News from back east

[Trial153]

While there are a couple holes in this politico story for sure, the jist of it shoudlnt be lost on us. The extraction and energy lobby knows they have a foot in this administration's door and will push for all they can while they can.

A step too far for the Appalachian Trail

The Trump administration wants to allow a pipeline to cross the Appalachian Trail on federal lands. Congress should say no.

www.politico.com

 

[Trial153]

.......

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

Energy infrastructure is always complicated.

The marcellus has huge takeaway issues, and this pipleline would likely be a great thing in terms of jobs in the region. Furthermore it's gas not oil so you don't have to worry about a spill in the traditional sense, also while bad for climate change natural gas is far better than coal, and less impactful than heating oil which most of the east coast is currently using.

On the other hand, I'm always against private companies trying to use public lands for personal gains, it's pretty obvious that hey chose this route because as always OG companies prefer to run projects through big tracks of land/public land, fewer owner therefore fewer surface use agreements to get signed. It's way easier to get congress to sign on to a project than to send landmen out to get 5,000+ surface use agreements. I don't think "because it's cheaper" is an adequate excuse for this pipelines right-of-way. It seems like you could skirt GWNF and cut across down by blacksburg.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

I get, and agree for the most part, that we don't want to put stuff on the surface of natural places. But, to be honest, I struggle with being too upset about putting stuff under natural places. No easy answers in my mind.

 

[mdhunter]

I have hiked parts of the Appalachia Trail. Some of it is absolutely beautiful and other parts can be a bore. I understand the public has control of 99% of it however the public should know this is not all wilderness type areas. The trail certainly goes thru National Forests but parts of the trail in PA I have hiked actually goes thru towns, across busy roads etc (you get the idea).

Maybe its more the area the author does not want the National Parks themselves disturbed versus crossing the actual trail (which would likely be underground). Perhaps there is a less disruptive path that would satisfy all parties. I am pretty sure I crossed a pipeline area while on the Appalachian Trail however it was buried so it was a non event (minus the better view from the cleared trees).

Anyhow, like Mule Creek said...its a balancing act without easy answers.

 

[Pucky Freak]

I've hiked the whole trail. There's very little that has a wilderness or remote feel apart from the section in Maine. The rest is pretty developed. I'm not opposed to the project on grounds that there are about a 100 more pressing public land threats from the federal government, IMO. Not a battle worth fighting here, although obviously others will disagree. Wind turbines on western public lands is a disaster in the making. I live near a component manufacturer and there are enormous open air graveyards for the blades, which do not last long once mounted. End rant.

 

[blueridge]

Not a battle worth fighting here, although obviously others will disagree.

I am having to take a very deep breath on this one. . . . This is my where I live and is very personal.

Think what you want about whether it's cool to go under the Appalachian Trail and cut a 100' swath through hundreds of acres of the Monongahela and George Washington National Forests. But please don't think it's okay for a private, corporate, for-profit pipeline to use eminent domain to take the property of thousands of landowners, without their consent, for corporate gain. This affront to property rights is as un-American as it can get.

This is set to go right through, LITERALLY, the backyard of my folk's farm, the place where I grew up. A 42" NG pipeline less than 100 f-ing yards behind their house! Without their consent! It's set to go through the backyard of some of very my dearest friends. Without their consent! So a private company can make billions selling natural gas to markets overseas?! This is NOT a public utility. None of us along this route is getting any of this natural gas for our homes. This goal, since it was first approved, was to get it to the coast to be exported to India and Japan. No output before the coast. Duke Energy eventually jumped on board for domestic use only recently. Who is the #1 donor to Democratic candidates in VA? Dominion Power. Who is the #1 donor to Republican candidates in VA? Dominion Power. And they own every board and appointment downstream. We are fighting tooth and nail to stop this, for both private property rights and the environmental impact.

It is a battle worth fighting for.

 

[Pucky Freak]

I appreciate your perspective and how the proposal affects you and your experience of the natural world right in your back yard.

