendment.
B. The EIS for The Project Does Not Evaluate the Potential Impacts of the
Conventional Bore, Guided Conventional Bore, or Direct Pipe Methods
In the EIS for the MVP, FERC determined that Mountain Valley would
employ only two waterbody crossing methods: the dry open-cut method and the
horizontal directional drill (HDD) method.23 These were the only methods evaluated
in FERC’s discussion of the MVP’s potential impacts on water quality.24 FERC
briefly mentions boring, but only in the context of road, railroad, and trail crossings
and without evaluating impacts to hydrology or aquatic resources.25 The
environmental impacts of using the conventional bore, guided conventional bore,
and Direct Pipe methods to cross more than 180 waterbodies along the route of the
22Declaration of Matthew Lee-Ashley, Council on Environmental Quality, Wild Virginia v.

Council on Environmental Quality, No. 3:20-cv-00045-MFU, ECF No. 145-1 at ¶ 5 (W.D.
Va., filed Mar. 17, 2021).
23 EIS at 2-43.
24 See EIS at 4-118–4-120; 4-136–4-144; 4-216–4-217; 4-153–4-154; 4-160–4-162; 5-4.
25 See EIS at 2-46, 3-51, 4-333.
10
MVP have therefore not been evaluated or disclosed as part of the NEPA process for
the project.
C. The Proposed Boring Methods Would Have Significant Impacts on Hydrology,

Water Quality, and Stream Ecology That Have Not Been Evaluated and That
Cannot Be Adequately Evaluated Using the Existing Record Information
The proposed conventional bore, guided conventional bore, and Direct Pipe
methods would lead to adverse impacts on the environment that are distinct from
the risks posed by the dry open-cut waterbody crossing method previously proposed
and approved. In particular, these boring methods presents significant risks of
disturbance to subsurface hydrogeology that would degrade surface and
groundwater quality and quantity. Although the possible consequences of those
boring methods are known, Mountain Valley has not provided sufficient information
to determine the likelihood and extent of such adverse impacts occurring for its
proposed bores.
1. Conventional boring causes significant adverse impacts to

hydrology and water quality
The vast majority of the proposed borings would be completed using the
conventional bore method.26 Mountain Valley explains that accomplishing a
conventional bore requires “excavation of launching and receiving pits located in
workspace in uplands on each side of” the waterbody and then subsurface drilling to
connect the two pits, in which “the construction crew advances a jacking pipe and a
26 Amendment Application, Resource Report 1 at 1-4.
11
rotating cutting head that is attached to the leading edge of the auger string.”27 In a
guided conventional bore, the drilling “typically continues non-stop until
completed,” thus requiring 24-hour operation.28 Any spoil generated by the boring
that cannot be returned to the bore pits must be stored during the boring operation
and may be spread over the right-of-way upon completion of boring.29
FERC itself has recognized the risks of conventional bores. In the Final
Environmental Impact Statement for Mountain Valley’s Southgate Project, FERC
acknowledged that,
Conventional bores require large entry and exit pit excavations at each
end of the bore pathway and therefore create the risk of sediment runoff
entering the adjacent waterbody. Of greatest risk to the waterbody is
the possibility of the borehole collapsing without warning. In such a case
the bed of the waterbody could collapse and reroute the waterbody into
the bore pathway.30
Likewise, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently explained that in
order to bore under a stream, “MVP must excavate a pit nearby, which again may
increase erosion and sedimentation. And there is risk that drilling fluid will escape
into the surface waters, or that the drilled hole might collapse, causing the
waterbed to collapse as well.”31
27 Id.
28 Id. at 1-6.
29 Id. at 1-4.
FERC, Southgate Project Final Environmental Impact Statement at 4-37, Docket No.
30
CP19-14 (Feb. 2020) (eLibrary No. 20200214-3010).
31Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC v. North Carolina Dept. of Envtl. Quality, 990 F.3d 818,
822 (4th Cir. 2021)
12
Mountain Valley itself has recognized, in discussing the potential for a
conventional bore under the Greenbrier River, that the method presents “difficulties
with groundwater management[ and] bore pit stabilization.”32
Photographs of bore pits that MVP has already excavated along the route
demonstrate the groundwater intrusion and large spoil piles from boring:
32See Pre-Construction Notification, Huntington District at Appendix F, section 1.1 (Jan.

2020) (“Huntington PCN”), attached as Exhibit 1; see also id. at section 7.4.2 (noting that
Mountain Valley “considered the potential groundwater impacts as a significant obstacle to
boring the Greenbrier River . . . based on the potential pit depths of a conventional bore.”).
Additionally, in discussing the “benefits” of the Direct Pipe method, Mountain Valley has
obliquely acknowledged certain impacts of conventional boring: “The steering capabilities of
a Direct Pipe bore would allow Mountain Valley to dig shallower pits; whereas a
conventional bore is straight and requires pits to be excavated to the depth of the pipe. This
provides a number of benefits from both a constructability and safety standpoint. The
Direct Pipe pit is approximately 10-feet deep compared to a conventional bore pit depth of
over 30-feet deep. Geotechnical data shows that water may be encountered at
approximately 25-feet deep. By avoiding these strata, the risk of groundwater intrusion is
greatly reduced. This will lessen safety concerns and reduce the need for pumping and
discharge while working in this location.” Mountain Valley, Supplement to Variance
Request No. MVP-014 at 1, Dkt. Nos. CP16-10 et al. (July 24, 2019) (eLibrary No.
20190724-5132).
13
Mountain Valley’s compliance reports for the MVP demonstrate that the
company’s boring operations have already caused water quality problems.33
Commenters commissioned a review of Mountain Valley’s proposal in Docket
No. CP21-12 by Pete Nimmer, PG, LSRP, Senior Geologist with Greenstar
Environmental Solutions.34 Following Mountain Valley’s withdrawal of that
33See, e.g., Environmental Compliance Monitoring Program - Weekly Summary Report for
August 25-31, 2019 at 3, Dkt. Nos. CP16-10 et al. (September 18, 2019) (eLibrary No.
20190918-4001) (describing winch breaking during boring and oil sheen inside the entry
bore pit due to leaking hydraulic line (MP 140.2)); Environmental Compliance Monitoring
Program, Weekly Summary Report for August 18-24, 2019 at 5, Dkt. Nos. CP16-10 et al.
(September 9, 2019) (eLibrary No. 20190909-4004) (“Topsoil was salvaged from the [bore]
pit area and segregated at the side of the extra work area. The topsoil was stacked too high
against a row of belted silt retention fence and broke through.” (MP 11.3)).
34Mr. Nimmer carries nearly 30 years of experience in the industry, including “extensive
experience designing, managing, and executing investigation of groundwater issues” and
“extensive experience designing, managing, and executing aquifer studies in bedrock and
karst, well yield assessments and hydrogeology investigations.” Pete Nimmer, Greenstar
Environmental Solutions, LLC, Comments on Mountain Valley Pipeline’s Requested
Amendment to its Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity at 10 (2020) (“Nimmer
14
application and submittal of the application and related materials in Docket No.
CP21-57, Mr. Nimmer produced an update confirming the application of his earlier
findings to the instant proposal.35 Mr. Nimmer concluded that “MVP’s assertion in
its application that its proposed actions ‘would have limited, if any, environmental
impacts beyond those that have already been assessed and approved by the
Commission’ does not withstand scrutiny.”36 In contrast to Mountain Valley’s
unsupported claim, Nimmer found that “significant adverse consequences are likely
to occur from [Mountain Valley’s proposed] change of waterbody crossing method,”
which consequences include “disruption of groundwater flow, harm to drinking
water supplies, dewatering of surface waters, inadvertent return of drilling fluids,
and catastrophic failure of the pipe.”37 Those consequences “present significant
harm to surface water and groundwater resources.”38
One of the primary risks Nimmer identifies is the potential for the creation of
“hydraulic conduits that can change groundwater flow conditions and
Report”). That report is attached as Exhibit 2 to these comments and is hereby incorporated
by reference as if set forth fully herein.
35Pete Nimmer, Greenstar Environmental Solutions, Comments on FERC’s January 7,

2021 Environmental Assessment, Mountain Valley Pipeline’s February 2021 Individual
Permit Application, FERC’s March 12, 2021 Environmental Information Request, and
Mountain Valley Pipeline’s March 29, 2021 Response (2021) (“Nimmer Update”). That
report is attached as Exhibit 3 to these comments and is hereby incorporated by reference
as if set forth fully herein.
36 Nimmer Report at 2. See also Nimmer Update at 2.
37 Nimmer Update at 2.
38 Nimmer Report at 2.
15
groundwater/surface water interaction.”39 Those conduits “will cause changes in
groundwater flow compared to current conditions” and can lead to the dewatering of
surface streams and wetlands.40 Nimmer explained that
Conventional boring creates dewatering risks because of its significant

impacts on soil characteristics, which lead to the formation of
preferential hydraulic conduits along the borehole due to increases in
soil porosity and/or permeability. The disruption of these areas, and
increased turbidity caused by the project, will adversely impact
ecosystems within the surrounding surface water bodies, flood plains
and wetland areas, as well as the wildlife habitats in these areas.41
Those impacts can also “lead to unsafe drinking water conditions or impacts to
private wells and/or public water supply sources in the surrounding area.”42
Such impacts can occur even when the boring is successfully completed, but
are particularly likely in the event of a failed borehole, which “has the potential to
result in formation of a very large conduit that could result in the diversion of
significant quantities of surface water or groundwater.”43
40Id. at 3; see also id. at 5 (“[T]he boreholes and tunneling excavation activities can
potentially interfere with groundwater aquifers, whether unconsolidated or bedrock
aquifers and have the potential to alter the groundwater flow pattern and aquifer
capacity.”).
41Id. at 2–3. See also id.at 3 (“Borehole-created conduits can cause dewatering of wetland
areas, significant changes in the size and quality of wetlands, or permanent drying of
wetlands and subsequent loss of habitat in these areas.”).
42 Id. at 5.
43Id. at 7; see also id. at 3 n.1 (“If a borehole cannot be completed the failed borehole has
the potential to become a major underground hydraulic conduit which may result in
dewatering of surface water bodies.”); id. at 6–7 (“The large diameter of the proposed
boreholes has the potential to result in formation of a very large conduit that could result in
the diversion of significant quantities of surface water or groundwater.”); FERC Southgate
Project FEIS at 4-37 (“Of greatest risk to the waterbody is the possibility of the borehole
16
Many of Mountain Valley’s crossings appear to be particularly susceptible to
borehole collapse due to their length. A report prepared by the Williams Company
for the Northeast Supply Enhancement project notes that conventional bores are
typically between 50 and 100 feet long and that a “[m]ajor factor limiting the
success of a boring operation include[s] the crossing distance . . . .”44 Mountain
Valley proposes conventional bore lengths of up to 405 feet, including 36 bore
locations that exceed 100 feet in length, thus increasing the serious risk of bore
failure.45 Likewise, Nimmer advises that “[o]ne or more failed boreholes should be
considered a likely possibility given the size of the individual crossings …, the
collapsing without warning. In such a case the bed of the waterbody could collapse and
reroute the waterbody into the bore pathway.”).
Mountain Valley attempts to downplay the likelihood of borehole collapse by insisting that,
in most instances, “the line pipe is installed immediately behind the bore pipe once the
boring is complete, leaving no unsupported hole that could potentially collapse. Because the
borehole is continuous supported by pipe throughout the process, the risk of bore collapse is
minimal.” Amendment Application at 1-4. This does not address the situation where a
borehole has to be abandoned because of adverse geologic conditions, and the drilling rig
withdrawn from the borehole, in which case nothing would remain to support the borehole.
Nothing in FERC’s staff’s January 2021 Environmental Assessment addressed the impacts
of such a scenario, and nothing in the information submitted in support of the pending
application does either. Accordingly, the risks of borehole collapse and conduit creation are
not as minimal as Mountain Valley represents.
44 Williams, Subsurface Pipe Installation at 2 (2014), attached as Exhibit 4.
45See Amendment Application, Resource Report 1, Appendix A, Table A-1. Twenty-one of

these crossings exceed the length of the longest crossing for which Mountain Valley has
successfully completed a conventional bore. See id.; Amendment Application, Resource
Report 1 at 1-8 (noting that the longest conventional bore waterbody crossing completed on
the project to date is 147 feet).
17
cumulative total borehole distance …, and varying geologic conditions at the
[different crossing locations].”46
In addition to creating conduits that alter groundwater flow and potentially
dewater surface streams, conventional boring also impacts water quality and
quantity due to the substantial pumping of groundwater necessary to keep the deep
bore pits dry enough to operate equipment. Mountain Valley notes that, due to the
significant rates of groundwater intrusion expected, it may have to pump up to
2,750 gallons of water per minute, 24 hours per day from some of the bore pits.47
Mountain Valley acknowledges that pumping such large quantities of groundwater
will cause “short-term drawdown of shallow groundwater in the immediate vicinity
of the bore pits,” and cites a study demonstrating reduced groundwater depths 300
feet from the boring operation.48 But the company goes on to say that the magnitude
of that impact in the present application depends on “site-specific characteristics,”
such as “the existing groundwater level” and “soil type,” that Mountain Valley
entirely fails to examine.49 Moreover, Mountain Valley may not rely on the cited
47Amendment Application, Resource Report 2 at 2-11 to 2-12. This “dewatering” of the bore
pits, involving pumping of groundwater that infiltrates the pits to the surface to maintain
dry workspace, is distinct from the dewatering of surface streams discussed in these
comments, whereby changes to groundwater flow paths or drawdown of groundwater
through pumping partially or entirely diminish the water flowing in surface streams and
wetlands.
48 Id. at 2-11.
49Id. see also id. (“Where groundwater is near the surface at the time of construction and
larger or multiple pumps are required to operate continuously, water-level draw down near
the bore pits could be measurable.”).
18
study to establish the extent of groundwater drawdown because, as FERC explained
in its March 12, 2021 Environmental Information Request, “the hydrogeologic
terrain and aquifer characteristics used to define (model) water-level drawdown
impacts are not similar to nor can be used to properly define the potential impacts
within the hydrologic basins along the Amendment Project.”50
Nimmer found that Mountain Valley’s pit dewatering activities pose
substantial threats to both surface and groundwater. Nimmer explained that
dewatering activities of the magnitude Mountain Valley proposes “have a
significant likelihood to affect nearby streams and drinking water sources.”51 Those
impacts could be felt at distances greater than the 300 feet analyzed by the study
Mountain Valley cites, depending on “geologic conditions, soil types, bedrock
geology, well depth, and other variables.”52 The groundwater drawdown associated
with the pit dewatering and other aspects of Mountain Valley’s proposed operations
“impact groundwater-dependent vegetation, surface streams, lakes, wetlands, and
associated aquatic ecosystems, including springs and wells.”53 “Significant changes
to water table elevations due to pumping, even if temporary, can result in
significant long term degradation of water quality at nearby drinking water
50 Environmental Information Request at 4 (Accession No. 20210312-3016.
52 Id. at 3.
53 Id. at 5.
19
wells.”54 Though Mountain Valley claims that there are no known public or private
groundwater wells within 150 feet of its bore pits,55 Nimmer notes the existence of
additional likely drinking water sources that could be adversely impacted by
Mountain Valley’s operations.56
Those pumping activities are also likely to have adverse impacts on surface
water quality.57 Indeed, Mountain Valley has already been cited by the West
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (WVDEP) multiple times for its
failure to prevent sediment-laden water from escaping its dewatering devices,
leading to violations of water quality standards.58 Those violations require FERC to
54 Id. at 9.

