Opinion ID: 165264
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Acoustic effects of repair and maintenance

Text: 50 FERC considered the direct and indirect impacts of noise caused by the construction and operation of the pipeline on marine wildlife, marine fish, marine invertebrates and certain endangered species. It concluded that, to the extent information was available about the effects of noise on marine life, any increased noise would be temporary and/or unlikely to cause significant adverse effects. 8 Nonetheless, FERC recommended that GSX develop a plan for monitoring noise emitted by the pipeline, submit the plan for approval by the Office of Energy Projects, and then report the findings. FSW does not challenge the adequacy of FERC's analysis of the acoustic effects of the construction and operation of the GSX project. 51 FSW does allege, however, that the FEIS failed to consider the impact of noise caused by repair and maintenance of the pipeline, to the extent that the maintenance differs from the operation of the pipeline. FERC acknowledged that pipeline repairs are foreseeable: Even with proper installation, operation, and routine maintenance of the pipeline system, repairs to the pipeline, including replacement of portions of the system, are reasonably foreseeable actions in the long term. FEIS at 2-24, R. Vol. III. However, FERC then concluded that [b]ecause it is not possible to foresee where additional operation and maintenance activities would occur along the pipeline system, further review of the environmental impacts of those maintenance activities is beyond the scope of this EIS. Appropriate environmental review of those activities would take place under applicable rules and regulations. Id. 52 After refusing to expand the scope of the EIS to assess in detail the environmental impact of hypothetical future maintenance actions, 9 FERC briefly addressed maintenance issues, noting that [m]aintenance activities requiring pipeline excavation or replacement would be expected to be the same as those described for construction. FEIS at 3-73, R. Vol. III; see also id. at 3-104. FERC also noted, in response to a comment on the DEIS, that emergency repairs within a waterbody are exceedingly rare. Id. at SA3-20. FSW charges that FERC's conclusion that emergency repairs in waterbodies are very rare, and its discussion of the acoustic impacts of pipeline maintenance, are conclusory and unsupported by evidence in the record. We disagree. 53 The FEIS contains a section on pipeline accident data. The data show that pipelines are vulnerable to failure as a result of outside forces such as heavy equipment, earth movement, geologic hazards, and weather effects, all less likely to damage an underwater pipeline, as opposed to an underground pipeline. Pipelines are also vulnerable to corrosion, construction and material-related defects, and other causes of rupture or damage. Because GSX is a subsidiary of the Williams Companies, FERC examined the pipeline safety record of the many miles of pipeline operated by Williams and its subsidiaries. It found that since 1991, Williams Northwest Pipeline 3900-mile-long system has had two reportable leaks and twelve reportable ruptures; the 6000-mile-long Williams Gas Pipeline-Central has had five reportable leaks and ten reportable ruptures; there have been no incidents along the 900-mile Kern River Gas Transmission pipeline; since 1995, there have been five reportable incidents along the 10,500-mile-long Transco system; and since 1995 there have been two reportable incidents along the 6000-mile-long Texas Gas system. Given that the GSX pipeline portion that is in the water is less vulnerable to many of the outside forces described, it was reasonable for FERC to conclude that major repairs in the marine environment, along the fourteen miles of offshore pipeline in the GSX project, would be rare. 54 Even as to impacts that are sufficiently likely to occur such that they are reasonably foreseeable and merit inclusion, the FEIS need only furnish such information as appears to be reasonably necessary under the circumstances for evaluation of the project. Utahns for Better Transp., 305 F.3d at 1176. Thus, [d]etailed analysis is required only where impacts are likely. Id. (further quotation omitted). The FEIS analysis of the likelihood of a major underwater repair was adequate, given the circumstances. 55 With respect to its conclusion about the acoustic effects of pipeline maintenance, FERC reached the reasonable conclusion that, while pipeline repairs and maintenance are foreseeable, it is impossible to determine now the precise impacts because it is impossible to determine now the magnitude of a future repair problem. To the extent, however, that a repair requires replacement of existing sections of pipeline, FERC reasonably assumes that the acoustic impact will be comparable to construction. 56 Given our deferential standard of review, we cannot say that the FEIS was deficient for failing to address further the acoustic effects of pipeline repairs and maintenance.