<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Frack Check WV &#187; fragmentation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frackcheckwv.net/tag/fragmentation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.frackcheckwv.net</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress site</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Mar 2024 22:41:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>US Forest Service Concerned About Damages by Interstate Pipelines</title>
		<link>https://www.frackcheckwv.net/2015/08/17/us-forest-service-concerned-about-large-diameter-interstate-pipelines-damages/</link>
		<comments>https://www.frackcheckwv.net/2015/08/17/us-forest-service-concerned-about-large-diameter-interstate-pipelines-damages/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2015 14:45:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Duane Nichols</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Accidents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Advocacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chemicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Events]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Industry news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Study]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[air pollution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[compressors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drilling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fires]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fracking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fragmentation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[interstate pipelines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[leaks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marcellus shale]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[national forests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Roads]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sedimentation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[subsidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[water pollution]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frackcheckwv.net/?p=15248</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[US Forest Service concerned about proposed pipelines through forests in West Virginia &#38; Virginia, but is FERC listening? From an Article by Steve Szkotak, Associate Press, August 5, 2015 Richmond, VA — The U.S. Forest Service has raised hundreds of concerns about a proposed natural gas pipeline that would carve a 30-mile swath through national [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p></p><p><strong style="font-size: medium;">US Forest Service concerned about proposed pipelines through forests in West Virginia &amp; Virginia, but is FERC listening?</strong></p>
<p>From  an <a title="US Forest Service Concerned about Fracked Gas Pipelines" href="http://www.startribune.com/us-raises-concerns-about-pipeline-through-forests/320820701/" target="_blank">Article by Steve Szkotak</a>, Associate Press, August 5, 2015</p>
<p>Richmond,  VA — The U.S. Forest Service has raised hundreds of concerns about a proposed  natural gas pipeline that would carve a 30-mile swath through <strong>national</strong> <strong>forests</strong> in Virginia and West Virginia.</p>
<p>The  written comments to federal regulators question why the proposed route of the  Atlantic Coast Pipeline has to go through the George Washington and Monongahela  national forests and raises similar worries cited by residents along the path of  the 550-mile energy project.</p>
<p>The  335 questions, comments and corrections were submitted to the Federal Energy  Regulatory Commission in late July by H. Thomas Speaks Jr., forest supervisor.  The Forest Service already has given the builders of the proposed pipeline the  green light to survey the forests.</p>
<p>The pipeline is proposed by Dominion Resources Inc., Duke Energy and two energy  partners. It would carry natural gas from Marcellus shale drilling in  Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia to the Southeast. It would run from  Harrison County, West Virginia, southeast to Greensville County, Virginia, and  into North Carolina.</p>
<p>The $5 billion pipeline is intended to deliver cleaner burning natural gas to the  Southeast as utilities move away from coal-burning power plants amid tighter  federal rules on pollution that contributes to climate change.</p>
<p>The  Forest Service filing was in response to a draft report filed in May by  Dominion. Forest surveys of wetlands and wildlife, among other resources, are nearing completion, said Frank Mack, a spokesman for Dominion Transmission, a  subsidiary that would build the pipeline.</p>
<p>&#8220;Much  of what we have completed since May will address many of the comments the  National Forest Service sent to the FERC, and which we plan to make public when  we file our Resource Reports with our application to the FERC later this  summer,&#8221; Mack wrote in an email.</p>
<p>The  Forest Service said Speaks&#8217; comments are intended to guide Dominion as it  develops its final report with the agency on the national forest routes. The  Forest Service will make the final decision whether the pipeline is a &#8220;suitable  use&#8221; for the national forests, said Jennifer Adams, special project coordinator  for the Forest Service.</p>
<p>Adams  said a similar report was filed by the Forest Service on another interstate  pipeline project, the Mountain Valley Pipeline, but those comments have not been  released. The Mountain Valley project would go through a section of the  Jefferson National Forest.</p>
<p>The  300-mile pipeline is a joint venture between EQT Corp. and NextEra Energy Inc.  It would run from Wetzel County, West Virginia, to another pipeline in Pittsylvania County in Virginia.</p>
<p>On  the Atlantic Pipeline, one Forest Service comment questions the &#8220;necessity to  cross&#8221; forestlands in building the pipeline. Speaks wrote that the Forest Service policy does not authorize the use of U.S. forests &#8220;solely because it  affords the applicant a lower cost or less restrictive location when compared to non-NFS lands.&#8221;</p>
<p>The  Forest Service filing also questions whether hazardous materials such as  blasting materials would be stored on forestland, the impact on streams and  fish, and the restoration of habitat after the pipeline is built, among  others.</p>
<p>While  politically popular, the proposed pipeline has found opposition among its  planned route by residents who object to a pipeline dissecting their land or on  environmental grounds. The pipeline has spawned at least two groups opposed to  its construction and several lawsuits.</p>
<p>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;</p>
<p><strong>See also information on the August 18th regional protests in VA, WV, PA, OH, MD, NC, TX, OR, etc.:  &#8221;<a href="http://friendsofnelson.com/hands-across-our-land/">Hands Across Our Land</a>&#8220;</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://www.frackcheckwv.net/2015/08/17/us-forest-service-concerned-about-large-diameter-interstate-pipelines-damages/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