56 Id. at 5, 8–9. Nimmer Update at 2 (“FERC should not authorize the proposed actions
until it gathers sufficient information regarding the boring operations and potable wells
…”), 4 (raising questions regarding the lack of information on drinking water wells and
explaining that “[t]he issue of conclusively identifying all potable resources within 150 ft to
500 ft from the alignment and protecting potable water resources from potential adverse
impacts must be more clearly discussed in FERC and MVP documents”).
57 See, e.g., id. at 3 (“Dewatering rates of this magnitude are likely to result in significant
changes to surface water bodies, although the applicant does not discuss what effects may
result or how effects will be mitigated, or where water will be pumped and how turbidity of
the discharge will be managed to prevent fouling of surface water resources.”).
58See WVDEP, Notice of Violation No. W19-21-074-TJC (August 14, 2019) at 2, attached as
Exhibit 5 (“The offsite sediment laden water adjacent to 2919+50 occurred due to a
dewatering operation at the time of inspection.”); id. at 13 (showing “[o]ffsite sediment
deposits . . . where a dewatering structure was placed offsite and caused offsite deposits”);
id. at 13–14, 19–20 (showing dewatering structures failing to function as designed and
resultant offsite sediment deposits); WVDEP, Notice of Violation No. W19-17-030-JTL
(September 11, 2019) at 3, attached as Exhibit 6 (“At station No. 645+35 the dewatering
structure used for the Stream S-B75 bore was not being maintained and operated properly
causing the structure to not function as designed causing conditions not allowable in
Stream S-B75 (Goose Run)); id. (“Sediment Laden water was observed leaving a dewatering
structure used for the boring under Stream S-B75 (Goose Run).”); id. (Mountain Valley’s
boring operation “has caused conditions not allowable in waters of the State by allowing
distinctly visible settleable solids in Stream S-B75 (Goose Run).”); id. at 2 (“The dewatering
20
apply close scrutiny to Mountain Valley’s claims that its dewatering activities will
not have significant impacts on surface waters and collect sufficient information to
demonstrate that such failures are not likely to recur.
2. The Direct Pipe and guided conventional bore methods pose

additional risks to water quality resulting from their use of drilling
fluids
Mountain Valley proposes to use the Direct Pipe method to cross the
Greenbrier River, the longest of the proposed trenchless crossings, and to use the
guided conventional bore method at two other locations.59 In addition to the risks
associated with borehole collapse and disruption of subsurface water flows
identified above, the Direct Pipe and guided conventional bore methods also pose
risks due to the use of bentonite or other drilling fluids which may escape and
contaminate ground and surface waters.60 As Mountain Valley acknowledges, “[t]he
two proposed trenchless crossing methods that require the use of fluids—guided
conventional bore and Direct Pipe—also include a risk of inadvertent return (IR).”
The impacts of such inadvertent returns can be significant.
structure had stagnant water inside the structure with an odor present. . . . [A]n
algae/bacterial mat was growing/forming on the ground where the discharge was
occurring.”).
59Amendment Application, Resource Report 1, Appendix 1, Table A-1; id., Resource Report
3 at 3-9.
60Mountain Valley notes that it will also likely use “small quantities of water, bentonite, or
polymer-based lubricant” to complete the longer conventional bores as well. Those crossings
thus present similar contamination risks as the Direct Pipe crossing of the Greenbrier
River. See Amendment Application, Resource Report 2 at 2-13.
21
As Nimmer explains, the use of boring technologies that employ drilling
fluids “add significant risk to water bodies” that was not considered in the EIS for
the project:61
If pressurized drilling fluids are injected into the subsurface during

completion of these bores, the fluids can move in unexpected directions
including upwards and discharge into surface water or downwards into
aquifers used for drinking water. If a bentonite or a bentonite/water
mixture is used during the pilot hole drilling, similar risks of a release
are present. A release of drilling fluids into surface waters or
groundwater could have significant environmental effects due to the
high pH of fluids, elevated turbidity and chemicals in the drilling fluid.
Any release has the potential to cause acute or chronic human health or
ecological impacts. For example, there is evidence that the short-term
effects of releasing drilling fluid into wetlands include temporary
displacement of resident fauna, smothering of benthic organisms and
plant root systems, increased turbidity of water quality, and changes to
water chemistry and wetland hydrology. Releases of drilling fluids are
frequent occurrences during drilling operations. At these locations,
should drilling fluids or bentonite reach surface water bodies or
groundwater resources, significant short term and long term impacts
could result.62
Nimmer notes that Mountain Valley fails to provide sufficient information to
determine the likelihood or potential magnitude of such releases, including “the
volume or amounts of bentonite or slurry that will be used, whether the slurry will
be pressurized, or what pressures will be used.”63 FERC must obtain and evaluate
this information in order to reasonably predict the impacts of the crossings that will
employ drilling fluids.
62 Nimmer Update at 5. See also Nimmer Report at 4.
63 Nimmer Update at 5.
22
3. The trenchless crossing methods’ hydrogeological and water quality

impacts would cause significant harm to aquatic life
As demonstrated above, the boring methods proposed by Mountain Valley
cause disruptions to groundwater systems, dewater surface streams and wetlands,
and introduce significant additional sediment into surface waters. Those impacts
will have significant adverse consequences for the biological communities that rely
on the impacted aquatic resources.64
Matthew Baker, Professor of Environmental Science with a specialty in
aquatic ecology at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, reviewed
Mountain Valley’s proposal, along with the Nimmer Report, and determined that
“the ecological consequences [of the proposed boring activities] would be
somewhere between temporarily degraded to catastrophic.”65 The hydrological and
water quality impacts described in the Nimmer Report would “reduce the extent
and the quality of aquatic habitat” both spatially and temporally, “degrade fish
64See Nimmer Report at 3 (“The disruption of these areas, and increased turbidity caused
by the project, will adversely impact ecosystems within the surrounding surface water
bodies, flood plains and wetland areas, as well as the wildlife habitats in these areas.”); id.
(“Borehole-created conduits can cause dewatering of wetland areas, significant changes in
the size and quality of wetlands, or permanent drying of wetlands and subsequent loss of
habitat in these areas.”).
65 Matthew Baker, PhD, Comments on Mountain Valley Pipeline’s Requested Amendment to

its Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (2020) at 2 (“Baker Report”). That report
is attached as Exhibit 7 to these comments and is hereby incorporated by reference as if set
forth fully herein. Mr. Baker has over 20 years of experience in the fields of aquatic ecology
and watershed science, including relevant “expertise in analyzing biological community
data, characterizing and modeling physical and chemical drivers of habitat, and diagnosing
causes of biological change in aquatic ecosystems;” experience “evaluat[ing] biological
community response to hydrologic and chemical stressors in Maryland, Ohio, West
Virginia, Virginia, and Massachusetts streams;” and “experience in analyzing stream
hydrology and geomorphology.” Baker Report at 1.
23
spawning beds,” and “increase[e] the embeddedness of coarse channel substrate
utilized by invertebrates and fish,” among other impacts.66
One cause of the ecological impacts would be stream and wetland dewatering
resulting from the creation of hydrological conduits associated with boring
activities. “Short term dewatering would certainly be lethal for many aquatic
organisms or displace them to downstream habitats (something that is only
realistic for more motile taxa), where they are more vulnerable to predation.”67 The
impacts of the creation of hydrological conduits associated with Mountain Valley’s
proposed activities, however, are likely to create “long-term issue[s]” that would
lead to “prolonged dewatering,” which has potentially much more serious impacts
that have “yet to be assessed.”68 Those impacts include “reduce[d] recruitment of
wetland plants that depend on periods of saturated soils or shallow water tables for
germination or seasonal growth,” “alter[ed] redox conditions that govern many
important biogeochemical processes (e.g., nitrification and denitrification),”
“reduced sediment transport, warmer water temperatures, poor aeration,”
“reductions in aquatic habitat,” “increase[ed] . . .embeddedness of coarse channel
substrate utilized by invertebrates and fish,”69 and “more rapid warming of water
66 Id. at 4–5.
67 Id. at 4.
68 Id.
69Increased embeddedness is detrimental because “[i]nvertebrates rely on pore spaces to

shelter from predators but suffer from reduced aeration when these spaces fill with
sediment and constrict water circulation in the stream bed. Fish also make use of coarse
24
with air temperatures and greater diurnal fluctuation of temperatures” which
would “contribute to reduced oxygen levels for aerobic respiration while increasing
metabolic rates earlier in the season.”70
The substantial volume of groundwater that will need to be pumped to
maintain the bore pits would also have significant adverse impacts. If the pumped
water is laden with sediment—as has been observed in Mountain Valley’s previous
boring operations, see supra at 20–21—Mountain Valley’s discharges would
“represent significant turbidity and potentially dramatic changes to the fine
sediment load in many streams.”71 This is important because “[m]any aquatic
larvae are sensitive to increases in turbidity and fine sediment, and fine deposition
can degrade fish spawning beds.”72 The presence of excess sedimentation, whether
from pit dewatering or other pipeline activities such as erosion from the cleared
right-of-way or storage of bore pit spoil,73 compounds the problems presented by
beds for spawning, as the same conditions allow for protection of eggs and shelter of fry,
both of which are notoriously sensitive to sedimentation in Appalachian streams.” Id. at 4.
70 Id.
71Id. at 5. See also Nimmer Update at 5 (“[T]here is evidence that the short-term effects of
releasing drilling fluid into wetlands include temporary displacement of resident fauna,
smothering of benthic organisms and plant root systems, increased turbidity of water
quality, and changes to water chemistry and wetland hydrology.”)
72 Baker Report at 5.
73See id. at 5–6 (discussing the sedimentation risks created by Mountain Valley’s proposed
storage, handling, and disposal of excess spoil).
25
stream dewatering, leaving streams stressed and less able to recover from periods
of reduced flow.74
The likely ecological impacts of Mountain Valley’s proposed activities have
not been evaluated in the EIS for the MVP and are neither equivalent to nor
demonstrably less significant than the previously-approved open-trench method.
As Baker explains,
Although the pumping and discharge of groundwater seepage[,]

handling of spoils, and associated sediment erosion may appear similar
to what was described in the earlier EIS, the intensity of bore pit
pumping is likely to be higher, the spoils dispersed over a broader area,
and both would occur over longer periods than what was initially
described during a different and arguably more sensitive season in the
life history of stream dwelling organisms. Because of these differences,
any claim that the workflow associated with borehole drilling somehow
minimizes the environmental risks over open-cut crossings lacks
credibility and remains entirely unsupported.75
Likewise, “[a]s opposed to the short-term dewatering considered in the EIS for open
trench crossings, creation of new hydraulic conduits may represent permanent
alterations to the system or a chronic condition. This would represent an entirely
different kind of alteration than previously considered.”76
74 Id. at 4.
75 Id. at 2.
76Id. at 3; see also id. at 5 (“Because the EIS only considered temporary pumping of open-
cut trenches during low water periods when many sensitive taxa are not be resident in
small streams (i.e., because many aquatic invertebrates are in terrestrial stages or
dormant, and fish have migrated to downstream habitats), and because the length of time
spent drilling at each site could either be similar to trench or substantially longer due to
geologic strata, the potential impacts of the proposed discharges are unclear, but entirely
distinct in terms of timing, magnitude, and duration from what was evaluated by the
EIS.”); id. at 3 (“It thus appears that spoil relocation will be fairly commonplace, whereas
such transport of sediment was not described as part of the original workplan considered by
the EIS.”); id. at 6 (“In developing the EIS, federal agencies never considered the potential
26
In order to satisfy NEPA, FERC must fully evaluate these potential impacts
to aquatic life that have not been previously assessed or disclosed.
4. The current record is insufficient to evaluate the potential impacts of

Mountain Valley’s proposed activities
Although the existing information is sufficient to determine that Mountain
Valley’s proposed trenchless crossing operations are likely to have significant
adverse impacts on the quality of the environment, much more is needed to fully
evaluate the character and intensity of such impacts. Mountain Valley’s application
materials omit information that is essential to answer such critical questions as the
likelihood of borehole failure, the susceptibility of the water table to disruption, the
magnitude of expected sedimentation, and the extent and quality of the existing
drinking water resources to be impacted.77 The information is likewise insufficient
to allow FERC to determine the likely impacts of the proposed activities on aquatic
impacts of discharge from excavation operations during the wintertime when many more
aquatic species are resident, from deeper holes where groundwater seepage is likely to be
far greater than the shallower trenches, and when greater stream flows are likely to
transport fine material further downstream.”).
77 See Nimmer Report at 2 (“[A] review of the limited documentation MVP provided
establishes that significant adverse consequences are likely to occur from this change of
waterbody crossing method. Moreover, the information MVP has provided is incomplete
and inadequate to fully assess the environmental impacts that may occur.”); Nimmer
Update at 2 (“FERC should not authorize the proposed actions until it gathers sufficient
information regarding the boring operations and potable wells, as detailed below, such that
it can rationally assess, consider, and disclose to the public the likely impacts of MVP’s
proposal.”).
27
wildlife.78 Without gathering this information, FERC cannot fulfill its duty under
NEPA to assess and disclose the project’s impacts.79
The most critical analyses that Mountain Valley has failed to provide are
site-specific hydrogeological assessments of the boring sites. Such characterizations
are necessary to assess the likelihood of success of boring in a particular location as
well as the potential for disruption to subsurface hydrology.80 Nimmer notes that, in
the absence of pre-boring characterization of geologic conditions at crossings, “it is
not possible to assess the likelihood of encountering geologic conditions,” including
“the presence of boulders or weathered bedrock,” “which may prevent completion of
boreholes, or to anticipate and prevent problems with the proposed drilling
method.”81 Gathering such information in advance is essential because many of the
78 See Baker Report at 2 (concluding that the “circumstances of the proposed crossings are
different from those considered under the earlier EIS” and that “[m]ore information is
needed to adequately assess potential consequences of the proposed amendment”); id.
(“Because of these differences [in impacts between conventional bore and dry open-cut
crossings] and the site-specific nature of many of the potential consequences, the full scope
of the impacts cannot be understood without further assessment.”).
79 See Marsh, 490 U.S. at 374.
80 See, e.g., Williams (2014) at 2 (“Subsurface soil and geologic conditions must be condusive
[sic] to establishing and maintaining a safe bore pit excavation, as well as provide the
capabilities for the boring equipment to conduct a successful bore. Loose packed sediment,
free of rock material is preferred when conducting boring operations.”).
81Nimmer Report at 4; see also id. at 6 (“Several [geologic] conditions would result in a
borehole that cannot be completed to its intended length such as unexpected geology,
problematic geology or soils, or equipment issues.”); Baker Report at 2–3 (explaining that,
because the depths of the bore pits are greater than the depth of the trench in the original
crossing plans, Mountain Valley is more likely to encounter bedrock and to “involve
interactions with groundwater aquifers”); id. at 4 (“The nature, extent, and magnitude of
the impacts being described would likely vary based on network position and the site-
specific hydrogeology.”); id. at 6 (“Importantly, the switch to borehole crossings has
emphasized the need to develop more detailed and site-specific understanding of valley
bottom geology and aquifer characteristics. Such information is necessary to assess the
28
adverse impacts of the proposed activities may not be immediately apparent and
thus not properly remediated by Mountain Valley.82
Mountain Valley itself recognizes that borehole failure could be caused by
“[u]nanticipated geological or hydrological conditions in which ground or surface
water affects construction, or the geologic materials become unstable or collapse.”83
But FERC and Mountain Valley may not simply resign themselves to the possibility
of borehole failures. Rather, they must gather sufficient information so that they
can reasonably anticipate—and, ideally, avoid—such consequences.84
potential for chronic or permanent channel, floodplain, or wetland dewatering. Information

