A federal agency issued its final environmental statement (EIS) on June 23 for the Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) project.

The release marked a major milestone, setting the stage for a decision from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) about whether the controversial $3.5 billion pipeline project can move forward. FERC still must determine whether to issue a final certificate.

The final EIS assessed the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the MVP in accordance with requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, including forests, wildlife habitats, scenic views, air quality and safety.

“The FERC staff concluded that construction and operation of the project would result in some adverse environmental impacts. In the case of the clearing of forest, effects may be long-term and significant. However, for most other environmental resources, effects should be temporary or short-term, and impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with the implementation of the applicants’ proposed mitigation measures and the additional measures recommended in the final EIS,” the report said.

The commission concluded that the developers were taking appropriate precautions to control erosion and sediment, with additional plans that would help mitigate the effects of the project on sensitive terrain, including karst topography characterized by sinkholes and caves.

FERC’s environmental statement did acknowledge that the commission had received “a significant number of public comments regarding pipeline integrity and safety in areas of potential karst collapse.” And it recommended that Mountain Valley adopt a remote sensing method known as LIDAR (light detection and ranging) – which uses light in the form of a pulsed laser to generate three-dimensional data about the earth’s surface characteristics – to monitor the potential for cave-ins along the route.

Citizen and environmental groups were quick with reactions, stating the precautions offered by Mountain Valley are not sufficient for such a large project. A coalition of groups opposed to the pipeline, including Chesapeake Climate Action Network and Protect Our Water, Heritage and Rights, issued a statement opposing FERC’s position.

Read More

Mountain Messenger – 07/08/2017