Opinion ID: 165264
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Acoustic Effects

Text: 48 FSW argues that the FEIS failed to take a hard look at the project's acoustic effects. More specifically, FSW argues that FERC (1) failed to consider the acoustic effects of pipeline repair and maintenance; (2) failed to assess adequately acoustic effects before resources were committed to the project; and (3) failed to consider cumulative acoustic effects. 49
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.
57 An environmental impact statement must analyze not only the direct impacts of a proposed action, but also the indirect and cumulative impacts. Utahns for Better Transp., 305 F.3d at 1172 (further quotation omitted); see also 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(a)(2). 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7 defines cumulative impact as follows: 58 Cumulative impact is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. 59 FSW argues FERC failed to analyze cumulative effects in three respects: the cumulative acoustic effect of the project in light of noise already in the marine environment; the cumulative acoustic effect of the project in light of reasonably foreseeable future projects; and the pipeline's cumulative environmental (non-acoustic) effect in the marine environment in light of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 60 A. Cumulative Acoustic Effect in Light of Background Marine Environment Noise 61 FSW argues FERC failed to properly analyze the additive effect of both constant (pipeline operation) and intermittent (pipeline repair, construction, maintenance) noise sources in combination with vessel traffic and other stressors already in place in the marine environment. Pet'r's Opening Br. at 53. This is simply another way of challenging FERC's analysis of the noise impact caused by the GSX project. We have already concluded that FERC's analysis of the impact on the marine environment of the construction, operation and maintenance of the project is reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious. 10 We decline FSW's invitation to revisit that issue, under the guise of discussing the cumulative acoustic effect of the pipeline in the existing marine environment. 62 B. Cumulative Acoustic Effects in Light of Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects 63 Cumulative effect is defined as the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7. FSW claims FERC's analysis of the cumulative effects of the GSX project and other reasonably foreseeable actions in the same geographic vicinity is cursory and conclusory. 64 The FEIS contains a table listing Existing or Proposed Activities Cumulatively Affecting Resources of Concern for the GSX-US Pipeline Project. Table 3.14-1, FEIS at 3-155, R. Vol. III. It lists present activities and reasonably foreseeable future projects which may affect, inter alia, marine resources. The only reasonably foreseeable future projects affecting marine resources are the construction and operation of the Canadian portion of the GSX project, which would involve 27.5 miles of offshore pipeline in the Strait of Georgia; the OPALCO pipeline project, involving constructing a lateral off the GSX-US pipeline and requiring eleven miles of offshore pipeline; and the Gateway Pacific Terminal, a deepwater marine terminal facility south of the BP/Amoco Cherry Point Refinery. 11 The FEIS contains the following summary of the likely cumulative acoustic impact of those projects: 65 Visual and acoustic disturbances associated with pipeline construction and operation may add to other commercial, public, and recreational vessel disturbances to affect marine mammals, fish, birds, and invertebrates. The magnitude of the impact would probably be insignificant relative to the total marine environment available to, and used by, these species, particularly given the short-term nature of the construction activities. 66 FEIS at 3-158, R. Vol. III. 67 While we do not consider the cumulative acoustic impact analysis of the FEIS to be a model of clarity or thoroughness, Custer County Action Ass'n, 256 F.3d at 1036, given our deferential standard of review, we find it sufficient. FERC reasonably concluded that the primary acoustic impact on marine resources will occur during the construction of the GSX pipeline and any other projects, should they be built. This is a limited time period. Additionally, many marine inhabitants are mobile and can avoid the area while any construction takes place. 12 Further, operational acoustic impacts are minimal and are generally less than those caused by vessels in the area. Any repair impacts will be intermittent and similar to construction impacts, except in the rare event that some catastrophic failure occurs. 68 Our job is not to question the wisdom of the [agency's] ultimate decision or its conclusion concerning the magnitude of indirect cumulative impacts. Colo. Envtl. Coalition v. Dombeck, 185 F.3d 1162, 1176 (10th Cir.1999). Rather, our job is to examine the administrative record, as a whole, to determine whether the [agency] made a reasonable, good faith, objective presentation of those impacts sufficient to foster public participation and informed decision making. Id. at 1177. We conclude that FERC discharged its duty to take a hard look at the cumulative acoustic impacts of the GSX project along with other reasonably foreseeable projects in the same area. 13 69 C. Cumulative Non-Acoustic Environmental Effects 70 FSW argues the FEIS devoted insufficient attention to the cumulative non-acoustic effects of the GSX project along with the other current and reasonably foreseeable actions and activities. We disagree. While the FEIS's analysis is again not a model of ... thoroughness, Custer County Action Ass'n, 256 F.3d at 1036, we again find, applying our deferential standard of review, that it is adequate and not arbitrary or capricious. See FEIS at 3-157—3-164, R. Vol. III.