in the approved EIS was insufficient to fully appreciate or understand the site-specific
hydrologic implications or risks of borehole crossings.”). See also Kwast-Kotlarek et al.,
Introducing Bentonite into the Environment in the Construction Stage of Linear
Underground Investment Using the HDD Method, Applied Sciences, November 2018,
attached as Exhibit 8 at 17 (“Designing the routes of gas pipeline systems is important for
the function of ecosystems. Each gas pipeline construction project has to be based on
thorough ecological and physiographic studies and a reliable evaluation of the
environmental impact, which specify variant solutions for ensuring minimal losses and the
lowest possible limitations to the function of the natural environment.”); id. (explaining
that drilling fluids such as bentonite “constitute a type of waste that is difficult to manage,
as its nature may change depending on the chemical nature of the drilling fluid used and
the geological and technological drilling conditions.”).
82See Baker Report at 4 (“[C]hronic dewatering in stream channels and floodplains from
hydraulic conduits accessed and/or created through borehole drilling might be
inconspicuous in the wintertime [at the time of construction] when evapotranspirative
demands are low and losses are masked by higher flows, but result in either reduced flow
regimes or truncated periods of surface flow altogether when evapotranspiration increases
in the spring and summer, with cascading environmental effects.”).
84Nimmer Update at 3 (“[I]nformation provided in [Mountain Valley’s] response indicates

how [borehole failure] issues will be addressed after occurring (i.e., default to contingency
plan) but significantly, does not indicate how these issues will be prevented from occurring.
Due to the serious adverse potential effects of a failed borehole, significant efforts should be
made prior to and during drilling to prevent borehole failures, deviation from the planned
29
In order to predict the impacts of conventional boring at the proposed
locations, FERC must assess “soil thickness,” “the depth of the soil/bedrock
interface,” and “bedrock hardness which may affect drilling, or presence of
fracturing or permeability that may increase the likelihood of forming an
unintentional hydraulic connection between surface water and groundwater.”85
Without such analysis, “there is an increased risk of failure or encountering
unexpected conditions such as borehole collapse.”86
Mountain Valley has demonstrated that it can perform these sorts of
analyses in its Feasibility Assessments for six of the longest of the proposed
trenchless crossings. There, Mountain went beyond the inadequate desktop analysis
that it relies on for the vast majority of the crossings and conducted “test borings”
as well as “Resistivity Imaging Stud[ies]” that “help identify the subsurface geology
along the guided conventional bore path.”87 This sort of analysis is necessary to
determine the likely impacts at all proposed trenchless crossings, not just a handful
selected by Mountain Valley.
bore path or encountering boulders greater than on third of the diameter of the installed
pipe that may prevent bore completion.”).
86Id.; see also id. at 5 (“No information is provided regarding depths of water bodies,
bathometry of surface water at crossings, cross-sections, an understanding of bank
conditions and how these compare to the proposed depth of each borehole.”).
87 See, e.g., Amendment Application, Appendix F at F-1. FERC has required this sort of
geotechnical analysis in the past, such as when it required Mountain Valley to perform a
geotechnical analysis of the feasibility of crossing the Pigg River by HDD. See EIS at 4-119
(discussing Mountain Valley performing “core drilling” and other analyses to determine if it
is “geologically feasible to cross under the Pigg River”).
30
Compounding Mountain Valley’s omission of sufficient information to
evaluate the likelihood of borehole failure is its refusal to provide any detailed plans
for addressing such a failed boring operation. As noted above, “[o]ne or more failed
boreholes should be considered a likely possibility.”88 “However, there is a very
limited discussion of what actions will be taken if obstacles are encountered which
cannot be accommodated by the drilling method, or what will occur if boreholes are
abandoned to prevent environmental impacts.”89 Although Mountain Valley claims
that it will “shift the bore entry ten feet to either side of the original bore entry and
attempt another bore” in the event a bore cannot be completed,90 “[t]his limited
description is not a contingency plan for how a failed borehole will be properly
abandoned to prevent forming a major hydraulic conduit underlying wetlands or
surface water which may cause dewatering of surface water bodies.”91 A meaningful
contingency plan must “assess how the decision will be made to terminate a bore,
how the bore will be properly abandoned so it does not create a hydraulic conduit or
damage overlying surface water, inspections, or what actions will be taken to
prevent bore collapse or limit the potential for a release of pressurized drilling
fluids.”92
89 Id.
92Id. at 8. Grouting, which is part of Mountain Valley’s proposal, is not a panacea. See
Nimmer Update at 3.
31
In addition to information necessary to characterize the geological conditions
at each boring location, FERC also lacks the information needed to determine the
extent of groundwater resources threatened by Mountain Valley’s proposal. Because
the boring activities have the potential to impact aquifers used for domestic water
supplies, FERC must collect “[l]ocation specific data on wells, well depths, flow
rates and water elevation.”93 The one groundwater study provided by Mountain
Valley observed measurable effects from pit dewatering at a radius of 300 feet, but
FERC has stated that the study is not appropriate to predict impacts to
groundwater under the conditions present in the area of the proposed amendment.94
Moreover, Mountain Valley only attempted to determine the presence of drinking
water sources within 150 feet of the proposed bore pits, and relied on incomplete
public databases to do so.95 It is therefore “very likely that other drinking water
wells are located near all or some of the crossings, and further investigation is
needed to quantify the actual number of residences and private wells that may be
affected by the proposed drilling.”96 Without additional investigation, FERC cannot
93Id. at 9; see also id. at 5 (“There is limited information provided regarding current
groundwater use, documenting current conditions, or addressing how the proposed drilling
activities will protect drinking water aquifers.”).
94 See supra note 50 and accompanying text.
95 Nimmer Report at 8; id. at 9 (“It is worth noting that private wells in rural areas are not
likely to be represented in publicly available databases that MVP used to search for
drinking water wells. . . . Instead of relying on databases and limited outreach, a
comprehensive survey should be completed to accurately identify how many residences and
wells are within 500 feet of drilling areas, or which may be affected by bore operations.”).
32
determine “the radius of potential impacts” nor whether “the borehole depths are
properly located away from aquifers that are currently used for drinking water, or
may be in the future.”97
Finally, Mountain Valley fails to include adequate information to evaluate
how it will detect and respond to adverse impacts from its proposed boring
operations. “There is no information provided about how impacts will be monitored
to reduce likelihood of damage to surface water or groundwater resources.”98 In
order to detect and mitigate such impacts, FERC must require documentation of
baseline water quality and quantity conditions at each boring site, followed by
“close monitoring of groundwater and surface water resources . . . so any impacts
will be observed early before significant damage to resources can occur.”99 Without
such assessment and monitoring, the impacts of the proposed waterbody crossings
cannot be determined nor minimized.100
97Id.; see also id. (“Information must be provided by the applicant and addressed by FERC
to assess the potential hydrological and drinking water impact of the proposed Certificate
amendment and to ensure that appropriate measures are implemented to minimize effects
on people nearby.”).
98 Id. at 7.
99 Id.
100 Id.
33
D. FERC May Not Authorize the Use of Alternative Crossing Methods Without
Fully Evaluating and Disclosing the Impacts of Those Methods at Specific
Locations as Part of the NEPA Process
In its application, Mountain Valley requests authorization to bore under
streams using three methods: conventional bore, guided conventional bore, and
Direct Pipe.101 However, Mountain Valley also requests that:
in the unlikely event of a bore failure, or in the event Mountain Valley

encounters unexpected conditions that may affect the feasibility of its
proposed trenchless crossing method, Mountain Valley requests that the
Commission grant Mountain Valley the optionality to complete such
crossing by reverting to the open-cut method where Mountain Valley has
met all other applicable legal and permitting requirements to utilize the
open-cut method, as well as the flexibility to change to a trenchless
crossing method other than specified in this Application.102
There are several major problems with this request.
First, Mountain Valley’s request could be read to seek authorization to
employ trenchless crossing methods that are not identified in its application, i.e.,
methods other than conventional bore, guided conventional bore, and Direct Pipe.
FERC may not approve the use of any crossing methods for which it has not
analyzed and disclosed the impacts through the NEPA process. Mountain Valley
has not provided information necessary to determine the impacts of any additional
crossing techniques. Accordingly, FERC may not authorize the use of any other
methods not specifically evaluated, even as a contingency.
101 Amendment Application at 1 n.3.
102 Id. at 8 (emphasis added).
34
Furthermore, FERC cannot not grant Mountain Valley authority to change
the method of trenchless crossing (even to a method that has been analyzed in a
supplemental NEPA document) at its discretion because the different crossing
techniques are likely to have different impacts when applied at different locations.
As Mountain Valley’s Feasibility Assessments in its Amendment Application
demonstrate, certain locations present risks that are not present at all crossing
locations.103 Moreover, certain trenchless techniques have a greater likelihood of
causing more significant environmental impacts, such that knowing the extent to
which those techniques will be used is essential to predicting the intensity of the
potential impacts associated with Mountain Valley’s requested amendment.104
Finally, Mountain Valley’s request that it be authorized to revert to an open-
cut method if its proposed boring methods proves unworkable is not sensible.
Although Mountain Valley claims that the 2017 final EIS “already evaluated the
impacts of open-cut crossings for the same aquatic features proposed herein to be
changed to trenchless crossings,”105 that is not the only legal hurdle it must clear to
103See, e.g., Id., Appendix F at F-1 (noting that at the Elk River crossing, geotechnical data
reveals that groundwater is expected to be encountered in the bore pits); F-3 (noting that
the C-035 crossing contains materials that will likely require rock drilling techniques as
well as additional “clearing and grading on both the launch and receiving pits side”). See
also id., Appendix I Table 1 (showing that at least six of the crossings are in areas of
sensitive karst geology).
104Id. Appendix, F at F-5 (noting that the Direct Pipe method proposed for the Greenbrier
River crossing involves the use of bentonite, which presents contamination risks in the
event of an inadvertent return that are not present with the conventional bore method in
most instances).
105 Id. at 8.
35
be authorized to conduct an open-cut crossing. Rather, Mountain Valley would need
to obtain an additional individual permit from the Army Corps for that crossing
under Clean Water Act Section 404.
But Mountain Valley is not seeking authorization from the Corps for the
crossings for which it is currently seeking FERC authorization to employ trenchless
techniques. Indeed, Mountain Valley in a footnote acknowledges that “[c]hanging
the crossing method to an open cut would require review and approval by the
Corps.”106 Because that review and approval would require an individual permit
with its own attendant NEPA process and public notice and comment procedures
(as well as a “least environmentally damaging practicable alternatives” review by
the Corps), there is no reason for FERC to grant Mountain Valley that authority
now without having all the relevant facts before it. Rather, in the event that
Mountain Valley encounters circumstances that it believes require it to change the
method of crossing from an approved trenchless method to an open-cut, it can
request an additional certificate amendment from FERC at the same time it seeks
Section 404 authority from the Corps. That modification can then be analyzed in a
single NEPA document, with the benefit of FERC not having to speculate about the
potential impacts of the change on its current NEPA analysis.
In sum, if Mountain Valley is not confident that it can successfully complete
the crossings using the specific methods identified in its application, it must
identify the alternative crossing methods for which it seeks authorization and
106 Id., n.15.
36
provide adequate information for FERC to evaluate the impacts of using those
methods at those specific locations, taking into account the current environmental
conditions at each location. Otherwise, it must return to FERC for additional
authorization, subject to additional NEPA analysis, when it knows what crossing
technique it will employ at a specific location.
E. FERC Must Consider Alternatives That Utilize Trenchless Crossings at

Additional Locations
In the EA for the now-withdrawn application in FERC Docket No. CP21-12,
FERC expressed its view that the conventional bore crossing method has
environmental advantages over the open-cut trenching method:
In contrast to open-cut trenching, the use of a conventional bore to cross

an environmental resource such as a waterbody or wetland, avoids
direct impacts associated with working directly within the resource.
Conventional bores allow for uninterrupted existing streamflow and
undisturbed wetland soils and scrub-shrub and herbaceous vegetation,
thereby minimizing impacts on aquatic resources and preserving
wetland and wildlife habitat. Additionally, the proposed conventional
bore crossings would result in reduced in-stream sedimentation as
compared to the in-water construction approved for the Mountain Valley
Pipeline Project. This reduction results from less disturbance of the
riparian areas adjacent to the waterbodies, and avoidance of impacts to
the streambed. Lastly, conventional bore crossings would avoid the
ground disturbance associated with trenching and backfilling in the
subject wetlands and reduce longer-term impacts by accelerating the
post-construction revegetation period.107
107EA at 11 (Accession No. 20210107). Mountain Valley made similar representations in its
Section 404 application to the Corps: “[T]he selection of trenchless crossings typically
results in the minimization of aquatic impacts at the crossing site, as well as the
minimization of impacts to riparian vegetations.” Mountain Valley Pipeline Project,
Individual Permit Application at 62 (Feb. 2021) (Accession No. 20210304-5122).
37
Notably, in the amendment application in Docket No. 21-12, Mountain Valley
proposed to use the conventional bore method at every single waterbody within the
first 77 miles of the MVP route.108 In its current application, however, Mountain
Valley omits numerous of those crossings that it previously claimed were feasible to
accomplish with the conventional boring method. Commenters do not necessarily
agree that conventional bores or other trenchless methods will always be
environmentally preferable given the significant potential environmental impacts
associated with those techniques and the shortage of site-specific information in the
record.109 Nevertheless, in order to fulfill its obligations under NEPA—and to allow
the Corps to fulfill its obligations under both NEPA and the Clean Water Act—
FERC must consider alternatives to Mountain Valley’s proposal that require the
use of trenchless crossing methods at all crossing locations. At a minimum, such a
review is required for all locations where Mountain Valley previously claimed such
crossings are feasible.
Consideration of alternatives “is the heart of the environmental impact
statement.”110 The “discussion of alternatives must rigorously explore and
objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives.”111 The obligation to consider
alternatives flows from the NEPA statute itself and exists for any proposal “which
108 Accession No. 20201118-5179.
109 See supra § I.C.
110 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14.
111 Union Neighbors United, Inc. v. Jewell, 831 F.3d 564, 568 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
38
involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources.”112
Because Mountain Valley has previously stated that it can cross all waterbodies in
the first 77 miles of the MVP route with a conventional bore, an alternative that
requires the use of a conventional bore at all of those locations is necessarily a
reasonable alternative and presents an unresolved conflict over how those crossings
should occur. Further, FERC must investigate the degree to which requiring
Mountain Valley to employ trenchless crossing methods at additional locations
along the pipeline route presents a reasonable alternative.
Consideration of such alternatives is necessary not only for FERC to satisfy
its NEPA duty, but also for the Corps to carry out its responsibilities under the
Clean Water Act. As the Corps explained to FERC, its permitting process also
requires an analysis of alternatives. Specifically, the Corps may not authorize the
discharge of dredged or fill material such as would be required for an open-cut
crossing if there “is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would
have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem.”113 Moreover, a “fundamental
precept of the Corps’ Regulatory Program under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
is that the discharge of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the United States
will be avoided and minimized, where it is practicable to do so,” such that a “Section
404 of the Clean Water Act permit may only authorize the least environmentally
112 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(E).
113 Acceptance of Cooperating Agency Responsibility at 3.
39
damaging practicable alternative.”114 Thus, for a NEPA document to support the
Corps’ permitting process, it must “evaluate how the Project was designed to avoid
and minimize the discharge of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the United
States” including analysis of “avoidance and minimization alternatives.”115
So far, Mountain Valley has not provided sufficient data to inform a site-
specific analysis of the environmental impacts at each of its crossing locations,
regardless of whether the company intends to trench or bore the particular location.
In its Corps application, Mountain Valley maintains that there are site specific
considerations at each stream.116 But Mountain Valley has never detailed what
those site specific considerations are.117 In particular, for its proposed boring
locations, Mountain Valley asserts in a conclusory way and without explanation
that “there are no . . . significant environmental impacts relevant to the available
methods.”118 That is insufficient to allow a hard look at the environmental impacts
at each crossing and determine whether those impacts are significant.
In sum, trenchless crossings represent one potential avoidance and
minimization alternative for the crossings that Mountain Valley proposes to
114 Id.
115Id.; see also 40 C.F.R. 230.10(a)(4) (requiring supplementation of NEPA documents that
do not consider alternatives in sufficient detail to address the “least environmentally
damaging practicable alternatives” requirements of the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines).
116Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Individual Permit Application at 62 (Feb. 2021)

