July, 09 2013, 01:35pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Environmental Coalition Sends Key Climate Reports for Federal Review of Proposed LNG Export Terminal on Chesapeake Bay
First-of-its-kind facility on east coast would hurt Chesapeake and hasten nearby fracking—impacts exacerbated with climate change
WASHINGTON
A coalition of local, regional, and national groups sent a letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) today underscoring further scientific evidence that supports their opposition to the proposed Dominion Cove Point LNG export terminal on the Chesapeake Bay. The letter alerts FERC to the latest hurricane forecast from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), revealing that the area will be subject to increasingly strong storms this season. In another report sent to FERC, a panel of 21 scientists commissioned by Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley predicts rising seas of more than 2 feet along the state's shoreline in the next 40 years--and perhaps nearly 6 feet by the end of the century. An additional report on climate adaptation prepared by the IPIECA, a global oil and gas industry association, highlights the growing consensus that industry must address and respond to climate change in planning infrastructure projects.
In May, the coalition--Sierra Club, Patuxent Riverkeeper, Potomac Riverkeeper, Shenandoah Riverkeeper, Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper--filed public comments and a motion to intervene in the proceedings to FERC, calling on the agency to conduct a thorough environmental review of the proposed Dominion Cove Point LNG facility. Represented by Earthjustice, the groups are objecting to the environmental impacts posed by the terminal located in Lusby, MD, and argue that development of the facility would result in major damage to the Chesapeake Bay, coastal forests, and the local economy, which currently support more than a trillion dollars in economic activity from the seafood and tourism industries.
"In addition to hurting the Bay's economy and ecology, increasing air pollution, and accelerating fracking and drilling in neighboring states, these new findings show that FERC must also factor in forecasted climate change impacts in their environmental review of the proposed LNG project, said Sierra Club Beyond Natural Gas Campaign Director Deb Nardone. "The reports we sent FERC shed a very reliable and extremely critical light on the serious risks that the facility poses to the surrounding areas."
Major concerns about the proposed facility include a substantial increase in ship traffic of huge--and potentially explosive--LNG tankers on the Bay and to Cove Point, as well as the risks posed by dumping billions of gallons of ballast water into this large and complex estuary, made up of a network of rivers, wetlands, and forests. Predicted severe weather and rising seas add to these concerns.
The NOAA Hurricane Report finds there is a "significant likelihood" that the Atlantic Coast can expect higher-than-average storm activity for the six-month hurricane season beginning June 1, 2013, due in part to above-average sea surface temperatures in the Atlantic Ocean. In particular, NOAA is predicting a 70 percent likelihood that the 2013 Atlantic Hurricane Season will produce "13-20 named storms, of which 7-11 are expected to become hurricanes, and 3-6 are expected to become major hurricanes." These ranges far exceed the seasonal averages recorded over the last 30 years.
The June 2013 Maryland Sea-Level Report estimates that sea-levels in Maryland could rise by up to 2.1 feet by 2050, and up to 5.7 feet by 2100, and that the height of storm surges in the Chesapeake Bay would increase as the Bay deepens due to sea-level rise.
Each of these reports confirms the likelihood of more frequent hurricanes and heightened storm surges from rising sea levels. Taken together, they are a powerful statement about the significant negative impacts on the project that could easily occur from the effects of climate change.
"Any breach at the LNG facility or the shipwreck of a vessel carrying LNG could have catastrophic consequences for the surrounding communities, public health and the environment, and these risks should be carefully evaluated and disclosed," said Patuxent Riverkeeper Frederick Tutman. "We have recently witnessed several hurricanes systems of unprecedented proportions causing unprecedented damages, and we do not wish to pit an already ill-advised facility against the power of even more and stronger hurricanes." Indeed, in recent East Coast weather systems, Superstorm Sandy destroyed approximately 300,000 housing units, left two million customers without power, caused an estimated $42 billion of damage in New York State alone, and was responsible for 60 deaths. And in 2011, Tropical Storm Irene caused an estimated $15.8 billion in damages, multiple deaths, and disabled a nuclear power plant in Maryland.
"None of the concerns we raise are far-fetched. Upcoming storms could easily inflict comparable damage to the area around the project," said Earthjustice associate attorney Jocelyn D'Ambrosio. "It is clear looking at the Dominion project's location on the Chesapeake Bay that any complete FERC evaluation must include the potential impacts climate change could have on the facility and associated shipping activities."
The groups maintain that FERC must assess the location and design of the LNG terminal in light of the susceptibility of the low-lying and subsiding areas of the Chesapeake Bay to flooding and erosion. Dominion's plans also should include measures to prepare for higher-intensity rain events predicted in the Hurricane Report. In addition, associated ship traffic should be reviewed in light of higher wind and storm activities that could cause LNG ship accidents.
