Preserve Craig, Answer in Opposition to Request
Petition to become a consulting party for the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Process by the Craig County Board of Supervisors
MVP 401 Certification Petition for Review to the Fourth Circuit
Letter from PreserveCraig attorney to VA Water Control Board
AppalMad Request for Rehearing (Nov. 2017)
Roanoke, Giles, Craig Counties Rehearing Request (Nov. 2017)
Preserve Craig Rehearing Request (Nov. 2017)
Craig County Resolution (Nov. 2017)
Letter to VA Water Control Board
Current Studies About the MVP
Critique Debunks Mountain Valley Pipeline Economic Benefits
Cultural Attachment Expert Report
Legal Memo to Require Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Map of Proposed Route 10-23-15 7C
Report on Geologic Hazards in the Karst Regions of Virginia and West Virginia
Preserve Craig Letters
- Comments on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Proposal to Reissue and Modify
Nationwide Permit 12, Docket No. COE-2015-0017
- Preserve Craig Comment and Objection to Environmental Information Request from the FERC to MVP
- Request to Federal Legislators for FERC Oversight
The Forest Service Comment Period on MVP’s Survey Request has closed.
Click here to view the comment submitted by the Preserve Craig Science and Technical Committee.
Comment Submissions to FERC Regarding MVP Environmental Issues
Submitted by Preserve Craig
- Need for PEIS Brief by Water and Power
Preserve Craig Brief by Water and Power on improving FERC and Forest Service NEPA review of proposed pipelines to transport natural gas from Marcellus Shale through Joint preparation of a PEIS under CP16-10.
- PC Science Updated Erosion & Sedimentation – Withdraw DEIS
Revised Preserve Craig Science and Technical Committee on erosion and sedimentation with request for MVP to withdraw DEIS as inadequate and incomplete and not allow MVP to cross federal forest land.
- Invasive Species – Withdraw DEIS
Economic and Environmental Impacts of Invasive Plant Species and related request to withdraw the DEIS and reject proposed amendments to Jefferson National Forest CRMP.
- PC Cultural Attachment Study by Kent & Assoc.
Resubmission of Kent Study which establishes the scientific validity of Cultural Attachment as a social phenomenon and as a decision-making policy tool in addressing community concerns regarding MVP.
- New MVP Herbicide Use Plan
Preserve Craig protests MVP’s herbicide use plan as inadequate and potentially harmful to wetlands, waterways and organic farming operations. It also fails to address control of invasive species under CP16-10.
- Citizens Petition to Withdraw DEIS Signed by Approximately 1847 Citizens
Comment of Preserve Craig under CP16-10. Petition signed by 1847 citizens demanding that the FERC withdraw the DEIS for the MVP because it is based on inaccurate, misleading and woefully incomplete information provided by MVP & opposing crossing USFS
- Request of Indian Creek Watershed Association and Preserve Craig that the FERC require MVP to submit a comprehensive amended application under CP16-10-000 – re-filed with minor addition to specifically reference the prior docket and scoping comments under PF15-3-000.
Preserve Craig resubmitted several documents that were submitted under the scoping docket number PF15-3-000 which were not addressed or inadequately addressed in MVP’s DEIS.
- Request of Indian Creek Watershed Association and Preserve Craig that the FERC require MVP to submit a comprehensive amended application under CP16-10-000
- Letter Endorsing Craig County Board of Supervisors Scoping Comments
a.) 19 Critical Environmental Issues; b.) Documentation of VA SCC Rejection of Utility Route Similar to MVP Alt 110; c.) Request by County for MOU with the FERC; d.) Request that US Army Corps of Engineers require and individual CWA Section 404 permit.
- Important EIS Issues from US Forest Service Survey Permit
Asserts that All Comments to US Forest Service About MVP Survey Permit are part of MVP Scoping, showing why MVP will harm Our National Forest, documenting Forest Service Record of Decision against previous AEP utility corridor and local Cultural Attachment to Place, includes Map showing similarity of AEP and MVP routes, FS decisions, and more – prepared by PC Legal Counsel w/ attachments. (216 pages – 5MB)
- Sedimentation Report by Preserve Craig Science Committee
Documents the risks that MVP will cause sedimentation, erosion, damage water quality and threaten endangered species. Discusses pipeline construction techniques compared to Best Management Practices, steep slopes on Alternate Route 119 and likelihood that these risks cannot be avoided or mitigated. Examples of failed erosion mitigation on other pipelines with photos. (19 pages – 1 MB)
- Economic and Environmental Impact of Invasive Plants
Report by Dr. Brian Murphy, Preserve Craig Science Committee. Documents the environmental degradation and economic impacts caused by spread of non-native invasive plant species likely to occur if MVP is permitted. Specifically, the MVP corridor would be a conduit to introduce and spread harmful nonnative invasive plant species in Craig County, and along the entire length of the pipeline. This will destroy ecological integrity of private and public lands, threaten public health, and create land-management problems for the life of the pipeline and beyond. (44 pages – 419KB)
- Google Map showing the environment and sensitive features along the Alternate 110 routes
Cover Letter describes the Map. The file itself is available upon request from PreserveCraig@gmail.com as a Google Earth .kmz file.