(Accession No. 20210304-5122).
117 Id., Table 15.
118 Id.
40
accomplish using the open-cut method. In order for the Corps to be able to rely on
FERC’s NEPA analysis for the project in determining the least environmentally
damaging practicable alternative, FERC must further evaluate the practicability of
requiring Mountain Valley to employ trenchless crossing methods at all crossing
locations.
F. FERC Must Provide Additional Opportunity for Public Review and Comment
of Currently Outstanding Information Necessary to Assess the Impacts of the
Proposal
While commenters appreciate the present opportunity to identify relevant
environmental issues in this scoping process, additional opportunities are required
for the public to adequately participate in the Commission’s decisionmaking
process. When seeking public input in the NEPA process, agencies must “provide
the public with sufficient environmental information, considered in the totality of
circumstances, to permit members of the public to weigh in with their views and
thus inform the agency decision-making process.” Bering Strait Citizens for
Responsible Dev. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 524 F.3d 938, 953 (9th Cir. 2008).
FERC has failed to provide adequate information to allow the public to develop
complete comments and fully identify all significant issues that need to be
addressed in the EIS.
As explained above, there are significant gaps in the information that
Mountain Valley has provided that preclude a full assessment of the likely impacts
of the proposed activities. Indeed, on April 12, 2021, just three days prior to the
deadline for these scoping comments, Commission staff issued an environmental
41
information request to Mountain Valley seeking outstanding information that is
“necessary for [FERC] to continue preparation of the National Environmental Policy
Act document,” and requested that Mountain Valley respond within 15 days.119 The
critical outstanding information that will not be subject to public review and
comment as part of this scoping process includes:
 “the containment and disposal measures that would be used for any drilling
fluid and/or lubricants to avoid potential impacts to resources during and
after boring activities;”
 information concerning “the stability of the proposed bore pits,” including a
description of “how the bore pits would be constructed in order to prevent
collapse;”
 information supporting Mountain Valley’s claims regarding the likelihood of
a bore deflection to breach the stream bottom;
 information regarding energy-dissipation devices that would purportedly
mitigate the impacts of the discharges from borehole dewatering devices;
 the acreage of disturbance of riparian buffers;
 information regarding time-of-year restrictions relative to hibernation season
for the Indiana bat;
 information necessary to determine the Environmental Justice implications
of the proposed activity;
 information regarding the best management practices to be applied in areas
of sensitive karst geology; and
 information necessary to determine the likelihood of boring failures including
the likelihood of encountering “boulders more than one-third the size of the
casing,” “mixed-face conditions of soil and solid rock,” and “flowing/heaving
sands and artesian groundwater conditions.”120
In order to satisfy NEPA’s public participation goals, the public must have an
opportunity to review and respond to Mountain Valley’s responses to the
119 Accession No. 20210412-3045.
120 Id.
42
Commission’s information request and any other information Mountain Valley may
submit to fill the existing information gaps as part of the NEPA process. This fact
further supports the conclusion that FERC must, after gathering adequate
information, prepare a Supplemental EIS and circulate that document for public
review and comment.
G. FERC Must Consider the MVP’s Climate Change Impacts as Part of Its NEPA
Analysis for the Proposed Amendment
FERC’s environmental review must fully consider the climate impacts of this
pipeline project and may not rely on the deficient and outdated discussion in its
2017 FEIS. President Biden’s executive orders addressing climate change, as well
as a recent FERC order, make clear that NEPA requires more. Because Mountain
Valley’s request for an amended certificate requires FERC to revisit the
environmental impacts of the project, its reasonable alternatives, and whether the
project is in the public interest, FERC must include a climate change analysis that
comports with its current understanding of its NEPA obligations. Furthermore, if
the Corps intends to rely on FERC’s environmental review for its NEPA obligations
associated with Mountain Valley’s Clean Water Act Section 404 permit application,
the environmental review must include a climate impacts analysis.
Because “[t]he harms associated with climate change are serious and well
recognized,”121 carefully considering a project’s climate impacts is critical to any
NEPA review—particularly when the project’s very purpose is the transportation of
121 Massachusetts v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 549 U.S. 497, 521 (2007).
43
gas that will drive emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that
contribute to climate change.122 This pipeline project would generate end-use
greenhouse gas emissions for its expected lifespan of fifty years,123 in conflict with
the national goals espoused in President Biden’s recent executive orders.124
Executive Order 14008 establishes the goals of “net-zero emissions, economy-wide,
by no later than 2050.”125 In Executive Order 13990, President Biden directed all
executive departments and agencies to “immediately review” and “take action” to
address any Federal “actions during the last 4 years that conflict with . . . important
national objectives [including the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions], and to
immediately commence work to confront the climate crisis.”126 The order
reestablishes the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse
Gases and instructs agencies to use the Social Cost of Carbon, which has been
widely endorsed by economists, scientists, and legal scholars,127 to “capture the full
122Cf. Sierra Club v. FERC, 867 F.3d 1357, 1372 (2017) (holding that FERC must analyze
the climate change effects for a project whose purpose is to burn gas in power plants).
123 FEIS, at 2-58.
124See Exec. Order No. 14008, Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, 86 Fed.
Reg. 7619, 7619 (Jan. 27, 2021); Exec. Order 13990, Protecting Public Health and the
Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis, 86 Fed. Reg. 7037, 7037
(Jan. 25, 2021).
125 Exec. Order No. 14008, 86 Fed. Reg. at 7619.
126 Exec. Order 13990, 86 Fed. Reg. at 7037.
See NAT’L ACADS. SCI., ENG’G & MED., VALUING CLIMATE DAMAGES: UPDATING
127
ESTIMATES OF THE SOCIAL COST OF CARBON DIOXIDE 3, 10–17 (2017); NAT’L ACADS. SCI.,
ENG’G & MED., ASSESSMENT OF APPROACHES TO UPDATING THE SOCIAL COST OF CARBON:
PHASE 1 REPORT ON A NEAR-TERM UPDATE 1 (2016); Richard L. Revesz et al., Best Cost
Estimate of Greenhouse Gas, 357 SCIENCE 655 (2017).
44
costs of greenhouse gas emissions as accurately as possible, including by taking
global damages into account.”128
Executive Order 13990 also makes clear that agencies should look to CEQ’s
2016 guidance on climate change analysis during NEPA review.129 That guidance
recommends that agencies quantify greenhouse gas emissions and provide “a
qualitative summary discussion of the impacts of GHG emissions.”130 The guidance
also makes clear that “a statement that emissions from a proposed Federal action
represent only a small fraction of global emissions . . . is not an appropriate basis for
deciding whether or to what extent to consider climate change impacts under
NEPA” because such a statement “does not reveal anything beyond the nature of
the climate change challenge itself: the fact that diverse individual sources of
emissions each make a relatively small addition to global atmospheric GHG
concentrations that collectively have a large impact.”131
The analysis in the 2017 FEIS satisfies neither FERC’s, nor the Corps’,
NEPA obligations. The 2017 FEIS discusses climate change and the harms of
greenhouse gas emissions generally and provides an estimate of greenhouse gas
emissions due to end-use combustion of the gas that would be transported by the
128 Exec. Order 13990, 86 Fed. Reg. at 7040.
129 See id. at 7042.
Council on Envtl. Quality, Final Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on
130
Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in National
Environmental Policy Act Reviews 10 (2016) [hereinafter “CEQ Climate Guidance”].
131 Id. at 11.
45
pipeline.132 However, the FEIS stops there, stating: “Because we cannot determine
the project[’s] incremental physical impacts on the environment caused by climate
change, we cannot determine whether the project[’s] contribution to cumulative
impacts on climate change would be significant.”133
As FERC acknowledged last month, that approach falls short of NEPA’s
requirements.134 In Northern Natural Gas Company,135 FERC “for the first time
assessed the significance of a proposed natural gas pipeline project’s greenhouse gas
emissions and their contribution to climate change.”136 Chairman Glick stated that,
“[g]oing forward, [FERC is] committed to treating greenhouse gas emissions and
their contribution to climate change the same as all other environmental impacts
we consider . . . . A proposed pipeline’s contribution to climate change is one of its
most consequential environmental impacts and we must consider all evidence in the
record—both qualitative and quantitative—to assess the significance of that
impact.”137
132 FEIS, at 4-488, 4-619–20.
133 Id. at 4-620.
134 News Release, FERC, FERC Reaches Compromise on Greenhouse Gas Significance (Mar.
18, 2021) [hereinafter “FERC News Release”], available at https://www.ferc.gov/news-
events/news/ferc-reaches-compromise-greenhouse-gas-significance#.
135 174 FERC ¶ 61189 (2021). Although FERC concluded that the impacts of Northern
Natural were insignificant, that project was a replacement of existing pipeline rather than
a new pipeline. Id. at ¶ 1. MVP, with a capacity of 2.0 bcf/day, is one of the largest gas
pipelines proposed anywhere in the country and is exactly the kind of gas pipeline project
that poses the greatest risk of serious climate impacts.
136 FERC News Release.
137 Id.
46
FERC’s order acknowledges the deficiency of its previous treatment of
climate change impacts and provides additional details on how climate change
impacts will be analyzed in similar projects. FERC notes: “In previous orders, the
Commission has concluded that it was unable to assess the significance of a
project’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or those emissions’ contribution to
climate change. Upon reconsideration, we no longer believe that to be the case.”138
The analysis proceeds by
compar[ing] the project’s reasonably foreseeable GHG emissions to the

total GHG emissions of the United States as a whole. That comparison
allows us to assess the project’s share of contribution to GHG
emissions at the national level, which provides [an agency] with a
reasoned basis to consider the significance of the project’s GHG
emissions and their potential impact on climate change.139
The order further states that, “[f]or additional context, when states have
GHG emissions reduction targets we will endeavor to consider the GHG emissions
of a project on those state goals.”140 When states do not have emissions reduction
targets, FERC stated that it could compare the project-related emissions to the
state’s emissions in a previous year.141 Mountain Valley has not identified end users
for the vast majority of the MVP’s gas, but key downstream states have established
rigorous carbon reduction programs that FERC must consider. Virginia has set a
138 N. Nat. Gas Co., 174 FERC ¶ 61189, at ¶ 29.
139 Id. at ¶ 34.
140 Id. at ¶ 35.
141 Id.
47
goal of achieving a net-zero carbon energy economy by 2050142 and has joined the
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (“RGGI”) to help reach this target.143 Virginia
and the other RGGI members aim to collectively reduce power sector carbon dioxide
emissions by 30% by 2030.144 North Carolina, another downstream state,145 has
established the North Carolina Clean Energy Plan, which establishes the goal to
reduce emissions from the electric sector by 70% below 2005 levels by 2030 and
achieve carbon neutrality by 2050.146 FERC and the Corps should consider Virginia
and North Carolina’s recent policy achievements seeking a transition away from
fossil fuels, especially their 2050 net-zero goals, when weighing their respective
permitting decisions. For West Virginia and other downstream states lacking
emissions reduction targets, the agencies should consider each state’s baseline
emissions, in addition to other relevant factors. Mountain Valley must disclose
sufficient information to allow the agencies to do so.
In order to comply with Executive Order 13990 and provide meaningful
analysis of the project’s climate change impacts, the new NEPA document should
Virginia Clean Economy Act, S.B. 851, 2020 Sess. (Va. 2020); Virginia Clean Economy
142
Act, H.B. 1526, 2020 Sess. (Va. 2020).

