Ferc draft report calls pipeline’s potential impact ‘limited’ – roanoke times_ news

The federal commission evaluating the proposed Mountain Valley Pipeline issued Friday a draft environmental impact statement for the deeply controversial project — a major milestone in the review process.

An executive summary of the statement reports, under a section titled “Major Conclusions,” that FERC determined the construction and operation of the pipeline “would result in limited adverse environmental impacts, with the exceptions of impacts on forest.”

Pipeline opponents reported Friday that their review of the commission documents was just beginning. Gas yourself But there were strong expressions of dismay, alarm and skepticism about FERC’s analysis.

“FERC’s conclusion that adverse environmental effects of the MVP would be limited and will be satisfactorily mitigated by the applicant is ludicrous,” said Rick Shingles, a member of Preserve Giles County.

“It is inconceivable that our government would issue a draft EIS for public comment when it has been thoroughly documented that there are massive errors, gaps and possible falsehoods in the information provided by the private corporation that filed this application,” Wolf said.

“This document seems to accept everything submitted by the company as fact, while ignoring thousands of pages of comments submitted by concerned citizens and knowledgeable professionals,” he added.

And there was stiff criticism too about the commission’s planned format for regional public meetings in November, when comments about the draft environmental impact statement will be collected in one-on-one conversations with a stenographer instead of in an open, public forum.

Roberta Bondurant, a resident of Bent Mountain in Roanoke County and one organizer there of stiff pipeline opposition, blasted the one-on-one format.

“It’s a farce to call the individual delivery of scientific, environmental, historic and cultural information [to stenographers] a ‘public’ hearing,” she said.

“The meeting format planned by FERC appears to be designed to limit, rather than facilitate, meaningful public dialogue regarding this project,” Caywood said.

In turn, Natalie Cox, a spokeswoman for Mountain Valley Pipeline, said the draft environmental impact statement follows more than two years of project planning and development and collection of data from surveying activities.

It also reflects, Cox said, “the comments, considerations and concerns of landowners, community members, government agencies and local elected officials along the proposed route.”

She noted that Mountain Valley has made hundreds of route adjustments in response to landowner requests, efforts to avoid sensitive resources or engineering requirements.

As proposed, the 301-mile, 42-inch diameter Mountain Valley Pipeline would transport natural gas at high pressure from Wetzel County, West Virginia, to another natural gas transmission pipeline in Pittsylvania County.

The buried pipeline would travel from West Virginia through the Virginia counties of Giles, Montgomery, Craig, Roanoke and Franklin en route to terminating at the pipeline near Chatham. E85 gas stations in san antonio tx As an interstate pipeline, the project needs FERC’s approval to proceed.

For example, FERC said, about 67 percent of the project “would cross areas susceptible to landslides.” In addition, the pipeline would traverse nearly 73 miles where slope grades would be greater than 30 percent and also cross about 51 miles of karst terrain, the commission said.

Pipeline opponents contend that karst terrain — characterized by sinkholes, caves, sinking streams and springs — cannot safely support a 42-inch diameter, buried pipeline transporting natural gas at high pressure.

The Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation also has cited concerns about the pipeline’s impact on sensitive karst features and water quality in Giles and Montgomery counties.

Pipeline foes warn that construction and operation of the pipeline on steep slopes will lead to erosion and the deposit of sediment in sensitive streams and drinking water sources.

The commission reported that it considered an impact to be significant “if it would result in a substantial adverse change in the physical environment.” Examples would be impacts to critical habitat for endangered species or direct construction impacts on historic properties, FERC said.

The commission suggests that the pipeline would not affect property values, an observation contradicted this year by at least two landowners in the region whose property values have been affected by the prospect of hosting the pipeline.

Mountain Valley applied to FERC in October for the certificate the joint venture needs to begin construction. Gas oil ratio Since then, FERC has peppered Mountain Valley with requests for more information, clarifications and corrections as the commission staff and a consultant prepared the draft environmental impact statement.

