Sediment in Local Stream
FERC draft report calls pipeline’s potential impact ‘limited’
From an Article by Duncan Adams, roanoke.com, September 16, 2016
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. The 781-page statement from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission was accompanied by appendices that totaled 2,671 pages.
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. 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.
Bill Wolf of Preserve Craig County provided a statement from that group: “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.
Richard Caywood, assistant county administrator for Roanoke County, has led the county’s efforts to monitor the pipeline project. “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. As an interstate pipeline, the project needs FERC’s approval to proceed.
‘Rugged terrain’
FERC acknowledged that the Mountain Valley Pipeline would travel through sections of steep, rugged terrain. 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.
‘Fatally flawed’
Mountain Valley applied to FERC in October for the certificate the joint venture needs to begin construction. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
‘Forest impacts’
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. FERC said the 125-foot construction right-of-way would remove trees that would take years to grow back.
As currently routed, the pipeline would cross a total of about 3.4 miles of the Jefferson National Forest. 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. 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. FERC has scheduled two meetings in the region: Nov. 2 at Franklin County High School, and Nov. 3 in Roanoke, at the Sheraton Hotel on Hershberger Road.
Each will begin at 5 p.m. FERC said individual comments will be collected in one-on-one conversations with a stenographer. Pipeline opponents and regional politicians had asked FERC to also include a town hall-type meeting.
FERC also will accept comments electronically and through the mail through December 22nd.
See also: www.FrackCheckWV.net
Point Your RSS Reader to FrackCheckWV.net/feed/
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
People!
You do not need to accept the one-on-one format!
PA DEP. WV DEP. OSM, many agencies have tried to get away with this because the feeling that builds in a room as people give heartfelt and varied reasons for opposition, the networking that follows, are the only reason to even bother with public hearings–it’s not like these agencies ever deny a permit.
But I saw at one hearing long ago in Charleston, where OSM tried to do this, and Bill Price grabbed the mike and asked for “a show of hands–who wants the usual, public format?” Nearly every hand went up.
“Who wants the new format?” The table with the coal industry guys all raised their hands. A clear majority for the public format, and it would have looked so anti-democratic to insist on the private approach that they gave it up.
Mary Wildfire, Spencer, WV