143 Clean Energy and Community Flood Preparedness Act, Va. Code § 10.1-1330 et seq.
144Va. Dep’t of Envtl. Quailty, Carbon Trading,

https://www.deq.virginia.gov/air/greenhouse-gases/carbon-trading (last accessed April 14,
2021).
145If constructed, the MVP Southgate extension project (approved by FERC in Docket No.
CP19-14) would carry a portion of the MVP’s gas from the terminus of the MVP in
Pittsylvania County, Virginia to North Carolina markets.
146 N.C. Dep’t of Envtl. Quality, Clean Energy Plan 11, 12 (2019), https://bit.ly/3evSnMC.
48
also calculate impacts utilizing the Social Cost of Carbon for the entire anticipated
fifty-year life of the pipeline. Developed in 2010 and updated in 2016, the Social
Cost of Carbon is a scientifically derived metric to “provide a consistent approach
for agencies to quantify [climate change] damage in dollars.”147 The Social Cost of
Carbon translates a one-ton increase in carbon dioxide emissions into changes in
atmospheric greenhouse concentrations, consequent changes in temperature, and
resulting economic damages.148 Those harms include “changes in net agricultural
productivity, human health, property damages from increased flood risk, and the
value of ecosystem services.”149 The current values, which adjust the 2016 values for
inflation, estimate that every additional ton of carbon dioxide released from
anywhere on Earth will cause approximately $51 in climate damages.150 Utilizing
the Social Cost of Carbon provides a more concrete, comprehensible metric that will
help FERC and the public assess the significance of the emissions. Additionally, it
will allow FERC and the Corps “to incorporate the social benefits of reducing carbon
147 Fla. Se. Connection, LLC, 162 FERC ¶ 61,233, at ¶ 45 (Mar. 14, 2018).
148See Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon, Technical Support
Document 5 (2010), available at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/201612/documents/scc_tsd_2010.pdf.
149 Id. at 2.
150Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, Technical Support

Document (2021), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousO
xide.pdf; Jean Chemnick, Cost of Carbon Pollution Pegged at $51 a Ton, Sci. Am. (Mar. 1,
2021), https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cost-of-carbon-pollution-pegged-at-51-a-
ton/.
49
dioxide (CO2) emissions” in the no-action alternative to building a new gas
pipeline.151
FERC may not rely on the deficient discussion of climate change in its 2017
FEIS but rather must fully analyze the climate change impacts of the project due to
Mountain Valley’s request to amend its certificate. Although labeled an
“amendment” rather than an application for a new certificate, the requested change
is a major departure from the previous proposal that will result in previously
unconsidered impacts to 182 waterbodies and wetlands. These changes were
significant enough to require FERC to reopen its environmental review, without
which the certificate cannot be amended and the pipeline cannot be built. FERC’s
new environmental review must include consideration of reasonable alternatives to
the project, including the no-action alternative, which cannot be properly
accomplished without analyzing climate change impacts. A complete analysis of the
climate change impacts is therefore essential to reaching a well-reasoned
determination as to whether the requested amendment is in the public interest.
Mountain Valley has requested changes significant enough to require additional
environmental review—that review should comport with FERC’s current, improved
understanding of NEPA’s requirements with respect to climate change impacts and
Executive Order 13990. It would be arbitrary for FERC to reopen the environmental
151Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon, Technical Support Document 1
(2010).
50
review without fixing the deficiencies it has identified with its discussion of climate
impacts.
Moreover, the Corps may not rely on the climate change discussion in the
2017 FEIS when processing Mountain Valley’s Section 404 permit application. In
the event that FERC’s environmental review does not sufficiently address the
project’s climate change impacts, the Corps will be required to engage in its own
NEPA review of those impacts. As Mountain Valley has requested a brand-new
individual Section 404 permit, the Corps has not yet fulfilled its independent
obligation, under NEPA152 and as part of its own separate public interest review,153
to consider the climate change impacts of Mountain Valley’s proposal.
In sum, in order to comply with NEPA, President Biden’s executive orders,
and its own recently acknowledgment that it can and must fully evaluate climate
impacts, FERC must provide a meaningful analysis of the pipeline’s climate change
impacts, including their significance; incorporate national and state emission
targets into its analysis; and quantify the associated harms of its emissions—
including end-use emissions—using the Social Cost of Carbon. The Corps must do
the same, whether by relying on FERC’s NEPA document or by considering climate
change in a separate environmental review.
152See, e.g., Wyo. Outdoor Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 351 F. Supp. 2d 1232, 1243
(D. Wyo. 2005) (holding that Corps’ failure to assess cumulative impacts of proposed permit
on non-wetland environmental resources was arbitrary and capricious under NEPA).
153 See 33 C.F.R. § 320.4(a).
51
II. FERC May Not Grant the Proposed Amendment Absent State
Certification or Waiver from West Virginia and Virginia under
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
The Commission’s March 12, 2021 environmental information request asked
Mountain Valley whether its application required new certifications under Section
401 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1341.154 In Mountain Valley’s response,
submitted on March 29, 2021,155 Mountain Valley takes the position that:
[n]o additional 401 Water Quality Permit is required for the Amendment
Project, including trenchless crossings of Section 10 streams. The
Virginia State Water Control Board issued a water quality certification
on December 8, 2017, that expressly covers future modifications to the
Project approved by the Commission . . . . As required by the
certification, Mountain Valley notified the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality of the Amendment Project on February 19, 2021.
The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection issued a
general waiver of its authority to issue a water quality certification for
the MVP Project on November 1, 2017 . . . .156
Mountain Valley included copies of the waiver from West Virginia and certification
from Virginia that Mountain Valley claims obviate the need for Section 401
certifications or waivers now.157
Contrary to Mountain Valley’s claim, the Commission cannot lawfully
approve the requested certificate amendment without additional Section 401
certifications or waivers from West Virginia and Virginia.
154 Accession No. 2021-0310-3016.
155 Accession No. 20210329-5300.
156 Id. at 1
157 See generally id. Attachment 1
52
As an initial matter, there is no genuine dispute that the requested
certificate amendment triggers Section 401. Section 401 requires state certification
before “a Federal license or permit to conduct any activity including, but not limited
to, the construction or operation of facilities, which may result in any discharge into
the navigable waters” may issue.158 The name of the federal approval in question is
immaterial so long as it would authorize an “activity which may result in any
discharge.”159 Section 401 does not require any pollutant to be discharged: a
discharge of water will suffice and the statute “is triggered by the potential for a
discharge to occur, rather than the presence of an actual discharge.”160
Section 401’s standard is met here. Mountain Valley previously requested
(and later withdrew its request for) a similar certificate amendment that would
have approved fewer trenchless crossings than Mountain Valley seeks now, and
Commission staff determined then that Mountain Valley’s tunneling plan would
have had environmental impacts “not considered in the final environmental impact
statement (FEIS) issued in FERC Docket No. CP16-10-000,”161 including the
possibility of boreholes breaching stream bottoms and a chance that “bentonite or
polymer-based lubricant . . . may enter surface waterbodies during drilling or
158 33 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1).
159 Del. Riverkeeper Network v. FERC, 857 F.3d 388, 398 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (cleaned up).
Environmental Protection Agency, Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Rule, 85
160
Fed. Reg. 42,237 (Jul. 13, 2020).
161 Accession No. 20210107-3064 at 6.
53
through inadvertent spills.”162 The same discharges surely may result here since the
requested amendment involves even more crossings in even more challenging
terrain using the same conventional bore method. Furthermore, probable
discharges are not limited to those that Commission staff recently acknowledged.
For example, Mountain Valley’s current application contemplates dewatering of
bore pits on a scale that suggests at least some pumped water will flow back into
surface waters near the bore sites.163 Since those flows would constitute discharge[s]
into the navigable waters,”164 the potential for those flows triggers Section 401.
Mountain Valley implicitly concedes that its requested certificate amendment
would authorize activities that “may result in [a] discharge into the navigable
waters.”165 Rather than claim its requested certificate amendment does not trigger
Section 401, Mountain Valley elides the question and insists that it has already
obtained the requisite approval in the form of a waiver from West Virginia and a
certification from Virginia. Not so.
In reality, Commission precedent establishes that Mountain Valley’s existing
waiver from West Virginia and certification from Virginia do not cover its requested
certificate amendment. Just three months ago, the Commission confirmed in Pacific
Connector Gas Pipeline, LP, that Section 401 certifications are “specific to
162 Id. at 19–20.
See Supplemental Environmental Report at 2-11, available at Accession No. 20210219-

163
5179.
164 33 U.S.C. § 1341.
165 Id.
54
individual federal authorization applications.”166 Pacific Connector involved a
dispute over whether a state had waived through inaction but its rule is equally
applicable here: a project proponent can “use a single application to request water
quality certification for multiple federal authorizations, so long as doing so is
permitted by the state certifying agency and the certification application is clear as
to what authorizations the applicant is requesting certification for.”167 Pacific
Connector is dispositive here. Mountain Valley’s position rests on the premise that
its existing state approvals—a waiver from West Virginia and a certification from
Virginia—apply to something other than the “individual federal authorization
application[]” it submitted for a certificate amendment, but Pacific Connector
confirms that such a blanket approach is not permissible.168
In the case of West Virginia, crediting Mountain Valley’s position requires
the Commission to extend West Virginia’s previous waiver to cover a different
federal authorization with different associated discharges. Mountain Valley’s
position has two fatal flaws. First, West Virginia’s 2017 waiver expressly stated
that it was “specific to the above-referenced MVP project to construct a natural gas
pipeline in West Virginia,” and the waiver letter’s subject line referred to “FERC
Docket No. CP-16-10-000.”169 The specific iteration of the MVP project contemplated
166 174 FERC ¶ 61,057, ¶ 25 (Jan. 19, 2021)
167 Id. ¶ 26.
168 Id. ¶ 25.
169 2017 Waiver, available at Accession No. 20210329-5300.
55
in 2017 in Docket No. CP-16-10-000 assumed that “[a]ll waterbody crossings for the
MVP would be dry open-cut crossings.”170 In other words, West Virginia did not
issue a blanket waiver for all project activities, as Mountain Valley claims; the state
issued a waiver in response to a specific request for certification in connection with
a specific federal authorization application.
Second, Mountain Valley’s position is contrary to Pacific Connector, which
explains that a certification decision for one federal authorization is not dispositive
as to other federal authorizations. It is true that a single certification may cover
multiple federal authorizations, but only if the applicant “is clear as to what
authorizations the applicant is requesting certification for.”171 Mountain Valley
cannot have satisfied that standard in 2017 as to its requested certificate
amendment because the need for an amendment had not yet arisen and the EIS
contemplated a wholly different approach to stream crossings with a different set of
associated discharges.172 To be sure, West Virginia’s prior decision to waive its
Section 401 certification authority may—or may not—foreshadow its choice as to
the requested certificate amendment, but that choice is for West Virginia alone—
not for the Commission and certainly not for Mountain Valley.
In the case of Virginia, Mountain Valley claims that the state’s 2017 Section
401 certification covers subsequent changes to the project approved by the
170 Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) at 2-43.
171 174 FERC ¶ 61,057, ¶ 26.
172 See FERC FEIS at 2-43.
56
Commission, purportedly including Mountain Valley’s requested certificate
amendment. However, Virginia’s 2017 certification is not as broad as Mountain
Valley claims, nor could it have been given the record before the Virginia State
Water Control Board at the time. To start, Mountain Valley cherry picks a sentence
from the “Definitions” section of Virginia’s 2017 certification, which states that
“[t]he 401 Water Quality Certification applies to the location of pipeline right of
way, access roads, and appurtenances as described in the EIS and any changes
thereto subsequently approved by [the Commission].”173 This language most
naturally applies only to those subsequent changes that remain within the scope of
the EIS—that is, those that do not require supplemental review under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)—but to the extent there is any ambiguity, the
“Scope of Certification” section resolves it: “This Certification covers all relevant
upland Project activities within the route identified in the [EIS].”174 Furthermore,
Virginia could not have rationally issued the sweeping certification in 2017 that
Mountain Valley posits because the EIS assumed at that time that “[a]ll waterbody
crossings for the MVP would be dry open-cut crossings” and did not evaluate
impacts from the types of crossings now proposed.175
Whatever flexibility Virginia intended to confer upon the Commission by the
language that Mountain Valley invokes, the requested certificate amendment is
173 See 2017 Certification at 2, available at Accession No. 20210329-5300.
174 Id. at 3.
175 FERC FEIS at 2-43.
57
beyond the scope of that flexibility. Indeed, by initiating supplemental NEPA
analysis for the requested certificate amendment,176 the Commission tacitly
acknowledges that impacts from the requested certificate amendment would be
different in both kind and degree from those associated with the variance requests
that the Commission has approved for Mountain Valley in the past that were not
supported by such analysis or new Section 401 certifications or waivers.177
When Commission staff prepared an environmental assessment studying
Mountain Valley’s now-withdrawn application for a more modest certificate
amendment to conduct trenchless crossings, Commission staff opined that the
amendment would result in less impact to resources than open-cut crossings.178 This
prediction may—or may not—prove true here, but it is beside the point. Section 401
authority belongs to the states, and neither West Virginia nor Virginia has had an
opportunity to consider whether Section 401 certifications should issue for this
federal authorization and these discharges. To our knowledge, Mountain Valley has
not yet requested a new Section 401 certification for this certificate amendment
from either state.179 Absent such certifications or waiver thereof, according to the
176 See Scoping Notice, Accession No. 20210316-3075.
177Whether the Commission’s liberal use of variances for this pipeline is lawful is an issue
beyond the scope of this letter and immaterial to the question of whether new Section 401
certifications are required for this amendment application.
178 Accession No. 20210107-3064 at 6.
179Mountain Valley’s notice to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality on

February 19, 2021, without more, is not enough to start the waiver clock because “a state
certifying agency’s mere awareness of an application filed with the Commission does not
58
plain terms of Section 401, the Commission may not grant Mountain Valley’s
requested amendment.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, FERC may not grant Mountain Valley’s
Amendment Application unless and until it has gathered additional necessary
information outlined above, issued a final Supplemental EIS following additional
opportunity for public review and comment, and obtained Clean Water Act Section
401 certifications, or waiver thereof, from Virginia and West Virginia.
/s/Benjamin Luckett
Benjamin A. Luckett
Derek O. Teaney
Senior Attorney
APPALACHIAN MOUNTAIN ADVOCATES
P.O. Box 507
Lewisburg, WV 24901
(304) 873-6080
[email protected]
[email protected]
Counsel for Allegheny-Blue Ridge Alliance,

Appalachian Voices, Blue Ridge
Environmental Defense League, Chesapeake
Climate Action Network, Indian Creek
Watershed Association, Natural Resources
Defense Council, Preserve Craig, Inc.,
Preserve Franklin, Preserve Montgomery
County VA (PMCVA), Preserve Salem,
Protect Our Water Heritage Rights
(POWHR), Sierra Club, Virginia
Conservation Network, West Virginia
Highlands Conservancy, West Virginia
Rivers Coalition, and Wild Virginia
sufficiently establish that the agency received a request for section 401 certification with
respect to that application.” Pacific Connector, 174 FERC ¶ 61,057 at ¶ 34.
59
/s/ Gregory Buppert

Gregory Buppert
Spencer Gall
Claire Horan
SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
201 West Main Street, Suite 14
Charlottesville, VA 22902
(434) 977-4090
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Counsel for Defenders of Wildlife, Preserve

Bent Mountain, and Preserve Giles
/s/ Gillian Giannetti_______________

Gillian Giannetti
Senior Attorney
Natural Resources Defense Council
1152 15th Street, NW
Suite 300
Washington, DC 20005
[email protected]
(202) 717-8350
Counsel for Natural Resources Defense

Council
Dated: April 15, 2021.
60
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on April 15, 2021, I caused the foregoing document to be
served by electronic mail upon each person designated on the official service list
compiled by the Secretary in this proceeding.
/s/Benjamin A. Luckett
Benjamin A. Luckett
APPALACHIAN MOUNTAIN ADVOCATES
61
Exhibit E
MVP proposal for trenchless stream crossings lacks critical technical planning
Virginia Scientist-Community Interface