Throughout the draft statement issued Friday, FERC acknowledges that additional information is required from Mountain Valley before the commission can complete a final environmental impact statement — which FERC has said should be available in March.

Laurie Ardison, co-chair of the Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights pipeline opposition group, described the draft environmental impact statement as “fatally flawed for a variety of process and substance matters, not the least of which is MVP’s insufficient, unsubstantiated foundational material.”

Carolyn Reilly, a member of Preserve Franklin County, offered similar observations. Gas questions Her family has resisted efforts by Mountain Valley crews to survey their farm for a possible pipeline route.

“Considering that our family farm has not even been surveyed by MVP, we are aghast at how FERC has issued a draft environmental impact statement which doesn’t include our property, as well as others that have not been surveyed by MVP,” Reilly said.

“Our family’s land includes woods inhabited by many species, pristine pasture, wetlands and two creeks. Electricity bill nye worksheet How can they state that there is not a significant impact to land and property values when the survey data doesn’t exist?”

Opponents contend FERC has relied too heavily on Mountain Valley’s data to assess whether the project meets a public need. Gas density of air Two studies commissioned by pipeline foes have concluded that the project isn’t necessary to meet current and anticipated demand for natural gas from the Appalachian Basin.

FERC notes, however, that the pipeline, designed to transport about 2 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas, has shippers lined up to use the gas. Gas laws Roanoke Gas is one of five shippers and has confirmed it might site a tap in Franklin County to take natural gas off the pipeline.

FERC is also considering a separate application from Dominion, Duke Energy and other partners for the similarly controversial Atlantic Coast Pipeline project. Electricity kwh It would also transport natural gas from West Virginia into Virginia through a 42-inch diameter natural gas transmission pipeline.

Opponents to both pipelines have long held that FERC staff should have completed a programmatic environmental impact statement that considered the two projects together, examining whether they are necessary and weighing their cumulative impacts.

Joe Lovett, executive director of Appalachian Mountain Advocates, reacted to the release of the impact statement for the Mountain Valley project by slamming FERC for failing to do a more overarching, comprehensive analysis.

He said FERC’s unwillingness to complete a programmatic study was “shameful” and “lazy” and set the stage for private companies to take people’s private property for corporate gain.

If the commission ultimately approves the project, Mountain Valley will be able to use eminent domain to acquire easements across private property if negotiations fail to yield a price acceptable to the landowner.

Proponents of the Mountain Valley Pipeline emphasize a belief that the project will enhance economic development, help move away from coal as a fuel for power generation and support the nation’s energy independence.

Pipeline foes suggest the project will do significant and lasting environmental harm, impact property rights and values, create a safety hazard and continue the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels.

The commission reported that the Mountain Valley Pipeline would cross about 245 miles of forest, noting that the project’s 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way “would be kept clear of trees, which would represent a permanent impact” and lead to habitat fragmentation.

As currently routed, the pipeline would cross a total of about 3.4 miles of the Jefferson National Forest. Wd gaster cosplay tutorial The Forest Service has expressed concerns about Mountain Valley’s current plans for crossing the Appalachian Trail and has criticized the company’s proposed crossing of Craig Creek.

FERC confirmed it will double the comment period that follows the release of the draft statement to 90 days to accommodate the needs of the Forest Service and the U.S. Electricity wiki Bureau of Land Management, another federal agency involved in preparation of the draft environmental impact statement.

FERC also will host public meetings to solicit comment on the draft. Gas cap code FERC has scheduled two meetings in the region: Nov. Gas utility 2 at Franklin County High School, and Nov. Electricity bill cost per month 3 in Roanoke, at the Sheraton Hotel on Hershberger Road.

Each will begin at 5 p.m. Gaston y astrid lima FERC said individual comments will be collected in one-on-one conversations with a stenographer. Gas nozzle keeps stopping Pipeline opponents and regional politicians had asked FERC to also include a town hall-type meeting.