Background:
The proposed terminal will be the first LNG export facility in the east coast, providing foreign markets with access to natural gas from the Marcellus Shale, which lies beneath New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, western Maryland, Shenandoah Valley Virginia, and West Virginia. Demands for natural gas exports will mean more dangerous fracking in these states, as well as more pollution of the communities' air and water and destruction of their land.
The project will require construction of an additional compressor station in the Elklick Diabase Flatwoods Conservation site, which is home to rare species of plants, animals and migratory birds. It also will require a huge construction site on the Patuxent River next to the historic Solomons Island, known for its beautiful waterfront.
Once in full operation, Dominion Cove Point will emit thousands of tons of dangerous air pollutants and millions of tons of greenhouse gases that will only add to increased climate disruption.
Contact:
Guy Alsentzer, Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper, (717) 252-6777
Robin Broder, Potomac Riverkeeper, (202) 222-0706
Mark Westlund, Sierra Club, (415) 977-5719
Jeff Kelble, Shenandoah Riverkeeper, (540) 837-1479; (540) 533-6465 (cell)
Frederick Tutman, Patuxent Riverkeeper, (301) 579-2073, ext. 7
Jocelyn D'Ambrosio, Earthjustice, (212) 845-7385
LATEST NEWS
'A Clear Breach': Watchdog Hits FIFA With Ethics Complaint Over Made-Up Trump 'Peace Prize'
Multiple rights organizations have slammed FIFA for giving Trump a "peace prize" given what they describe as his "appalling" human rights record.
Dec 09, 2025
International soccer organization FIFA has now been hit with an ethics complaint over its widely criticized decision to award President Donald Trump its first-ever "FIFA Peace Prize" last week.
The Athletic reported on Monday that FairSquare, a watchdog organization that monitors human rights abuses in the sporting world, filed an eight-page complaint with FIFA’s Ethics Committee alleging that FIFA president Gianni Infantino has repeatedly violated the organization's own code of ethics, which states that "all persons bound by the code remain politically neutral... in dealings with government institutions."
The complaint then documents multiple cases in which Infantino allegedly broke the political neutrality pledge, including his public lobbying for Trump to receive a Nobel Peace Prize; a November interview at the America Business Forum in which Infantino called Trump "a really close friend," and hit back at criticisms that the president had embraced authoritarianism; and Infantino's decision to award Trump with a made-up "peace prize" after failing to help him secure a more prestigious version.
FairSquare zeroed in on Infantino's remarks during the 2026 World Cup draw last week in which he told Trump that "you definitely deserve the first FIFA Peace Prize for your action for what you have obtained in your way, but you obtained it in an incredible way, and you can always count, Mr. President, on my support."
The organization remarked that "any reasonable interpretation of Mr. Infantino’s comments would conclude that he a) encouraged people to support the political agenda of President Trump, and b) expressed his personal approval of President Trump’s political agenda." This was a particularly egregious violation, FairSquare added, because Infantino was "appearing at a public event in his role as FIFA president."
Even without Infantino's gushing remarks about Trump, FairSquare said that "the award of a prize of this nature to a sitting political leader is in and of itself a clear breach of FIFA’s duty of neutrality."
FairSquare isn't the only organization to criticize Trump receiving a "peace prize" from the official governing body behind the World Cup.
Human Rights Watch was quick to blast FIFA last week for giving Trump any sort of peace prize given what it described as the administration’s “appalling” human rights record.
Jamil Dakwar, human rights director at the ACLU, also said that Trump was undeserving of the award, and he noted the administration “has aggressively pursued a systematic anti-human rights campaign to target, detain, and disappear immigrants in communities across the US—including the deployment of the National Guard in cities where the World Cup will take place.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Says Ground Attack on Venezuela Imminent—Plus Colombia, Mexico Also in US Crosshairs
"It's now taken as a given... that Trump is mulling a ground invasion of Venezuela and a dramatic expansion in his bombing campaign with no congressional authorization," said one critic.
Dec 09, 2025
President Donald Trump said in an interview published Tuesday that a US land attack on Venezuela is coming and signaled that he is open to launching similar military action against Colombia and Mexico.
“We’re gonna hit ’em on land very soon, too,” Trump told Politico's Dasha Burns, citing the pretext of stopping fentanyl from entering the United States.
Trump repeated his baseless claim that during the administration of his predecessor, the "very stupid" former President Joe Biden, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro "sent us millions of people, many from prisons, many drug dealers, drug lords," and "people in mental institutions."
Burns then noted that most of the illicit fentanyl sold in the United States "is actually produced in Mexico," which along with Colombia is "even more responsible" for trafficking the potent synthetic opioid into the US. She asked Trump if he would "consider doing something similar" to those countries.