Public Comment
Submitted April 15, 2021
MVP proposal for trenchless stream crossings lacks critical

technical planning
Executive Summary
Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC’s (MVP) proposal to bore underneath 126 stream crossings has major technical
deficiencies and omissions. This lack of detail makes it impossible for regulatory agencies and the public to
complete a thorough evaluation of engineering processes and assure the feasibility of the approach. In this
report, we outline the deficiencies in MVP’s dewatering analysis, geotechnical analysis, consideration of impacts
to riparian and wetland zones, and consideration of impacts to endangered species. We recommend that MVP
be required to submit a full environmental impacts analysis in the form of a Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement that describes their proposed trenchless crossing methods in greater detail.
About this substantive formal comment: This independent review was conducted by the Virginia Scientist-Community Interface (V-SCI).
V-SCI is a graduate student organization dedicated to reviewing and synthesizing science related to environmental issues. V-SCI analysts on
this project include PhD students with formal training and expertise in hydrology, ecology & evolution, and environmental restoration. We are
happy to discuss our findings in more detail if we can be of greater service.
Corresponding author: Daniel Smith ([email protected]). See page 7 for a complete list of authors and reviewers
Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2 Deficiency in dewatering analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3 Lack of geotechnical analysis in assessing feasibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4 Deficiency in analyzing impacts to riparian zones and wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5 Impacts of the proposed trenchless crossings on endangered species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction specific data collected in the field. Computer-based analysis

alone is insufficient.
Completing a trenchless stream crossing is a complex engi-
neering task. Bore pits 10 to 45 feet deep must be carved Section 2 describes deficiencies in MVP’s plan to remove
into sensitive terrain adjacent to streams without collapse or water from bore pits. Bore pits fill with groundwater, and
leakage. Then, thousands of gallons of water must be continu- that water must be removed to complete the bore. When the
ally pumped from the pits into approved dewatering devices, water is removed from the bore pits, it is then channeled into
without overflowing the device or altering the flow of the “dewatering devices,” which are generally basins constructed
stream. Large machinery is placed in the bore pit to bore un- of hay bales and filter fabric that are placed near the stream.
derneath the stream without disturbing the streambed above, These allow the sediment to settle, and the clear water on the
while boulders as small as 14 inches can impact the direc- top can be discharged into the stream. Properly sizing the de-
tion of the machinery (Supplemental Environmental Report watering devices is critical because if they are too small then
p 1-4). The feasibility of this approach is determined by the sediment-laden water will overflow directly into the stream.
subsurface conditions of the bore pits and boring path under The amount of water that needs to be pumped out depends
the stream bed. Site-specific analysis must be performed dur- on the size of the stream, the size of the bore hole, the depth
ing the planning stages to reasonably account for subsurface of the groundwater, the time of year, precipitation levels, and
obstacles (Heinz et al., 2004). While trenchless crossing can a range of other site-specific factors. MVP has provided no
theoretically prevent stream contamination, a distinct set of details on the sizing of the dewatering devices, or what criteria
threats to stream, wetland, and riparian habitat are present will be used in the design. They have also failed to commit to
throughout the construction and restoration process. These continuous in-stream monitoring of water quality to account
risks are exacerbated in areas with steep terrain, and require for the risk of overflow, and have not defined a detailed action
significant planning and feasibility assessment based on site- plan should the dewatering devices overflow.
1 of 8
In Section 3, we describe the need for detailed and site- depends on the protective measures taken and whether or not
specific geotechnical analysis. A geotechnical analysis is the these measures fail.
testing of soil and rock, generally to determine the ability There has been no quantification of dewatering needs at
of an area to support an engineering project. In this case, any of the proposed boring sites. In the Supplemental Envi-
a geotechnical analysis would determine whether the area ronmental Report (p 2-11), MVP claims “The amount and du-
around the stream can support the bore pit, and also whether ration of drawdown, and lateral expanse of drawdown impact
there are boulders in the path of the proposed crossing. This from the bore pit, would depend on the existing groundwater
essential information cannot be ascertained from analyzing level at each site at the time of construction and site-specific
nearby sites or general knowledge of the area. Geotechnical characteristics such as soil type.” No further detail is provided.
analysis is a part of standard engineering practice, but MVP This is a significant oversight in the environmental analysis
has failed to conduct this for 120 of 126 proposed trenchless and must be further addressed. It is not a sufficient analysis
crossing sites. of potential environmental impacts to state that the impacts
Section 4 outlines deficiencies in the analysis of impacts will be determined upon start of construction.
to riparian zones and wetlands. MVP claims that the proposed Groundwater that has been removed and water used for the
crossings will not introduce any new impacts to these areas. lubrication of the drill head must be carefully managed and
However, this ignores important new considerations including monitored. While MVP is using the sediment control method
the impacts of digging, storing the backfill, and filling the bore of filtering wastewater through hay bales covered in filter fab-
pit once complete. Engineering plans also underestimate the ric, MVP has not analyzed the efficacy of this method other
size of the bore pit opening, so the area of impacted riparian than to simply state that doing so “greatly reduces the amount
areas is therefore underrepresented by MVP. MVP claims that of turbid water discharged from the work area and potentially
impact to riparian areas and wetlands will be insignificant, but mixing with the [...] river” (Supplemental Environmental
have done no site-specific hydrological analysis to support Report, Appendix F, p F-5). Without a detailed analysis of
this claim. the efficacy of their proposed method of sediment control,
Finally, Section 5 describes how the uncertainties in sec- impacts to the environment cannot be accurately predicted.
tions 2 through 4 could result in harm to federally protected One of the proposed trenchless crossings is in the
species. All of the deficiencies identified in this analysis ex- Greenbrier River, which is designated as a “Protected
pose risks of engineering failures that could lead to significant Stream” under the WV Natural Streams Preservation
impacts to endangered species. MVP has provided no detailed Act, is near a public drinking water supply, and con-
action plan and accountability in case of an engineering fail- tains karst forming bedrock formations. Additionally,
ure. In-stream monitoring of water quality is necessary to this river is habitat to the endangered candy darter and
monitor these potential impacts. The construction timeline is bordered by the threatened Virginia spiraea. The pro-
of five years presented by MVP poses significant risks to the posed crossing method is Direct Pipe, the method requiring
endangered candy darter and Roanoke logperch given the life the highest amount of water/clay slurry for lubrication. The
cycles of these species. amount of water to be withdrawn from Greenbrier River and
the duration of withdrawal has not been estimated, thus the
2. Deficiency in dewatering analysis impacts of the withdrawal have not been adequately assessed.
Removing groundwater from bore pits (or, “dewatering”) re-

quires pumping significant amounts of sediment-laden water It is not a sufficient
through onsite retaining ponds, where sediment theoretically
can settle out. Unfortunately, sediment management failures
analysis of potential
are known to occur, independent of the construction method,
that can result in sediment-laden water entering the stream
environmental impacts
(Betcher et al., 2019). Sediment is one of the most important to state that the impacts
stream pollutants, and elevated levels can adversely impact
aquatic species and water quality (Kemp et al., 2004). will be determined upon
Some boring methods also require the use of water for lu-
brication during boring, hydroseeding, dust suppression, and
start of construction.
hydrostatic pressure testing. Depending on the boring method,
these water use requirements can reach up to 600,000 gallons In addition to removing water from this river, the water
of water for a single pipe crossing (MVP Supplemental Envi- used will be returned after filtration through filter fabric. The
ronmental Report). MVP has not specified which methods are return method, volume, duration, and water quality has not
going to be used during extraction to minimize damage to the been addressed. Given its environmental sensitivity and the
ecosystem (e.g. filters to avoid the suction of organisms). Af- construction risks due to its underlying geology, greater detail
ter being used, water containing various amounts of sediment is needed to ensure the adequacy of the plan for the Greenbrier
is returned to the adjacent stream. The amount of sediment River crossing.
2 of 8
MVP also claims, 1. “The trenchless crossings Mountain Valley proposes

to implement as part of the Amendment Project gener-
“Following completion of each crossing ground- ally occur within geologic formations conducive to
water levels would quickly return to pre- trenchless crossings,” and
construction conditions, and any short-term
groundwater-level changes at wetlands near the 2. “Mountain Valley does not anticipate encountering con-
bore pits would be expected to be within the nor- ditions that would make any of the proposed crossings
mal seasonal variability and would have no long- infeasible.”
term impacts” (Supplemental Environmental Re- However, in Appendix F of the Supplemental Environ-
port, p 2-14). mental Report (Feasibility Assessments For Technical Bores),
MVP only describes the geotechnical feasibility at six of
However, without a detailed analysis, they cannot claim with the 126 ( ≤ 5%) proposed trenchless crossing sites. Given
any confidence that there will be no impact, or that any impact that the 126 trenchless crossings are proposed across 300-
will be temporary. MVP also fails to define “long-term” and miles and two states (Virginia and West Virginia) with moun-
“short-term” in regards to environmental impact. Ambiguity tainous and locally-varied terrain, it is not appropriate for
in this manner serves to underestimate the potential impact of MVP to generalize site-specific geotechnical assessments
MVP’s activities and thus should be rectified by quantifying based on such a limited feasibility study. Heinz et al. (2004)
the potential duration of impact. notes that the “feasibility of using a trenchless method is
In addressing their potential impact on groundwater, MVP dependent on subsurface conditions, [so] a geotechnical as-
relied on a Florida-specific source to estimate groundwater sessment should be performed during the planning stages”.
drawdown as a result of dewatering (CH2M Hill, 2011). This Thus, more site-specific and field-based geotechnical analyzes
source used a model built to evaluate the effects of temporary are called for to accurately account for the local subsurface
dewatering of groundwater in Levy County, Florida, during constraints to boring activities that other methods may not
the construction of a nuclear plant. MVP should not assume account for.
that a model built for Florida will accurately estimate the im-
pacts of dewatering in the Appalachian region. The values for
parameters used to run the model (e.g. soil type, rock type, MVP should not assume
erodibility, strata thickness, etc.) were derived from on site that a model built for
evaluation of the geologic and hydraulic properties in the orig-
inal study site. These values are unique to Florida and would
Florida will accurately
never be expected in, for instance, a Virginia floodplain. Thus,
it is inappropriate to use these model parameters to predict
estimate the impacts of
groundwater drawdown around a pumped bore pit situated in dewatering in the
a floodplain wetland in central or western Virginia. Without
incorporating accurate, site-specific sedimentologic and litho- Appalachian region.
logic data in the model referenced (or a similar model) for the
range of bore pit sizes proposed, a realistic assessment of the MVP recognizes that there is a risk of encountering ob-
impact of dewatering cannot be conducted. stacles during drilling that would prevent the process from
being successful, and that a site-specific geotechnical analysis
reduces that risk. MVP states:
3. Lack of geotechnical analysis in as-
sessing feasibility “The possibility of encountering hard rock that
cannot be penetrated by the auger or cobbles that
Virginia geology and soils are complex and varied along the divert the bore away from the intended path is a
route of the MVP. Much of the region is characterized by risk.”
cobble- and boulder-size rocks (Whittecar et al., 2016). The
MVP goes on to suggest that onsite test borings can be
confluence of these factors has built a highly rocky and hetero-
used to mitigate this risk for one of the few streams selected
geneous subsurface landscape across the Virginia mountains,
for geotechnical analysis:
where changes in soils and underlying geology can occur
across distances as small as one meter. Publically-available “Test borings were conducted near the guided
datasets describing this geology provide useful clues in de- conventional bore pit location south of the cross-
termining local geology, but understanding the subsurface ing to determine the type of material expected to
conditions of a given location can only be achieved with con- be encountered during the conventional boring
siderable onsite testing. process.” (MVP Supplemental Environmental
On page 1-8 of the Supplemental Environmental Report, Report Appendix F, Feasibility Assessment for
MVP makes the following two statements: Technical Bores, pg F-1))
3 of 8
While MVP does evaluate factors such as crossing length, material safety data sheets. According to Mohammed (2018),
boring pit depth, maximum slope steepness, and more, the the amount of bentonite in drilling fluid can vary greatly, rang-
wide ranges of these physical factors serves to further high- ing from as low as 0.5% and up to 14% by weight of water.
light the non-uniformity of proposed trenchless crossing sites If 600,000 gallons of water are used, a weight of 4,998,000
(Table 1). Thus, given the heterogeneous soil and geology pounds, and assuming the bentonite content in the water is
that characterizes the region, MVP should complete a similar 0.5%, the weight of bentonite used would be 24,990 pounds.
feasibility assessment at all proposed stream crossings so that Alternatively, assuming that bentonite content in the water is
the feasibility of safely boring at each site can be reasonably 14%, the weight of bentonite used would be 699,720 pounds,
determined. a difference of 2,700%. This is a considerable variation in
the amount of bentonite that could be used, thus MVP needs
Table 1. Standard Deviation (SD) and range of values listed to provide more detail for an accurate impacts analysis.
in Table 15 of MVP’s Individual Permit Application.
Attribute SD Range
Crossing Length (ft) 132 20-1250
Pit Depth (fit)
Maximum Steep Slope (%)
7
14
11-49
1-63
“The realization of
Maximum Average Slope (%) 9 0-48 drilling works always
Maximum Winch Hill Length (ft) 142 0-702
results in introducing
3.1 Risk and Impacts of Bentonite Contamination drilling fluid into the
MVP states that,
“in some situations, particularly in longer bores
environment.”
or in bores through mixed ground or clay, small (Kwast-Kotlarek et al.,
quantities of water, bentonite, or polymer-based
lubricant may be applied to the cutting head and
2018)
exterior of the casing to reduce friction and in-
crease the likelihood of success of the crossing.
Any lubricants used will be non-petrochemical MVP has also failed to discuss how it will handle ben-
based, non-hazardous, and NSF-60-compliant tonite spills and leakage. A site-specific soil analysis should
and therefore will not adversely impact the sub- be conducted to determine where lubricant will be used, de-
ject waterbody or wetland” (Individual Permit velop detailed management plans, develop contingency plans
Application, p 54). for spills, and to identify high risk sites. A soil analysis is
Therefore, MVP is uncertain where lubricant will be used also warranted because the amount of bentonite released to
and does not propose to devise management plans, assess the environment depends on the type of soil in which the
feasibility, or evaluate impact until onsite construction has construction is conducted (Kwast-Kotlarek et al., 2018). A
begun. This presents a major risk to the the aquatic and ri- thorough evaluation of the potential effects of riparian and
parian environment. MVP claims the bentonite-laden water wetland contamination by lubricants is currently unable to be
will be contained, however, Kwast-Kotlarek et al. (2018) completed because MVP has not determined where lubricants
concluded that “the realization of drilling works always re- will be necessary, and in what quantity. MVP mentions that
sults in introducing drilling fluid into the environment”. they will rely on “contingency plans” in the event of contami-
Clay particles are very small, and therefore stay in the water nation, but they do not present the actual plans. Therefore, it
column longer, settle out more slowly, and travel farther than is unclear if these plans are adequate and will appropriately
other sediment. This results in prolonged and wider-spread ad- handle spills to adhere to regulations.
verse impacts to aquatic organisms and drinking water quality. Because of the significant environmental risks that drilling
Bentonite contamination may result in changes in soil chem- lubricants could pose in sensitive environments, considerably
istry and soil water-holding properties, as well as changes in more detail is needed in the drilling lubricant planning. MVP
photosynthetic rates and above-ground biomass of vegetation must present a clear description of whether and how much
(Mi et al., 2020). Bentonite impact on aquatic organisms has bentonite will be used at each site as a part of a geotechnical
not been well studied and thus use in sensitive environments analysis. If bentonite is to be applied, each site should be eval-
should be approached with extreme caution. MVP’s lack of uated for potential environmental exposures resulting from
clear planning for lubricant use makes it impossible to eval- such use, site-specific management and spill plans should be
uate if the lubricants will be used appropriately and without developed, and a detailed bentonite monitoring regime should
harm to the environment. be established.
The amount of bentonite required has not been quantified
in MVP’s environmental analysis, nor have they provided
4 of 8
4. Deficiency in analyzing impacts to ri- listed species, we have focused on how the uncertainty in
parian zones and wetlands impact analysis could harm the two aquatic species: candy
darters and Roanoke logperch.
While MVP claims that trenchless crossing methods are less Candy darters (Etheostoma osburni) and Roanoke log-
impactful than conventional open-cut methods, these methods perch (Percina rex) are short-lived, small-bodied, freshwater
can lead to degradation of the riparian zone and wetlands. fish that were declared federally endangered in 2018 and 1989,
Riparian zone and wetland degradation can change soil and respectively. They occupy streams in West Virginia and Vir-
sediment dynamics, and result in the loss of vegetation. Here, ginia and are currently facing major threats. Their primary
we outline deficiencies in MVP’s analysis of impacts to ripar- threat is habitat degradation. Darters in general (including
ian zones and wetlands. Roanoke logperch) are not able to tolerate dramatic increases
The slope of the inside edge of bore pits is important for in turbidity or sedimentation, as they are visual predators that
worker safety, and choosing the correct slope depends on the also need porous streambeds to lay their eggs. If sedimen-
soil characteristics (Virginia Occupational Safety and Health, tation is high enough, that section of stream can see a sharp
2016; Virginia Department of Transportation, 2021). MVP decrease in population growth rates due to lack of prey items,
has failed to do the requisite soil analysis needed to deter- particularly benthic invertebrates, in addition to losing nest
mine what slope will be needed to keep their workers safe sites (Berkman & Rabeni, 1987). Additionally, hybridization
within each bore pit at each stream crossing. Furthermore, with the introduced variegate darter (Etheostoma variatum)
deeper bore pits that require shallower slopes to create safe that can outcompete candy darters over both food resources
working conditions are larger, produce larger spoil piles, and and mating opportunities is another issue to consider. Notably,
present an increased impact on the surrounding environment. the greatest factor historically for candy darter’s sharp decline
Because MVP has not determined the proper bore pit slope, was not hybridization, but habitat destruction, degradation,
they have not calculated the total area of the riparian zone that and fragmentation (USFWS, 2018). It is therefore critical,
will be impacted by bore pits. This could lead to greater phys- and recommended by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to
ical removal of vegetation and larger impacts on surrounding avoid damaging habitat whenever possible.
vegetation in riparian zones and wetlands.
While MVP claims that the proposed trenchless crossings
“[w]ill not result in a material change to impacts and mitiga-
MVP has not calculated tion for endangered, threatened, and special concern species
the total area of the compared to the Certificated Project,” they have not conducted
a full analysis to support this. Because threatened and endan-
riparian zone that will be gered species are fragile species that need extra protections, it
is imperative to fully quantify the potential impacts trenchless
impacted crossings will have. As is, MVP assumes the impacts will
be lessened from the originally proposed work, but there is
Additionally, MVP has failed to include acreage associ- too much uncertainty to know if their work will adversely
ated with travel lanes in vegetation removal estimates. Ripar- impact at-risk species. An additional concern is the timeline
ian vegetation stabilizes stream banks and the surrounding soil of recovery. MVP states that any habitat degradation would be
and sediment landscape. The removal of vegetation for access temporary, but does not clarify what this entails. Furthermore,
roads, the digging of bore pits, and the indirect removal by dis- a disturbance lasting only a few months scheduled during the
turbance of surrounding riparian and wetland landscapes may spawning season (typically mid-April to late June for candy
result in dramatic long-term erosion and increased sediment darter and mid-April to early May for Roanoke logperch)
input downstream (Feld et al., 2018). The loss of riparian would have much greater potential impacts than construction
vegetation also inhibits the ability of riparian zones to reduce outside of the spawning season.
watershed nutrient inputs (Lowrance et al., 1997; Groh et al., MVP is assuming that no new protections are needed for
2020). the proposed trenchless crossings because trenchless crossings
are assumed to be less impactful to the aquatic environment
5. Impacts of the proposed trenchless than trenched crossings. The basis for this assumption is that
there will be no “in-stream activity” during trenchless crossing
crossings on endangered species
construction. This ignores the high risk of sediment control
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that the pre- failures, boring failures, leaks, etc. detailed above. Even if
viously accepted project is “likely to adversely affect” five these construction activities lead to acceptable losses over
federally listed species: Virginia spiraea (Spiraea Virginiana); entire populations, if population declines are localized then
Roanoke logperch (Percina rex); candy darter (Etheostoma construction could have unacceptable impacts on the limited
osburni); Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), and Northern long- genetic diversity of these species. MVP should conduct an
eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis; 2020 Biological Opinion). entirely new environmental impact analysis to understand how
While our concerns regarding adverse impact span all the the different crossing methodology will impact the surround-
5 of 8
ing environment and submit a Supplemental Environmental the impacts to the candy darter and Roanoke logperch, as well
Impact Statement. This document should include a robust as other federally listed species, are unclear.
monitoring plan for both sedimentation load and darter abun-
dance. Without field monitoring and accurate models based 6. Conclusions
on localized empirical data, the impacts on these species could
After reviewing MVP’s Supplemental Environmental Report
be higher than previously predicted. By performing this work
and Individual Permit Application, we conclude that there
MVP would more fully understand and potentially prevent
is a lack of detail in the provided information to accurately
impacts resulting from their activity. As stated previously, the
assess the impact of trenchless crossings on proposed streams
impact of bentonite drilling lubricant on aquatic organisms
and wetlands in Virginia and West Virginia. The environ-
has not been well studied and consequently should be used
mental risks of trenchless crossings are exacerbated in areas
with caution and every possible protective measure utilized.
with steep terrain and karst-forming topography, and require
significant planning and feasibility assessments based on site-
There is too much specific data collection. Therefore, we strongly urge MVP to
do a full impacts analysis and submit a Supplemental Environ-
uncertainty in planning mental Impact Statement describing their proposed trenchless
and insufficient analysis crossing methods in greater detail. Specifically, we have five
major recommendations that should be included in the Sup-
to know if trenchless plemental Environmental Impact Statement:
crossings will adversely 1. Given that the Appalachian Region has unique geol-
ogy compared to other areas, MVP should use region-
impact at-risk species. specific parameters (e.g. site-specific soil information)
in a model to predict the impact their dewatering may
have in the region.
This additional effort would align with the precautionary
principle, an important philosophy to consider when decisions 2. A detailed and expanded feasibility study should be
are being made that may impact threatened and endangered completed at all proposed trenchless crossing sites to
species when the most relevant science will not be available gather site-specific geotechnical information. This in-
until after the fact. Use of this principle lowers the risk of formation would reduce the likelihood of encounter-
irreversible harm by advocating for alternative plans to be ing unexpected geological materials and increase confi-
considered (e.g. National Environmental Policy Act), increas- dence in successful crossings. Additionally, this infor-
ing public input, and most importantly in this case, putting mation could inform the region-specific characteriza-
the burden of proof of no harm on MVP instead of requiring tion of the model described above.
agencies/academia to find proof of harm. This is especially 3. Determine sloping requirements for bore pits and in-
relevant when no or little empirical data is available, such as clude that new bore pit size on all engineer drawings
in the case of how much damage the proposed boring stream and in all requisite riparian/wetland disturbance calcu-
crossing methods can cause to aquatic ecosystems. lations.
The potential risks for darter species are mainly based on
the impacts to spawning habitat and food availability. Both 4. Given the environmental risks posed by drilling lubri-
candy darters and Roanoke logperch need porous streambeds cants, MVP must present a clear description of whether
to lay eggs. Turbid waters are correlated to declining and how much bentonite will be used at each site as a
macro-invertebrate populations (i.e. darter and logperch food part of a geotechnical analysis.
sources) and make prey detection more difficult. While in-
5. Lastly, we strongly recommend MVP establish a con-
creased sedimentation impacts are expected to last 5 years or
tinuous water-quality monitoring program that utilizes
less, darter life history makes them vulnerable on this time
both in-situ turbidity measurements and corresponding
scale: candy darters have lifespans of 3 years, becoming
sediment concentration measurements. This continuous
sexually mature at 2, and Roanoke logperch have lifespans
water-quality monitoring program would allow evalua-
of 6 years, becoming sexually mature at 2-3. While there
tion of water-quality impacts before, during, and after
are mixed age classes in the wild, if decreased population
construction and ensure environmental degradation is
size and growth do last longer than 5 years, it would affect
not occurring at streams being crossed.
the demography of populations to a greater degree than has
been considered by USFWS and the Federal Energy Regula- With a full impact analysis, presented as a Supplemen-
tion Commission (FERC). To understand the impact of the tal Environmental Impact Statement, we believe MVP can
proposed construction, MVP needs to detail how long con- describe the environmental consequences of their crossing
struction will last, how long the impacts may last, and what methods in more detail and accurately assess their impact on
time of year the activities will occur. Without this information, endangered aquatic species like the candy darter.
6 of 8
Conflicts of Interest References

V-SCI members completed this work on a volunteer basis.
Berkman, H.E. & Rabeni, C.F. (1987). Effect of siltation
The analysis presented is entirely our own and does not repre-
on stream fish communities. Environmental Biology of
sent the position of our respective affiliations. Affiliation is for
Fishes 18: 285-294. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00004881
identification purposes only. We did not receive compensation
for this work and have no conflicts of interest to declare. Betcher M., Hanna, A., Hansen, E., & Hirschman, D. (2019).
Pipeline Impacts to Water Quality: Documented impacts
and recommendations for improvements. Downstream
Authors and Reviewers: V-SCI Strategies. Pipeline-Water-Quality-Impacts-FINAL-8-21-
*Lead section author
2019.pdf (downstreamstrategies.com)
*Bickley, Sam, PhD Candidate CH2M Hill. (2011). Effects of Temporary Dewatering on
School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences Wetlands for the Construction of the Levy Nuclear Plant,
Auburn University Levy County, Florida. Prepared for Progress Energy
Florida, Inc.
Davis, Elizabeth, PhD Student
Department of Physical Sciences Feld, C. K., M. R. Fernandes, M. T. Ferreira, D. Hering, S. J.
Virginia Institute of Marine Science, William & Mary Ormerod, M. Venohr, and C. Gutiérrez-Cánovas. (2018).
Evaluating riparian solutions to multiple stressor prob-
DeHority, Riley, PhD Student lems in river ecosystems — A conceptual study. Water
Biological Systems Engineering Department Research 139: 381–394.
Virginia Tech
Groh, T. A., T. M. Isenhart, & R. C. Schultz. (2020). Long-
*King, Ashley E., PhD Student term nitrate removal in three riparian buffers: 21 years
Department of Aquatic Health Sciences of data from the Bear Creek watershed in central Iowa,
USA. Science of the Total Environment 740:140114.
Virginia Institute of Marine Science, William & Mary
Heinz, H.K., Moore, T., & Cullum-Kenyon, S. (2004).
*Macias-Tapia, Alfonso, PhD Candidate Geotechnical Assessments for Trenchless Water Cross-
Department of Ocean and Earth Sciences ings in Alberta. International Pipeline Conference. Al-
Old Dominion University berta, Canada, pp. 1–6.
*Mast, Hannah, PhD Student Kemp, M.W., Batleson, R., Bergstrom, P., Carter, V., Galle-
Department of Environmental Sciences gos, C.L., Hunley, W., Karrh, L., Koch, E.W., Landwehr,
University of Virginia J.M., Moore, K.A., Murray, L., Naylor, M., Rybicki,
N.B., Court Stevenson, J., & Wilcox, D.J. (2004).
Rady, Joshua M., PhD Candidate Habitat requirements for submerged aquatic vegeta-
Department of Forest Resources and Environmental Conser- tion in Chesapeake Bay: Water quality, light regime,
vation and physical-chemical factors. Estuaries 27: 363–377.
Virginia Tech https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02803529
*Ratte, Amandeep, BS Kwast-Kotlarek, U., Heldak, M., & Szczepanski, J. (2018).

Chemical Engineering Introducing Bentonite into the Environment in the Con-
struction Stage of Linear Underground Investment Us-
*Saby, Linnea, PhD Candidate ing the HDD Method. Applied Sciences 8: 2210.
https://doi.org/10.3390/app8112210
Department of Engineering Systems and Environment
University of Virginia Lowrance, R. (1997). Water quality functions of riparian
forest buffers in Chesapeake Bay watersheds. Environ-
*Smith, Daniel, PhD Candidate mental Management 21: 687–712.
Biological Systems Engineering Department
Virginia Tech Mi, J., Gregorich, E.G, Xu, S., McLaughlin, N.B., & Liu,
J. (2020). Effect of bentonite as a soil amendment on
*VanDiest, Isaac, PhD Candidate field water-holding capacity, and millet photosynthesis
Biological Sciences and grain quality. Scientific Reports 10: 18282.
Virginia Tech
7 of 8
Mohammed, A.S. (2018). Electrical resistivity and rheologi- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered and Threatened
cal properties of sensing bentonite drilling muds modified Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for the
with lightweight polymer. Egyptian Journal of Petroleum: Candy Darter. 83 Fed. Reg. 58747. (November 21, 2018)
55-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpe.2017.01.002 (to be codified at 50 C.F.R. pt.17).
Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC (2021). Supplemental Envi- Virginia Occupational Safety and Health. (2016). Excavations
ronmental Report for Proposed Certificate Amendment Standard, §§1926.650- 1926.652.
for Avoidance of Waters of the United States. Docket No.
CP21-57-000. Virginia Department of Transportation. (2021). Chapter 3:
geotechnical engineering. Manual of instructions.
Tetra Tech, Inc. (2021). Mountain Valley Pipeline Project
USACE Individual Permit Application. Whittecar, G.R., Newell, W.L., & Eaton, L.S. (2016). The
Geology of Virginia: Chapter 11, Landscape Evolution
in Virginia.
8 of 8
Exhibit F
0019584
Candy Darter Extant

