February 12, 2019: Is the site location a nail in the coffin for Texas LNG? FERC notified Texas LNG of an adverse effect on archaeological site 41CF8 (Garcia Pasture Site). This site was originally located in 1917 by local collector A.E. Anderson. It was investigated in 1970 by the Texas State Historical Survey Committee (Prewitt 1974). The Garcia Pasture Site was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1972. The Texas LNG site is located in areas that contain contributing elements to 41CF8's significance. The site and elements are kept secret to prevent disturbance of archaeological sites of historical significance.
March 4, 2019: A FERC Submission from the Department of the Army indicates that the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has concerns regarding Texas LNG's mitigation stating that their mitigation plan is incomplete and inadequate. The USACE is requesting that Texas LNG add to their mitigation plan restoration, creation, and/or enhancement of aquatic resources and should not rely on preservation of existing aquatic resources.
March 13, 2019: US Department of the Interior filed with FERC countering Annova's claim that their project's impacts would not be signifanct. Annova LNG will be cited in the Ocelot Coastal Wildlife Corridor, will impact part of a Loma, and indirectly impacts National Wildlife Refuge property. FWS believes destruction of the loma habitat would destroy the essential geologic and ecological conditions of this site. Creation of high quality functional loma habitat is likely impossible. The US Department of Interior considers Annova's impacts significant and recommends perpetual conservation easements and perfect final agreements with the Brownsville Navigation District (i.e. Port of Brownsville). A costly hurdle of which there is no guarantee the Port will want to give up land to a perpetual mitigation agreement that will not allow development.
The Department of the Interior is also concerned that the wetlands at the facility site have been incorrectly characterized, and recommends to USACE that the delineation be reviewed.
The Federal Wildlife Service further counters Annova LNG's assessment of their impacts stating the Annova LNG Project combined with other projects within the geographic scope, including the Texas LNG and Rio Grande LNG Projects, would result in certain significant cumulative impacts. FWS believes cumulative effects from existing projects and the proposed LNG terminals contribute to net loss of habitat, and with less than 5% of ocelot, jaguarundi, and northern aplomado falcon habitat remaining, effects will be permanent and significant.
March 15, 2019: It would seem, from the Department of Interior filing on March 13, that Annova LNG is either trying to deceive agencies and the public regarding impacts to wetlands, habitat, and wildlife or assessing their project incorrectly. Annova, it seems also is trying to deceive agencies and the public in other aspects of their project. On March 15, FERC requested information from Annova LNG regarding a comment filed by the U.S. Coast Guard stating that Annova anticipates actual vessel arrivals annually may be greater than 80 LNG carriers per year which would affect other operation at the Port and also under estimate operational air emissions.
Annova, in another attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the agencies and the public, has stated they will get their gas from the Valley Crossing Pipeline. However, from the many comments submitted during the public commenting period regarding this unconfirmed partnership, FERC wants to know;
What assurance does Annova have that Valley Crossing’s intrastate pipeline will be capable of delivering gas to the Supply Lateral Pipeline sufficient to supply Annova LNG, given Valley Crossing’s representation in Docket No. CP17-19-000 that its system “is not designed to be attached to any LNG facilities” (see Valley Crossing’s March 14, 2017 response to scoping comments at page. 2)?
What assurance does Annova have that when the Supply Lateral Pipeline goes into service it will either (1) transport exclusively intrastate gas or (2) have obtained authorization under section 311 of the Natural Gas Policy Act to transport gas produced both in and out of state?