Home  ›  Head of Jefferson National Forest Temporarily Reassigned as Pipeline Controversy Continues

Head of Jefferson National Forest Temporarily Reassigned as Pipeline Controversy Continues

Written By Sunday, October 16, 2022 Add Comment Edit

Natural gas pipeline in the United States

The Mountain Valley Pipeline is an under-construction natural gas pipeline in the United States from southern Virginia to northwestern West Virginia. The project will consist of 304 miles (489 km) of pipelines with an additional 8 miles (13 km) as part of the Equitrans Expansion Project,[1] which will help to connect new and existing pipelines throughout the region.[2] The completed pipeline would have the ability to ship 2 million dekatherms (Dts) of natural gas per day (approximately 200 TWh per year) for distribution, with a large quantity of that gas being produced from the Marcellus and Utica shale formations.

Some of the issues raised by citizen groups include the right of eminent domain and the potential for negative impacts to the forests, waterways, and protected wildlife during construction. The MVP project has the potential to bring in state and local tax revenue along with jobs and economic growth to Virginia and West Virginia, a region that has been impacted by the decline of coal.

Project description [edit]

The MVP project is a natural gas pipeline from southern Virginia to northwestern West Virginia retrieving its supply from the Marcellus and Utica shale sites. It is expected to provide two billion cubic feet of firm capacity per day that can be used in commercial buildings in the Mid to the South Atlantic areas of the United States.[3] The pipeline is projected to span approximately 303 miles (488 km),[4] and will cut across the Appalachian Trail near Peters Mountain Wilderness in Virginia.[5]

The MVP is owned by Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC (MVP LLC), which is a joint venture between the energy provider Consolidated Edison and various midstream partners, with EQT Midstream holding the most substantial stake.[2] It is a joint venture project of Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC partners and Equitrans LP,[2] which merged with a wholly owned subsidiary of Equitrans to form Equitrans Midstream Corporation in June 2020.[6] The MVP is operated by EQT Corporation, a utility company and drilling firm based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. EQT transports petroleum and natural gas and is one of the largest producers in the Appalachian Basin.[7]

The MVP is an interstate pipeline so it is federally regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under United States Natural Gas Act.[4] [8] Federal and state level ordinances will regulate the construction and operation of the pipeline. In October 2015, MVP LLC applied for permits for the pipeline from FERC, and the regulatory commission issued the Final Environmental Impact Statement in June 2017.[9] After the pipeline is built, the pipeline is regulated by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), where records of incidences are kept.[10]

The evidence of a market demand and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Certificate policy requires at least 25 percent of the Mountain Valley Pipeline's capacity to deliver natural gas be met by service contract agreements in order to justify the need for the project.[11] MVP LLC was able to secure these service contracts allowing them to proceed with the proposed project. The completed pipeline would have the ability to ship 2 million dekatherms (Dts) of natural gas per day for distribution, with a large quantity of that gas being produced from the Marcellus and Utica shale formations.[2]

Opposition to the project [edit]

Opposition was met during the initial request to obtain a certificate of convenience and necessity from the FERC.[11] Some of the issues raised by citizen groups include the right of eminent domain and the potential for negative impacts to the forests, waterways, and protected wildlife during construction.[12] [13] Concerns were raised because the route cuts across the Appalachian Trail.[5] Activists have set up numerous blockades to prevent construction along the pipeline path including a month-long tree-sit near Peters Mountain,[14] [15] an aerial blockade in which a woman occupied a platform atop a pole for 57 days,[16] other aerial blockades, and the 932 day yellow finch tree-sit from September 2018 to March 2021.[17] [18] Protestors have also blocked construction by parking junk cars on the pipeline route or locking themselves to machinery;[19] in one case, a professor chained herself to construction equipment.[20] [21] Obstruction of pipeline construction has been ongoing in spite of significant criminal and civil penalties being levied against protestors.[18] [19]

