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.

“FERC ignores the most harmful impacts this 300-mile-long pipeline for fracked gas would have on lives, communities, drinking water supplies, private property, local economies, and publicly owned natural resources,” calling these risks “unacceptable, especially for a pipeline that is not even needed,” the groups stated.

Ben Luckett, a senior attorney with Appalachian Mountain Advocates, in a statement to the press, said that the mitigation strategies in the environmental report won’t be sufficient for the project’s scope and challenging terrain.

“A pipeline of this size has never been constructed through this type of terrain. By granting a certificate, FERC would basically be authorizing a massive experiment, with the land and people of West Virginia and southwest Virginia acting as the lab rats. This is unacceptable,” Luckett said.

Natalie Cox, a spokeswoman for MVP, responded to criticisms of the pipeline project in an email to the Roanoke Times.

“It is unfortunate, although not surprising, that steadfast opponents of the MVP project would reflexively dismiss findings that do not align with their view,” Cox said. “For almost three years, we have worked with residents and landowners in our Virginia and West Virginia communities to make sure the Mountain Valley Pipeline is being designed, and will be constructed, safely and responsibly, and that we are doing so in a way that has minimal impacts on their land and their daily lives.”

Watchdogs, including the Southern Environmental Law Center, monitoring both the Mountain Valley Pipeline  and the Atlantic Coast Pipeline projects, have long argued that FERC ought to have conducted an over-arching analysis of how many new pipelines out of the Appalachian basin are truly necessary to meet demand. Critics have also noted that shippers of natural gas on the two pipelines include companies that are affiliates of the partners building the projects, a situation they say does not accurately reflect demand by end users, according to the Roanoke Times report.

Luckett said FERC’s analysis fails to establish demand for the gas flowing through the Mountain Valley Pipeline, and “does not support that with any market study or other empirical evidence.”

The commission could act on the Mountain Valley certificate as soon as it has a quorum, however, FERC currently has only two commissioners and lacks a quorum to issue such a certificate after the resignation in February of FERC chairman Norman Bay. But that could change in the weeks ahead if the U.S. Senate confirms, as is expected, two men nominated for the commission by President Donald Trump.

When he resigned, Bay suggested the commission consider taking a comprehensive look at demand to avoid overbuilding of pipelines out of the Marcellus and Utica shale formations.

Bay’s parting statement also cited “one hot-button reality” driving increased public opposition to major interstate pipeline projects: when FERC approves pipelines, companies have access to federal eminent domain to acquire easements across private property. Bay noted that private property advocates have alleged that land is being taken by for-profit companies for projects that do not serve a public need.

FERC is obligated to establish that an interstate pipeline meets a test of “public convenience and necessity,” stated Carolyn Reilly, who works with Bold Alliance, an anti-pipeline group in Virginia.

“The Mountain Valley Pipeline company expects to invoke the power of eminent domain for their private gain based on FERC’s permit, yet FERC is failing to perform the assessment of ‘convenience and necessity’ it is mandated to do,” said Reilly. “FERC is enabling the company’s abuse of landowners as if they are just another commodity to be traded.”

FERC’s final environmental impact statement asserts that easements for pipelines do not significantly reduce property values. Yet there have been reports in the region that suggest otherwise. Property owners and realtors along the routes of both pipelines have cited evidence of impacts on the value and salability of properties that could be on the route.

FERC responded, “We are unaware of an example where an insurance company considered the presence of a pipeline when underwriting homeowner policies.”

As an interstate pipeline, the Mountain Valley project needs FERC’s approval before construction can begin. The pipeline developers have been seeking approval since 2014, and include EQT Midstream Partners, NextEra, Con Edison Transmission, WGL Midstream, and RGC Midstream.

FERC’s release of the final environmental impact statement triggers a 90-day federal authorization decision deadline that, theoretically at least, sets a deadline for other cooperating federal agencies involved in reviewing the project – including the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – to decide whether to issue permits necessary for the work to proceed.

The document cited at least 26 actions or measures that should be taken “prior to construction.”

The pipeline can still be blocked on multiple federal, state, and legal levels, pipeline opponents state, and there are other long-lasting legal options and challenges within the framework of the National Environmental Policy Act for the project if FERC approves it.

Some pipeline opponents also have participated in training for non-violent acts of civil disobedience that could attempt to thwart pipeline construction.

Cox said “the MVP project team and their contractors will have security personnel available, in conjunction with law enforcement, to manage any potential protest-related activity that may occur onsite during construction.”

“The MVP project team anticipates working in several areas simultaneously as sections of the route achieve full clear-to-build status,” Cox said. “It is possible that construction could occur in both West Virginia and Virginia at the same time.”

The pipeline would extend new 42-inch natural gas pipeline over 303.5 miles through 11 counties in West Virginia and six in Virginia. It will terminate at the Transco pipeline near Chatham. The project also involves three new compressor stations. The pipeline construction will require 2½ years and construction will occur in segments.