"I would," Trump replied. "Sure, I would."
Pressed on his contradictory pardon of convicted narco-trafficking former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández while threatening war against Venezuela, Trump feigned ignorance, claiming that "I don't know him" and asserting that "he was set up."
Trump's latest threat against Venezuela comes amid his deployment of warships and thousands of troops off the coast of the oil-rich South American nation, his approval of covert CIA action against Maduro's government, and more than 20 airstrikes on boats his administration claims without evidence were smuggling drugs in the southern Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean.
The Trump administration's targeting of Venezuela evokes the long history of US "gunboat diplomacy" in Latin America and continues more than a century of Washington's meddling in Venezuelan affairs. It also marks a historic escalation of aggression, as the US has never attacked Venezuelan territory.
Officials in Venezuela and Colombia, as well as relatives of men killed in the boat bombings, contend that at least some of the victims were fishermen who were not involved in drug trafficking.
The strikes have killed at least 87 people since early September, according to administration figures—including shipwrecked survivors slain in a so-called double-tap bombing. Legal experts and some former US military officials contend that the strikes are a violation of international law, murders, war crimes, or all of these.
Critics also assert that the boat strikes violate the War Powers Act, which requires the president to report any military action to Congress within 48 hours and mandates that lawmakers must approve troop deployments after 60 days. The Trump administration argues that it is not bound by the War Powers Resolution, citing as precedent the Obama administration's highly questionable claim of immunity from the law when the US attacked Libya in 2011.
A bipartisan bid to block the boat bombings on the grounds that they run afoul of the War Powers Act failed to muster enough votes in the Senate in October.
"Note that it’s now taken as a given—as an unremarkable and baked-in fact about our politics—that Trump is mulling a ground invasion of Venezuela and a dramatic expansion in his bombing campaign with no congressional authorization," New Republic staff writer Greg Sargent observed Tuesday in response to the president's remarks to Politico.
"What emerges from this interview," he added, "is that Trump is pulling all of this—the substantive case for these bombings, the legal justification for them, the rationale for mulling a massive military escalation in the Western Hemisphere—out of his rear end."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Cold Blooded Murder': US Rights Coalition Sues Trump Over Unlawful Boat Strikes
If the Office of Legal Counsel opinion “seeks to dress up legalese in order to provide cover for the obvious illegality of these serial homicides, the public needs to see this analysis,” said one attorney.
Dec 09, 2025
A coalition of US rights organizations is suing the Trump administration to obtain its documentation outlining the legal justifications for its campaign of military strikes against suspected drug boats in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean.
The ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and the New York Civil Liberties Union on Tuesday announced they had filed a complaint under the Freedom of Information Act demanding the release of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion that provided the legal framework for the strikes, which many human rights organizations have decried as acts of murder.
The groups said that the Trump administration's rationales for the strikes deserve special scrutiny because their justification hinges on claims that the US is in an "armed conflict" with international drug cartels akin to past conflicts between the US government and terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda.
The groups argued there is simply no way that drug cartels can be classified under the same umbrella as terrorist organizations, given that the law regarding war with nonstate actors says that any organizations considered to be in armed conflict with the US must be an "organized armed group" that is structured like a conventional military and engaged in "protracted armed violence" with the US government.
Baher Azmy, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, accused the administration of warping the law beyond recognition in defense of its boat-bombing campaign.
"The Trump administration is displacing the fundamental mandates of international law with the phony wartime rhetoric of a basic autocrat," Azmy explained. "If the OLC opinion seeks to dress up legalese in order to provide cover for the obvious illegality of these serial homicides, the public needs to see this analysis and ultimately hold accountable all those who facilitate murder in the United States’ name."
Jeffrey Stein, staff attorney with the ACLU’s National Security Project, said the American public deserves to know "how our government is justifying the cold-blooded murder of civilians as lawful and why it believes it can hand out get-out-of-jail-free cards to people committing these crimes."
Ify Chikezie, staff attorney at the New York Civil Liberties Union, said the Trump administration was making a mockery of government transparency by refusing to release its OLC documentation justifying the strikes, and demanded that "the courts must step in and order the administration to release these documents immediately."
The administration's boat-bombing spree, which so far has killed at least 87 people, has come under intense scrutiny in recent weeks after it was revealed that the US military had launched a second strike during an operation on September 2 to kill two men who had survived an initial strike on their vessel.
While the September 2 strike has drawn the most attention, Daphne Eviatar, director for security and human rights for Amnesty International USA, argued last week that the entire boat-bombing campaign has been “illegal under both domestic and international law.”
“All of them constitute murder because none of the victims, whether or not they were smuggling illegal narcotics, posed an imminent threat to life,” she said. “Congress must take action now to stop the US military from murdering more people in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


