Thursday, July 17, 2014

LONG TERM EFFECTS


CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
LONG TERM EFFECTS
Source: FERC/DOMINION
m
"The associated potential impacts most likely 
to be cumulatively significant pertain to:
wetlands 
waterbodies
vegetation 
wildlife
   endangered and threatened species*
land use, 
quality, 
and noise."

"Cumulative impacts represent:
                the incremental effects of the proposed action 
                                    when added to:
                                                             other past
                                                             present
                                                             or reasonably foreseeable future actions, 
regardless of the agency or party undertaking such other actions. 

Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, 
but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. 


We discuss the direct and indirect impacts 
of the proposed Project
in other sections of this EA.

The purpose of the cumulative impact analysis is to identify and describe
cumulative impacts that would potentially result from implementation 
of the proposed Project. 

This cumulative impact analysis generally follows the methodology set forth in
relevant guidance (CEQ, 1993; USEPA, 1999). 

Under these guidelines, inclusion of other projects within the analysis is based on identifying commonalities of impacts from other projects with impacts that would result from the proposed Project. 

The cumulative impacts analysis includes actions meeting the following three criteria:
-   a resource area potentially affected by the proposed Project;
-  cause this affect within all or part of the proposed Project area; and
-  cause this affect with all, or part, of the time span for the potential affect
from the proposed Project.

The actions considered in the cumulative impact analysis may vary from the
proposed Project in nature, magnitude, and duration. 

We include these actions based on the likelihood of Project completion and only projects with either ongoing impacts or “reasonably foreseeable” future actions were evaluated. 

We further considered existing or reasonably foreseeable actions expected to affect similar resources during similar time periods with the proposed Project. 

We discuss the anticipated cumulative impacts of the proposed Project and these other actions below, as well as pertinent mitigation actions.

Anticipated cumulative impacts were based on NEPA documentation, agency and publicinput, and best professional judgment.

We identified three types of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
projects that would potentially cause a cumulative impact when considered with the
proposed Project. 

These are: 1) other natural gas pipelines; 2) natural gas facilities that
would be associated with construction of the proposed Project 
but that are not under the Commission’s jurisdiction; and 3) unrelated projects 
that are either in place, under construction in the proposed Project vicinity, or proposed. 

The identified projects include two known proposed natural gas pipeline projects, two natural gas pipelines partially constructed, and two natural gas wells under construction. 

We identified these projects through scoping and independent research, as well as information provided by Dominion.

We have identified the tentative construction schedules of these projects, as available, but the actual construction schedules would depend on factors such as economic conditions, funding availability, and permitting considerations. 

The associated potential impacts most likely to be cumulatively significant pertain to wetlands and waterbodies, vegetation and wildlife (including federally-listed and state-listed endangered and threatened species), land use, air quality, and noise."

  *federally-listed and state-listed 

wv.wilderness.vs.prop.pipeline@gmail.com

SOURCE: 2.10 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Environmental Assessment for APPALACHIAN GATEWAY PROJECT 
OEP/DG2E/Gas3, Dominion Transmission Inc.
CP10-448-000, PF09-15-000
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Office of Energy Projects
Washington, DC
March 2011

No comments:

Post a Comment