Previously ROW Temporary Impacts Within 800m of Estimated Acreage
Blasting Candy Darter Candy Darter Stream length (m) Avg Stream
Included in Facility Waterbody MP County Crossing Method Width within Construction Candy Darter of Candy Darter Notes/Rationale
(Yes or No) Impacts? Extant Stream? (200m US + 800m DS Width (m)
Table 1? (Ft) Limits (acres) Extant Stream? Extant Effects Area
buffers)
Remove from Table 1: Strouds Creek is 1) not identified as a candy darter extant stream and 2) is a perennial,
No impact (>800m direct tributary to the Gauley River (candy darter extant stream). The Project crossing of Strouds Creek is
Yes Access Road Strouds Creek 110.1 Webster, WV Existing single-span bridge 40 0 No No No 0 0 0.00
away) 975m upstream of mouth with Gauley; therefore the crossing is more than 800m upstream of extant
population.
Remove from Table 1: Strouds Creek is 1) not identified as a candy darter extant stream and 2) is a perennial,
No impact (>800m direct tributary to the Gauley River (candy darter extant stream). The pipeline crossing of Strouds Creek is
Yes Pipeline Strouds Creek 110.1 Webster, WV Open-Cut Dry 75 0.0594 YES No No 0 0 0.00
away) 975m upstream of mouth with Gauley; therefore the crossing is more than 800m upstream of extant
population.
Remove from Table 1: Big Beaver Creek is 1) not identified as a candy darter extant stream and 2) is a
No impact (>800m perennial, direct tributary to the Gauley River (candy darter extant stream). The pipeline crossing of Big
Yes Pipeline Big Beaver Creek 114.3 Nicholas, WV Open-Cut Dry 75 0.0625 YES No No 0 0 0.00
away) Beaver Creek is more than 4,300 meters upstream of mouth with Gauley; therefore the crossing is more than
800m upstream of an extant population.
Remove from Table 1: Big Beaver Creek is 1) not identified as a candy darter extant stream and 2) is a
No impact (>800m perennial, direct tributary to the Gauley River (candy darter extant stream). The pipeline crossing of Big
Yes Pipeline Big Beaver Creek 116.2 Nicholas, WV Open-Cut Dry 75 0.124 YES No No 0 0 0.00
away) Beaver Creek is more than 4,300 meters upstream of mouth with Gauley; therefore the crossing is more than
800m upstream of an extant population.
POTENTIAL
Yes Pipeline Gauley River 118.9 Nicholas, WV Open-Cut Dry 75 2.1556 YES YES YES 1000 45 11.12 Retain in Table 1: Gauley River is identified as a candy darter extant stream.
IMPACT
Retain in Table 1: Little Laurel Creek3 is 1) not identified in the original Table 1, 2) not identified as a candy
darter extant stream and 3) is a perennial, direct tributary to the Gauley River. The Project crossing of Little
POTENTIAL
No Access Road Little Laurel Creek3 119.0 Nicholas, WV Temporary single-span bridge 40 0 No No YES 0 0 0.00 Laurel Creek is within 30m upstream of mouth with Gauley; therefore impacts may potentially occur to an
IMPACT
extant candy darter population. If an 800-m downstream buffer is applicable, then 770m of Gauley River is
affected and average width of Gauley river is 45m. The level of instream impact (if any) is not currently known.
Retain in Table 1: Little Laurel Creek2 is 1) not identified as a candy darter extant stream and 2) is a perennial,
direct tributary to the Gauley River. The Project crossing of Little Laurel Creek is within 280m upstream of
POTENTIAL
Yes Access Road Little Laurel Creek2 119.0 Nicholas, WV Temporary single-span bridge 40 0.0249 No No YES 0 0 0.00 mouth with Gauley; therefore impacts may potentially occur to an extant candy darter population. If an 800-m
IMPACT
downstream buffer is applicable, then 520m of Gauley River is affected and average width of Gauley river is
45m. The level of instream impact (if any) is not currently known.
Remove from Table 1: Little Laurel Creek1 is 1) not identified as a candy darter extant stream and 2) is a
No impact (>800m perennial, direct tributary to the Gauley River (candy darter extant stream). The Project crossing of Little
Yes Access Road Little Laurel Creek1 119.0 Nicholas, WV Temporary single-span bridge 40 0.0264 No No No 0 0 0.00
away) Laurel Creek is approximately 1,100 meters upstream of mouth with Gauley; therefore the crossing is more
than 800m upstream of an extant population.
No impact (indirect Remove from Table 1: Jims Creek is 1) not identified as a candy darter extant stream and 2) is a perennial,
Yes Pipeline Jim’s Creek 123.4 Nicholas, WV Open-Cut Dry 75 0.0349 YES No No 0 0 0.00
tributary) direct tributary to Hominy Creek. Hominy Creek is not identified as a candy darter extant stream.
Remove from Table 1: Hominy Creek is 1) not identified as a candy darter extant stream and 2) is a perennial,
No impact (candy direct tributary to the Gauley River. The Gauley River is a candy darter extant stream; however, the Gauley
Yes Pipeline Hominy Creek 126.9 Nicholas, WV Open-Cut Dry 75 0.0976 YES darter population No No 0 0 0.00 River is impounded (creating Summersville Lake) and Summersville Lake is a candy darter extirpated section.
Filed Date: 05/13/2021
not present) Hominy Creek drains into Summersville Lake therefore Hominy Creek is not a direct tributary to a candy darter
extant stream section.
Remove from Table 1: Hominy Creek is 1) not identified as a candy darter extant stream and 2) is a perennial,
No impact (candy direct tributary to the Gauley River. The Gauley River is a candy darter extant stream; however, the Gauley
Yes Access Road Hominy Creek 127.0 Nicholas, WV Existing single-span bridge 25 0 No darter population No No 0 0 0.00 River is impounded (creating Summersville Lake) and Summersville Lake is a candy darter extirpated section.
not present) Hominy Creek drains into Summersville Lake therefore Hominy Creek is not a direct tributary to a candy darter
extant stream section.
POTENTIAL
Yes Pipeline Stony Creek 200.4 Giles, VA Conventional Bore 75 0 No YES YES 1000 9 2.22 Retain in Table 1: Stony Creek is identified as a candy darter extant stream.
IMPACT
JA1343
Exhibit G
0013509
From: Schulz, Cindy

To: acp_fws; mvp_fws
Subject: FW: effects of pipeline crossings on aquatics
Date: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 10:37:48 AM
Attachments: Pipeline stream crossings full write up.docx

From: Douglas, Barbara <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2019 11:44 AM
To: Hoskin, Sumalee <[email protected]>; Richard, Jordan C <[email protected]>;
Lennon, Tiernan M <[email protected]>; Schulz, Cindy <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: effects of pipeline crossings on aquatics

FYI - I sent this out a while back when ACP first started but thought I might send again as it
might be helpful. I wrote this for the NiSource BO related to diamond darter but it may be
relevant for ACP or MVP re: aquatics/fish effects. Although I wasn't able to come up with a
standard distance downstream that would be affected by crossings, the references that I cited
did include some good information on downstream monitoring and sediment transport and
may be helpful to review again - or could provide some ideas on monitoring methods that
could be included as RPMs.
Barb

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Douglas, Barbara <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:26 AM
Subject: effects of pipeline crossings
To: Tamara Lewis <[email protected]>, Tiernan Lennon <[email protected]>,
Elizabeth Stout <[email protected]>
Cc: John Schmidt <[email protected]>

Hi all - The subject of how pipeline crossings affect streams has come up a number of times
recently and most companies say that crossings have only temporary impacts to the stream. I
thought it might be helpful to share the attached summary that I drafted for the diamond darter
during the NiSource consultation which addresses this issue. Although it is written specific to
fish the same types of effects can be expected for mussels (although their recovery time would
probably be longer since they have longer reproductive cycles and less ability to move).
Anyway, I hope this is helpful. Let me know if you have any questions.
Barb

--
Barbara Douglas
Senior Endangered Species Biologist
West Virginia Field Office
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
694 Beverly Pike
Elkins, WV 26241
Phone: 304-636-6586 x 19
Fax: 304-636-7824
JA1009
0013510

**Due to an imposed hiring freeze and the inability to back fill positions, we are significantly
delayed in our project review times and response times to phone calls and emails. Please be
patient; we will address projects in the order in which they are received.**

--
Barbara Douglas
Acting Project Leader/Senior Endangered Species Biologist
West Virginia Field Office
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
90 Vance Drive
Elkins, WV 26241
Phone: 304-636-6586 x 19
Fax: 304-636-7824

Please note the change in our mailing address.

JA1010
0013511
Pipeline stream crossings can affect fish habitat; food availability; and fish behavior, heath, reproduction
and survival. The most immediate effect of instream construction is the creation of short term pulses of
highly turbid water and total suspended sediments (TSS) downstream of construction (Levesque & Dube
2007, pp. 399-400). Although these pulses are usually of relatively short duration and there is typically
a rapid return to background conditions after activities cease, instream construction has been shown to
have considerable effects on stream substrates and benthic invert communities that persist after
construction has been completed (Levesque & Dube 2007, p. 396-397). Commonly documented effects
include substrate compaction and silt deposition within the direct impact area and downstream that fills
interstitial spaces in gravel substrates and reduces water flow through the substrate, this increases
substrate embeddedness and reduces habitat quality (Levesque & Dube 2007, pp. 396-397; Penkal &
Phillips 2011, pp. 6-7; Reid & Anderson 1999, p. 243). Construction also directly alters stream channels,
beds, and banks resulting in changes in cover, channel morphology, and sediment transport dynamics.
Streambank alterations can lead to increased water velocities, stream degradation, and migrations in
stream channel. Removal of vegetation from the banks can change temperature regimes, and increase
sediment and nutrient loads (Penkal & Phillips 2011, pp. 6-7).
These instream changes not only directly affect the suitability of fish habitat, they also affect the
availability and quality of fish forage altering the composition and reducing the density of benthic
invertebrate communities within and downstream of the construction area (Levesque & Dube 2007, pp.
396-399; Penkal & Phillips 2011, pp. 6-7; Reid & Anderson 1999, pp. 235, 244). Various studies have
documented adverse effects to the benthic community that have been apparent for between six months
and four years post-construction (Levesque & Dube 2007, pp. 399-400; Reid & Anderson 1999, pp. 235,
244). Stream crossings have also been shown to affect fish physiology, survival, growth, and
reproductive success (Levesque & Dube 2007, p. 399). Studies have found decreased abundance of fish
downstream of crossings, as well as signs of physiological stress such as increased oxygen consumption
and loss of equilibrium in remaining fish downstream of crossings (Levesque & Dube 2007, pp. 399-401;
Reid & Anderson 1999, pp. 244-245). Increased sediment deposition and substrate compaction from
pipeline crossings can degrade spawning habitat, result in the production of fewer and smaller fish eggs,
impair egg and larvae development, limit food availability for young-of-year fish, and increase stress and
reduce disease resistance of fish, (Levesque & Dube 2007, pp. 401-402; Reid & Anderson 1999, pp. 244-
245).
The duration and severity of these effects depends on factors such as the duration of disturbance, the
length of stream segment directly impacted by construction, and whether there were repeated
disturbances (Yount & Niemi 1999, p. 557). Most studies documented recovery of the affected stream
reach within one to three years after construction (Reid & Anderson 1999, p. 247; Yount & Niemi 1999,
pp. 557-558, 562). However caution should be used when interpreting results of short-term studies.
Yount & Niemi (1999, p. 558) cite and example of one study that made a preliminary determination of
stream recovery within one year, but when the site was re-examined six years later, fish biomass, fish
populations, macroinvertabrate densities, and species composition were still changing. It was suspected
that shifts in sediment and nutrient inputs to the site as a result of construction in and around the
stream contributed to the long-term lack of recovery. In another study, alterations in channel
JA1011
0013512
morphology, such as increased channel width and reduced water depth, were evident two to four years
post-construction at sites that lacked an intact forest canopy (Reid & Anderson 1999, p. 243). There is
also the potential for cumulative effects. While a single crossing may have only short-term or minor
effects, multiple crossings or multiple sources of disturbance and sedimentation in a watershed can
have cumulative effects on fish survival and reproduction that exceed the recovery capacity of the river,
resulting in permanent detrimental effects (Levesque & Dube 2007, pp. 406-407). Whether or how
quickly a stream population recovers depends on factors such as the life history characteristics of the
species, and the availability of unaffected populations upstream and downstream as a source of
organisms for recolonization (Yount & Niemi 1999, p. 547). Species such as the diamond darter that are
particularly susceptible to the effects of sedimentation and substrate embeddedness , and that have
limited distribution and population numbers are likely to be more severely affected by instream
disturbances than other more common and resilient species.
LITERATURE CITED
Levesque, L. M. and M. G. Dube. 2007. Review of the effects of in-stream pipeline crossing
construction on aquatic ecosystems and examination of Canadian methodologies for impact
assessment. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 132:395-409.
Penkal, R. F. and G. R. Phillips. 2011. Construction and Operation of Oil and Gas Pipelines. Fisheries
9(3): 6-8.
Reid, S. M. and P. G. Anderson. 1999. Effects of Sediment Released During Open-Cut Pipeline Water
Crossings. Canadian Water Resources Journal 24(3):235-251.
Yount, J. D. and G. J. Niemi. 1990. Recovery of Lotic Communities and Ecosystems from Disturbance –
A Narrative Review of Case Studies. Environmental Management 14(5): 547-569.
JA1012
Document Content(s)
MVP ESA Notice Letter with Exhibits A-G_5-13-21 (3).PDF...................1

Candy Darter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Candy Darter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Candy Darter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Document Accession #: 20210513-5107 Filed Date: 05/13/2021

May 13, 2021

Via Certified Mail Via Certified Mail, Email, and Efiling

Deb Haaland, Secretary Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary

Re: Requirement to Reinitiate Consultation and Notice of Violation of the Endangered

Dear Ms. Haaland and Ms. Bose:

Designation of Critical Habitat

Significant Changes to the Project

Following the issuance of the CnOp/BiOp in September 2020, Mountain Valley

Moreover, newly developed information regarding the impacts of trenchless crossing

Significant Changes to Information Used During the Conference

New Information Regarding Impacts from Acid Precipitation

Consideration of Long-Term and Cumulative Impacts on Candy Darter Habitat

On behalf of West Virginia Rivers Coalition,

cc: Cindy Schulz ([email protected])

COMMENTS ON MOUNTAIN VALLEY PIPELINE’S REQUESTED AMENDMENT TO

environmental impacts. From these materials, I have developed the following

Groundwater Pumping -- Another factor described in the proposed amendment

Ph.D. 2002 University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (Aquatic Ecology)

M.S. 1996 University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (Terrestrial Ecology)

B.A. 1992 Emory University, Atlanta, GA (English and Ecology)

EXPERIENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION

2016-present Professor, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Department of Geography

Matthew E. Baker Curriculum Vitae

2014-present Expert Witness, Appalachian Mountain Advocates, Charleston, West Virginia

2014-2015 Maryland Fellow, National Center for Socio-Ecological Synthesis (SESYNC)

Matthew E. Baker Curriculum Vitae

2017-2019 Baker (Principal) “Continuous mapping of channel features for monitoring

2015-2016 Baker M (Co-Principal), Miller A (Co-Principal) “Long term monitoring—physical

2014-2017 Baker M (Co-Principal), Armstrong D (Principal) “Urbanization and Massachusetts

2013-2015 Baker (Principal) “Riparian Indicators of Eco-Hydraulic Function for Improved

2012-2015 Baker M (Sen. Pers.), Gobbert M (Principal) “Acquisition of Hybrid CPU/GPU

2011-12 Baker M (Co-Principal), Armstrong D (Principal) “Application of Threshold

2010-11 Baker M (Principal) “Thresholds in aquatic communities in response to

Matthew E. Baker Curriculum Vitae

2010-11 Baker M (Co-Principal), Armstrong D (Principal) “Coordinated Assessment and

2009-14 Baker M (Co-Principal), Vidon P (Principal) “Greenhouse gas emissions form

2007-09 Baker M (Co-Principal), Ramsey D (Principal), “Assessment of ecosystem

2007-09 Baker M (Principal) “A pilot study of trout invasions in low productivity

2007-09 Baker M (Co-Principal), Kasahara T (Principal) “Evaluating the effect of climate

2007 Baker M (Collaborator), Beard K (Principal), “Spatial distribution of frog invasions on

Matthew E. Baker Curriculum Vitae

1998-02 Baker M (Graduate Student author) Wiley M (Principal), “Ecosystem Structure

1997 Baker M (Graduate Student Supervisor) Wiley M (Principal), “Aquatic Community

Tanushree Biswas, 2009, committee member, USU

Kristi Green, 2008, committee member, USU

Matthew E. Baker Curriculum Vitae

S. Kirk Dahle, 2009, committee member, USU

Leah Rubin, Research Assistant, 2020, UMBC

Matthew E. Baker Curriculum Vitae

Adam Segal, Research Assistant, 2018, UMBC

PUBLICATIONS, PRESENTATIONS, and CREATIVE ACHIEVEMENTS

Articles (co-lead in bold, *student author)

Matthew E. Baker Curriculum Vitae

Matthew E. Baker Curriculum Vitae

watershed nitrogen retention: estimating the effectiveness of stormwater management

Matthew E. Baker Curriculum Vitae

Matthew E. Baker Curriculum Vitae

Peer-reviewed Book Chapters

Swan, CM, ME Baker, D Borowy, A Johnson, M Shcheglovitova, A Sparkman, F Valente Neto,