The head of the Jefferson National Forest was reassigned, allegedly due to heavy handed tactics involving the protest, which included running ATVs on a section of the Appalachian Trail,[22] and, according to Outside magazine, blocking food and water supplies to protesters.[23] In Virginia, bumper stickers are appearing on cars that read "No Pipeline". Many articles against the pipeline have been published in The Roanoke Times, and many protests have been organized.[24] [25] [26] [27]

The MVP has been cited by government agencies for violations of Virginia's Stormwater Management Act because of problems with runoff from land clearing while installing the pipeline.[28] The pipeline was challenged in court, including lawsuits during 2018 in which cultural preservation officers from the Rosebud Sioux Tribe and the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe sued FERC for failing to satisfy the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act after they found evidence of burial mounds along the path of the pipeline. These lawsuits were thrown out by federal courts in February 2019.[29]

Many landowners complain that they are kept up at night by construction, mainly because most of the land used to build the pipeline was taken from private landowners by eminent domain. A ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Elizabeth Dillon on January 31, 2018, granted the right of eminent domain to MVP LLC in a disputed area but required current appraisals and bonds be set forth to compensate for any losses incurred by the land owners.[30]

Landowners located along the pipeline project see the privately owned pipeline as a "government sanctioned land grab" impacting not only the environment, but also the local economies of surrounding towns.[31] In June, 2018, a federal court put a hold on a required permit for construction of the pipeline in Monroe County, West Virginia.[32]

Impacts [edit]

Local summaries from the Mountain Valley Pipeline Project website suggest it has the potential to bring in state and local tax revenue along with jobs and economic growth to Virginia and West Virginia,[33] a region where the impacts from a decline in the coal industry has caused a ripple effect that spans across the entire coal industry ecosystem.[34] The American Petroleum Institute claims that benefits from the pipeline could increased natural gas availability while providing a cleaner[ clarification needed ] and cheaper alternative fuel source for American consumers.[35] There are concerns however from communities that will be impacted by the pipeline's construction and interest groups who want to preserve historical landmarks, forests, wildlife, waterways, and parks. Questions were raised regarding the need for the project and its purpose. Additional inquiries called in to question whether there were alternatives to avoid impacts to the forest among other things which were detailed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, along with recommendations by the FERC to minimize the impacts on the environment.[1] [11]

Potential pipelines under review by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, including the Mountain Valley Pipeline

The environmental concerns of the pipeline include threats to the streams, rivers, and drinking water along the route. This can include the forests, endangered species, fish nurseries, and the public lands that surround the pipeline.[36] Water contamination has been one of the biggest concerns with the growth of this project, and there are concerns by some about the path of the pipeline, which cuts across sections of national forests including the Jefferson National Forest in Virginia and West Virginia along with the Appalachian Trail.

The Appalachian Trail Conservancy has opposed the pipeline,[37] with the following concerns:

  • The permanent damage of the scenic landscape of the Appalachian trail
  • Concerns for nearby towns due to the lands being picked for the building of the pipeline are most susceptible to soil erosion, landslides, and natural gas leaks
  • In order to push for the building of the MVP, the Forest Service lowered their standard for water quality, visual impacts, and destruction of the forest within the Jefferson National Forest Management Plan. There is a concern that due to this change, there could be an increase in private companies taking advantage of National Parks or forests

The Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group, says:

  • Private landowners near the pipeline will lose property to the pipeline company. If the landowners are able to keep their land, the property value will decrease due to the pipeline's presence. Due to the process of eminent domain, the ability for the government to attain private land and make it public land, landowners could have their land taken and given to pipeline companies.[36]
  • Consumers of the pipeline will have to pay additional taxes in their electrical bills to pay for the building of the Mountain Valley Pipeline
  • Loss of ecosystem service value due to the destruction of the water purification and recreational benefits of the land[38]

Economic gains by the Mountain Valley Pipeline project include:

  • Increase in employment within the region, expected to gain 4,400 jobs within Virginia and 4,500 in West Virginia[39]
  • Increase in direct spending on the areas impacted: $407 million directly in Virginia and $811 million directly in West Virginia[39]
  • Potential of generating $35 million in tax revenues for the State of Virginia
  • Positive tax revenues within Virginia, as the project has generate $35 million since 2015[40]

Timeline [edit]

October 2014

  • Project first proposed. MVP LLC began the voluntary pre-filing process with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)[41]

October 23, 2015

  • MVP LLC filed formal application with FERC[41] targeting an in-service date of late 2018 [42]

October 13, 2017

  • FERC issues MVP LLC a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)[43]

December 2017

  • Virginia State Water Control Board issues Water Quality Certification for the Mountain Valley Pipeline[44]

December 20, 2017

  • The Bureau of Land Management issued a Rule of Decision granting MVP LLC an operational right of way through the Jefferson National Forest, and adopted the EIS[43]

December 22, 2017

  • The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers verified that the Mountain Valley Pipeline project meets the criteria of the Nationwide Permit 12.[43]

January 31, 2018

  • U.S. District Court Judge Elizabeth Dillon granted the right of eminent domain to MVP LLC in a disputed area but required current appraisals and bonds be set forth to compensate for any losses incurred by the land owners.[30]

2018 (first quarter)

  • Construction began, projected in-service date of the fourth quarter of 2019[41]

July 3, 2018

  • The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reinstated their December 22 verification that the pipeline project complies with the Nationwide Permit 12, with several "special conditions". One notable condition states that river crossings were to be constructed using dry open-cut construction in order to minimize environmental damage.[43]

July 27, 2018

  • 4th Circuit Court annulled MVP LLC's right of way through federal land, which was originally granted by the Bureau of Land Management. It was annulled on the basis of failing to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Forest Management Act and the Mineral Leasing Act.[43]

October 2, 2018

  • 4th Circuit court struck down Nationwide Permit 12, which was issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Huntington District. The court found that the permit overlooked a requirement by West Virginia regulators that pipeline stream crossings must be completed within 72 hours to limit environmental harm.[45]

November 27, 2018

  • 4th Circuit Court of Appeals elaborated on their October 2 decision regarding the Nationwide Permit 12, concluding that West Virginia did not follow the federally mandated notice-and-comment procedures for waiving special conditions part of the permit.[43]

December, 2018

  • Virginia files suit against MVP LLC for "violations of the commonwealth's environmental laws and regulations at sites in Craig, Franklin, Giles, Montgomery, and Roanoke Counties."[46]

March 1, 2019

  • Virginia State Water Control Board decided they do not have the authority to revoke the water quality certification.[44]

October 11, 2019

  • 4th Circuit Appeals Court rescinds the Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statement issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service[47]
  • Virginia issued a statement forcing MVP LLC to submit to court-ordered and court-supervised compliance with environmental protections, imposing additional layers of independent, third-party monitoring on the project, and requiring the payment of a significant $2.15 million civil penalty. This agreement between Virginia and MVP LLC resolved the lawsuit Virginia filed against MVP LLC in December 2018.[48]

October 15, 2019

  • FERC ordered all work on MVP stop except stabilization and restoration activities[47]

June 2020

  • MVP project is approximately 92% complete, in-service date revised to early 2021[49]

July 31, 2020

  • Trinity Energy Services, a contractor of MVP LLC, filed a lawsuit in West Virginia demanding enforcement of a mechanic's lien. Trinity claimed it was owed $102.4 million. If a court enforced the lien, MVP LLC would be required to sell the pipeline at auction. Three weeks later, Trinity Energy filed a $103.8 million lawsuit against MVP LLC in Pennsylvania, claiming breach of contract, failure to pay, and enforcement of a mechanics' lien.[50]