 

[blueridge]

I'm always against private companies trying to use public lands for personal gains

And when it's a private company trying to use both public AND private lands for personal gains, it's a bad project that needs to be scrapped.

 

[std7mag]

While during construction there would be a mess, afterwards would pretty much be a non issue.
I hunt areas of Pennsylvania that have several gas lines going through the state forest.
I actually hunt on several sections of the gas line.
The grass is actually benificial to the deer, elk, rabbits, grouse, turkeys, bear. (Especially the wild blue berry patches).

 

[tarheel]

While during construction there would be a mess, afterwards would pretty much be a non issue.
I hunt areas of Pennsylvania that have several gas lines going through the state forest.
I actually hunt on several sections of the gas line.
The grass is actually beneficial to the deer, elk, rabbits, grouse, turkeys, bear. (Especially the wild blue berry patches).

Yes, and it makes such a beautiful slash across three states. We have so little public land back here that I'm unwilling to approve of giving up an inch to a commercial venture to ship gas to foreign countries.

 

[jmveverka]

Not arguing the issues of eminent domain and land takings, or the potential (actually certainty) for stream disturbance and run off during construction. Both are huge issues and are legitimate reasons to oppose and potentially stop the project. BUT, I would argue that the land cleared for the pipeline, whether 100 feet or 50 yards or whatever the width, is actually beneficial for wildlife when cutting across forest land that has no "edge" habitat, no undergrowth and little food and cover. Love to hunt pipelines.

 

[88man]

I personally don't have an issue with gas line easements crosssing public lands most of the time.

 

[BWALKER77]

My family's property I grew up hunting in northern lower MI had a gas pipeline running through the. Middle of our 620 acres. Didnt bother us at all. In fact the deer liked to feed on the clover that grew along its path.

 

[Pucky Freak]

How would the announcement of this project be perceived differently if it read like this: 80,000 acres of wildlife habitat improvement proposed for Virginia public lands, funded entirely by private corporation.

I hunted a power line right of way in northern MN which was great for shooting lanes and regrowth browse.

 

[88man]

We have various food plots perennial and annual on various pipeline easements. We have sold easements for pipelines and used the proceeds to purchase more land and fund our conservation goals.

 

[Ben Sellers]

I look at this in two ways. I’m not a fan of imminent domain but sometimes it’s necessary. The way that our nation is moving away from coal is by natural gas turbines. Yes, we have some renewable energy taking up the balance but the backbone of our energy production is by gas turbines. We need pipelines to make that work. I do have sympathy for the ID issue and feel that people are justified in trying to have their land protected from being taken.

I do have a problem with the, we can’t allow a pipeline to cross the trail on principle that the article puts forward. The trail, which runs thousands of miles (2200 ish) is crisscrossed already by many, many gas pipelines. This appears to be manufactured outrage like we saw from the Sabal Trail pipeline that was just put in near me. Protesting everywhere over that but not a peep over the high line power line that was put in ten miles away and parallel to the pipeline.

 

[88man]

I look at this in two ways. I’m not a fan of imminent domain but sometimes it’s necessary. The way that our nation is moving away from coal is by natural gas turbines. Yes, we have some renewable energy taking up the balance but the backbone of our energy production is by gas turbines. We need pipelines to make that work. I do have sympathy for the ID issue and feel that people are justified in trying to have their land protected from being taken.

I do have a problem with the, we can’t allow a pipeline to cross the trail on principle that the article puts forward. The trail, which runs thousands of miles (2200 ish) is crisscrossed already by many, many gas pipelines. This appears to be manufactured outrage like we saw from the Sabal Trail pipeline that was just put in near me. Protesting everywhere over that but not a peep over the high line power line that was put in ten miles away and parallel to the pipeline.

Land really isn't taken away for the most part. I know surface use may be limited by the original owner. Heck even farmers can plant/farm over gasleine easments. Tree/nursery growers can farm over them. We can hunt over them and they often are great opportunities for habitat programs. The green crowd just hates them because they transport fossil fuels so the list goes on why pipeline easements are bad.