- MVP Open House Questions not answered
Preserve Craig Lists extensive questions asked that raise environmental concerns to include in the EIS and requests that the FERC obtain the answers to these Environmental, Construction, Economic, Safety, and Post-Construction Questions. (6 pages – 472 KB)
- EQT Criminal Record & Demand for Bond
Includes Court Records of Environmental Crimes by MVP’s Managing Partner and documents general unethical behavior of MVP. Preserve Craig asserts that the FERC must make a factual finding that MVP does not have the capacity to serve the public interest and that if FERC were to issue a permit then a Permanent Bond must be required for the life of and removal of the pipeline to cover ALL risks and perils. (38 pages – 1.1 MB)
- Preserve Craig Scientific & Technical Committee report to USFS
Study prepared by 9 leading scientists on the risks of the MVP, originally prepared for the US Forest Service special use permit scoping in April 2015, covers 1. Security of Domestic Water Supplies; 2. Long Standing Land Management Strategies, Agreements, and Decisions; 3. Water Quality, Landscape Considerations, and Best Management Practices (BMPs); 4. Rare, Threatened, Endangered, and Invasive Species; 5 Viewsheds, and 6. Cultural Issues. (20 pages – 704 KB)
- MVP impact on National Forest Land, USFS Plan & Brush Mountain Wilderness
Addresses the impacts from construction and operation of MVP on National Forest lands, asserts that such use is in direct conflict with the national interest, purpose of the US Forest, and risks permanently scarring the land and damaging our most precious water resources. (23 pages – 2.2 MB)
- Petition to FERC with 9 EIS Scoping Issues, Signed by 2133 citizens, 25% of Craig County population
Demands that the FERC drop the Alternate 110 Routes and, in the EIS, document how the MVP will not damage the environment irreparably. Details requirements for study of the impact of the MVP on Unstable slopes and karst terrain, Endangered Species, Water Quality, Cultural Attachment, Economic Impact, Public Safety, Damage to infrastructure, Alternative means of natural gas transport, Liability for damages. (159 pages – 6.5 MB)
- Petition to the Forest Service to Deny EQT Survey Contains Key Environmental Issues that Must be Included in EIS.
Signed by 880 citizens in April, 2015. Preserve Craig expects that the FERC must study 10 compelling issues in the petition and answer then in the MCP EIS. (32 pages – 2.5 MB)
- Unsuitable Soils for Pipeline Construction & Restoration
A Preserve Craig Science Committee Report on the risks and damages likely from MVP on mountaintop soils. By Brian Murphy and Nan Gray. (6 pages – 190 KB)
- Collated Citizen Letters to the US Forest Service
A collection of compelling comments to the US Forest Service specifically shared with Preserve Craig covering Cultural Attachment, environmental concerns, viewshed impacts, & economic and financial losses already occurring due to the threat of the Mountain Valley Pipeline – includes Preserve Craig comments & Science Committee report. (98 pages – 4.8 MB)
- Six Compelling Concerns About the Pipeline Approval Process
This memo delivers to the FERC key requests that cumulative effects and a programmatic analysis of all Marcellus shale pipeline proposals be studied as a whole, that pipeline decision criteria be published and transparent, that the FERC decision record be fully disclosed, that documentation of mitigation to protect our waters be provided, that the FERC pre-screen and not accept applicants with a history of environmental crimes, and that bonds be required to indemnify all risks within the blast zone. Preserve Craig to the Montgomery County Board of Supervisors, June 15, 2015. (7 pages – 244 KB)
Submitted by Craig County Board of Supervisors
- CCBoS Letter of Opposition – April 2, 2015
- CCBoS Information Submitted to FERC – June 10, 2015
a.) 19 critical issues for consideration; b.) historical record of 1990s efforts of American Electrical Power to construct 765kV electrical transmission line through Craig County; c.) request FERC enter MOU to afford CCBoS to be more involved in regulatory review of this proposed pipeline.
Submitted by Citizens
- The Socio-Economic Impact of the Mountain Valley Pipeline on Craig County Residents (Seago)
- Black Diamond Issues and Agreements (Dimino)
- Letter to the FERC with Attachments (Easterling)
- Letter from Forks of John’s Creek Christian Church
- How would you feel to have your home and livelihood taken from you? (Keffer)
- Taking Citizens’ Comment Seriously (Bouldin)
Submitted by Others
- Army Corps of Engineers’ Comments to FERC
- US Dept. of Interior Comments to MVP
- US Forest Service Comments to FERC
- Southern Environmental Law Center / Appalachian Mountain Advocates / Center for Biological Diversity Comments to FERC
- VA Senator John Edwards’ Comment to FERC