August 11, 2020

  • The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality's Division of Water Resources denied MVP LLC's request for a 401 Water Quality Certification and Jordan Lake Riparian Buffer Authorization for the Southgate extension of the Mountain Valley Pipeline. The Division determined that the extension could lead to "unnecessary water quality impacts and disturbance of the environment in North Carolina."[51]
  • Secretary Michael S. Regan issued statement on the Department of Environmental Quality's decision, saying of the MVP, "This has always been an unnecessary project that poses unnecessary risks to our environment and given the uncertain future of the MVP Mainline, North Carolinians should not be exposed to the risk of another incomplete pipeline project."[52]

August 25, 2020

  • MVP LLC applied to FERC for a two-year extension of Certificate for Public Convenience and Necessity (had expiration date in mid October). Certificate is required for interstate pipeline construction[53] [54]

September 4, 2020

  • Federal regulators ruled that the pipeline would not jeopardize any of the five endangered or threatened species known to live in its path,[53] reinstating the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statement.[54]

September 11, 2020

  • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reissued three permits (two years after being invalidated by federal appeals court), approving a path across almost 1,000 streams and wetlands[55]

September 22, 2020

  • MVP LLC requested that FERC lift the stop work order (issued October 11) by September 25.[56]

October 9, 2020

  • FERC extended the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the Mountain Valley Pipeline.[57]

July 27, 2022

  • Senator Joe Manchin III (D-West Virginia) secured an agreement from Democratic leaders of the U.S. Senate and the Biden administration which would move completion of the pipeline forward.[58] The agreement, to be included in major climate and tax legislation, "would ensure that federal agencies 'take all necessary actions to permit the construction and operation' of the gas line". The legislation ensures that future legal challenges to the pipeline will be heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in the future.[59]

References [edit]

  1. ^ a b ""Final Environmental Impact Statement". FERC Staff Issues Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Mountain Valley Project and Equitrans Expansion Project (CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000)". ferc.gov. June 23, 2017. Retrieved March 14, 2018.
  2. ^ a b c d "Overview". mountainvalleypipeline.info . Retrieved March 14, 2018.
  3. ^ "Overview - Mountain Valley Pipeline Project". mountainvalleypipeline.info . Retrieved March 29, 2018.
  4. ^ a b "Mountain Valley Pipeline Project". mountainvalleypipeline.info . Retrieved March 29, 2018.
  5. ^ a b Gayter, Liam (February 21, 2017). "Thru-Hikers in the Blast Zone: Pipelines Will Intersect the Appalachian Trail". Blue Ridge Outdoors . Retrieved February 26, 2020.
  6. ^ "Company Profile - Equitrans Corporate Sustainability Report". csr.equitransmidstream.com . Retrieved October 31, 2020.
  7. ^ Waples, David A. (April 24, 2012). The Natural Gas Industry in Appalachia: A History from the First Discovery to the Tapping of the Marcellus Shale, 2d ed. McFarland. ISBN9780786491544.
  8. ^ "FERC Strategic Plan" (PDF).
  9. ^ "Overview - Mountain Valley Pipeline Project". www.mountainvalleypipeline.info . Retrieved April 26, 2018.
  10. ^ Feridun, Karen (May 30, 2017). "What FERC Is And Why It Matters". Huffington Post.
  11. ^ a b c "Order Issuing Certificates and Granting Abandonment Authority" (PDF). ferc.gov. October 13, 2017. Retrieved March 14, 2018.
  12. ^ Schmalz, Arthur E. (February 6, 2018). "Virginia District Court Requires Pipeline Company to Obtain Appraisals Before Granting Preliminary Injunctions For Prejudgment Possession of Land". lexology.com . Retrieved March 14, 2018.
  13. ^ Mall, Amy (February 26, 2018). "Northam Must Act to Protect Clean Water from Pipelines". nrdc.org. National Resource Defense Council.
  14. ^ Sturgeon, Jeff. "Mountain Valley Pipeline protesters continue tree-top vigil in W.Va". Roanoke Times . Retrieved March 16, 2018.
  15. ^ Schneider, Gregory S. (May 5, 2018). "Women sitting in trees to protest pipeline come down after judge threatens fines". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved May 6, 2018.
  16. ^ Hammock, Lawrence (May 23, 2018). "Pipeline protester known as 'Nutty' has come down from her pole in Giles County". The Roanoke Times.
  17. ^ Dhillon, Matt (April 16, 2021). "Last Tree-sitters Removed from Path of Mountain Valley Pipeline". The Appalachian Voice.
  18. ^ a b Hammack, Laurence (May 5, 2021). "Pipeline opponents sentenced to spend day in jail for each day in tree-sit protest". The Roanoke Times.
  19. ^ a b Hammack, Laurence (August 30, 2021). "3 Mountain Valley Pipeline protesters convicted, fined for Poor Mountain blockade". The Roanoke Times.
  20. ^ "Why a Virginia Tech professor locked herself to pipeline construction equipment". Yale Climate Connections. December 3, 2019. Retrieved December 8, 2019. {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  21. ^ "Why a Virginia Tech professor locked herself to pipeline construction equipment". Yale Climate Connections. December 3, 2019. Retrieved December 8, 2019. {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  22. ^ Hammack, Laurence (August 15, 2018). "Head of Jefferson National Forest temporarily reassigned as pipeline controversy continues". Roanoke Times . Retrieved December 8, 2019. {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  23. ^ Miles, Kathryn (April 25, 2018). "The Forest Service Is Arresting Protesters Along the AT". Outside Online . Retrieved December 8, 2019.
  24. ^ Adams, Mason. "How a "bunch of badass queer anarchists" are teaming up with locals to block a pipeline through Appalachia". Mother Jones . Retrieved November 1, 2020.
  25. ^ Hammack, Laurence. "Tree-sit protest of Mountain Valley Pipeline escalates, drawing police response". Roanoke Times . Retrieved November 1, 2020.
  26. ^ "Photos: Protests at the Mountain Valley Pipeline work site". The Franklin News Post . Retrieved November 1, 2020.
  27. ^ "Community Fights Construction of Mountain Valley Pipeline". Pulitzer Center. April 13, 2020. Retrieved November 1, 2020.
  28. ^ "Virginia DEQ issues violation for Mountain Valley Pipeline". whsv.com . Retrieved July 20, 2018.
  29. ^ Riddler, Kevin (October 28, 2020). "The Appalachian Pipeline Resistance Movement: "We're Not Going Away"". The Appalachian Voice.
  30. ^ a b Hammack, Laurence (March 14, 2018). "Judge allows Mountain Valley Pipeline work to proceed on private property". The Roanoke Times . Retrieved March 14, 2018.
  31. ^ Adams, Duncan (July 27, 2017). "Landowners along pipeline route sue FERC and Mountain Valley Pipeline". The Roanoke Times.
  32. ^ Mishkin, Kate (June 21, 2018). "Federal court puts Mountain Valley Pipeline water crossing permit on hold". Charleston Gazette-Mail . Retrieved June 28, 2018.
  33. ^ "Local Summaries". mountainvalleypipeline.info. Mountain Valley Pipeline.
  34. ^ "An Economic Analysis of the Appalachian Coal Industry Ecosystem" (PDF). arc.gov. Appalachian Regional Commission. January 2018.
  35. ^ Tadeo, Michael (December 22, 2016). "VIRGINIA'S CONSUMERS AND ECONOMY WILL BENEFIT FROM THE MOUNTAIN VALLEY PIPELINE". American Petroleum Institute.
  36. ^ a b "10 Reasons to Stop Mtn. Valley & Atlantic Coast Pipelines". NRDC . Retrieved March 15, 2018.
  37. ^ "About Mountain Valley Pipeline". Appalachian Trail Conservancy. Archived from the original on March 23, 2018. Retrieved March 15, 2018.
  38. ^ Adams, Duncan (May 18, 2016). "Study backed by Mountain Valley Pipeline opponents suggests negative economic impacts for region". The Roanoke Times.
  39. ^ a b "Economic Benefits - Mountain Valley Pipeline Project". mountainvalleypipeline.info . Retrieved March 15, 2018.
  40. ^ "New Study Projects Major Economic Benefits from Mountain Valley Pipeline for Southwest and Southside Virginia | EQT Media HQ". media.eqt.com . Retrieved March 15, 2018.
  41. ^ a b c "Frequently Asked Questions | Mountain Valley Pipeline Project". www.mountainvalleypipeline.info . Retrieved October 31, 2020.
  42. ^ "Exhibit".
  43. ^ a b c d e f Sierra Club v. USFS, No. 17-2399 (4th Cir. 2018)
  44. ^ a b Dashiell, Joe. "State Water Control Board says it has no authority to revoke pipeline certification". wdbj7.com . Retrieved October 31, 2020.
  45. ^ lowkell (October 2, 2018). "BREAKING: U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Vacates Nationwide Permit 12 for Entire Mountain Valley Pipeline". Retrieved October 31, 2020.
  46. ^ Vogelsong, Sarah. "Mountain Valley Pipeline agrees to pay Virginia $2.15 million for environmental violations". Virginia Mercury . Retrieved October 31, 2020.
  47. ^ a b Vogelsong, Sarah. "Federal commission orders work stopped on Mountain Valley Pipeline". Virginia Mercury . Retrieved October 31, 2020.
  48. ^ "October 11, 2019 - MVP LLC to Pay More Than $2 Million, Submit To Court-Ordered Compliance And Enhanced, Independent, Third-Party Environmental Monitoring". www.oag.state.va.us . Retrieved October 31, 2020.
  49. ^ "Mountain Valley Pipeline Project |". www.mountainvalleypipeline.info . Retrieved October 31, 2020.
  50. ^ Gough, Paul J. (August 17, 2020). "US Trinity Energy Services sues Mountain Valley Pipeline". Retrieved August 27, 2022.
  51. ^ "State Denies Water Quality Certification for MVP Southgate Pipeline | NC DEQ". deq.nc.gov . Retrieved October 31, 2020.
  52. ^ "Statement from Secretary Regan on MVP Southgate Decision | NC DEQ". deq.nc.gov . Retrieved October 31, 2020.
  53. ^ a b "The 'last pipeline'? Mountain Valley Pipeline remains stalled as it seeks extension from federal regulators". Virginia Mercury. September 10, 2020. Retrieved October 31, 2020.
  54. ^ a b "Time's up for the Mountain Valley Pipeline > Appalachian Voices". September 22, 2020. Retrieved October 31, 2020.
  55. ^ Hammack, Laurence. "Mountain Valley Pipeline regains permit to cross streams, wetlands". Roanoke Times . Retrieved October 31, 2020.
  56. ^ Eggerding, Matthew, Assistant General Counsel of Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC. "Request to Resume Certain Construction Activities." Received by Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, September 22, 2020. https://appvoices.org/images/uploads/2020/09/MVP-request-to-resume-construction-Sept-22-2020.pdf
  57. ^ Callahan, Eddie. "FERC approves extension for Mountain Valley Pipeline". wdbj7.com . Retrieved October 31, 2020.
  58. ^ Benshoff, Laura (September 6, 2022). "An unfinished natural gas pipeline in West Virginia is back in the national spotlight". NPR News . Retrieved September 7, 2022.
  59. ^ Friedman, Lisa (August 1, 2022). "Manchin Won a Pledge From Democrats to Finish a Contested Pipeline". The New York Times . Retrieved August 2, 2022.

External links [edit]

  • Mountain Valley Pipeline on Global Energy Monitor

daileyfroprithe.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Valley_Pipeline

0 Response to "Head of Jefferson National Forest Temporarily Reassigned as Pipeline Controversy Continues"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel