Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Pursuant to Fed. Rule of Appellate Procedure 18(a) and Local Rule 18,
Petitioners Bold Alliance and Bold Education Fund (collectively “Bold”) move for
notices to proceed by Paul Friedman, the project manager pending review of (1) the
eight letters signed by Friedman between January and February 2018 granting
different segments of its pipeline (Ex. A) and (2) the Federal Energy Regulatory
manager, Friedman had not been delegated authority under the Commission’s
1
regulations, 18 C.F.R. §375.301, to act on requests to proceed with construction.
Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC, Order Denying Rehearing, 163 FERC ¶61,099 (May
imminent to Bold’s members and the surrounding environment. Absent a stay, MVP
Friedman gave MVP the go-ahead to proceed. Even the Commission itself
recognizes that tree-clearing constitutes irreparable harm, because “it will take
decades for [trees] to mature and return the forested wetlands to their original
certain properties after April 1 may disrupt migratory bird nesting and breeding. See
Certificate Order, Ex. C at ¶ 206 (noting that MVP may conduct tree clearing after
Moreover, without a stay, the Commission will continue to turn a blind eye
towards Friedman’s unauthorized activities. Since March 2018 when Bold sought
2
Friedman has granted thirteen more.1 During that time, Commission could have
easily corrected this shortcoming by instructing the Director of the Office of Energy
Projects or one of his deputies or branch chiefs to stand in for Friedman since they
and inexplicable refusal to rein in the unauthorized actions of its staff violates Bold
members’ constitutionally protected property interests and due process rights under
the Fifth Amendment -- which is another form of irreparable harm justifying a stay.
See e.g., Preston v. Thompson, 589 F.2d 300, 303 n. 3 (7th Cir. 1978) (“The
harm”).
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 13, 2017, the Commission in a 2-1 vote granted a certificate under
Section 7f(e) of the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. §717f(e) for the MVP Pipeline, a
301-mile, 42-inch diameter natural gas pipeline that runs through West Virginia and
Virginia. See Mountain Valley Pipeline, 161 FERC ¶ 61,043 (2017) (“Certificate
1
Letter rulings dated February 21, 22, March 1, 12, 14, 15, 22, 27, 28, 29, April
9, 25, and May 4, 2018. Accession Nos. 20180221-3000, 20180222-3001,
20180301-3027, 20180312-3002, 20180314-3000, 20180315-3002, 20180322-
3031, 20180327-3008, 20180328-3015, 20180329-3073, 20180409-3000,
20180425-3004, 20180504-3009.
3
Order”) (Ex. C). But the certificate does not permit MVP to start installing the
pipeline immediately. Instead, the certificate requires MVP must to comply with
prerequisite to proceeding with the project. See Certificate Order, App. C (listing
environmental conditions) (Ex. C). Once MVP satisfies the terms of a condition,
proceed with project construction, generally from the Director of the Office of
Energy Projects. See e.g., Conditions 9 and 10, Certificate Order, App. C at 5
On January 16, MVP filed its first request for a notice to proceed with
-
MVP specifically sought the Director’s approval. Ex. D. All of MVP’s requests
followed suit.
Only the Director never approved MVP’s requests for notice to proceed.
Instead, Paul Friedman – identified as the Project Manager – granted and signed off
- -
Ex. A. Since that time, Mr. Friedman granted thirteen more requests, while the
-
on MVP’s 8 requests for notices to proceed between January and February 2018. See
4
B. Bold’s Challenges
and its members grew increasingly worried, since these approvals authorized tree
determine whether their property was included within an MVP request to proceed.
Bold and its members were also concerned that Mr. Friedman might be
approving areas where tree removal was prohibited during certain periods to avoid
disruption of migratory bird breeding and nesting. Reilly Decl. at ¶ 10 (Ex. E). Bold
and its members were also confused when Mr. Friedman continued to approve
requests to proceed with construction and tree-clearing activities that would not be
completed at least until April and May, when MVP represented during the eminent
domain proceedings before the Western District of Virginia that all of its tree
clearing activities would conclude by March 31, 2018. See W. Dist. Va. Civil
notices to proceed and the potential for grievous error (i.e., approval of tree-clearing
5
Friedman’s actions. Bold argued that Friedman had not been delegated authority to
§375.301(b), which reserved this power for the Director of OEP or one of his
Commission denied Bold’s request for rehearing. Bold has filed a petition for review
Courts consider four factors in evaluating a request for a stay: (1) whether
the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the
merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3)
whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested
in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.’” Nken v. Holder, 556
U.S. 418, 434 (2009) (quoting Hilton v.Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987)).
The Commission has broad statutory authority to perform any and all acts and
make such rules as are necessary or appropriate to carry out its statutory functions.
6
See Regulations Delegating Authority, Order No. 492, 53 Fed. Reg. 16058 (May
5, 1988). Courts have held that agencies may delegate these powers to their
employees. Fleming v. Mohawk Wrecking & Lumber Co., 331 U.S. 111, 121
(1947); O'Neal v. U.S., 140 F.2d 908 (6th Cir. 1944), cert. denied, 322 U.S. 729
(1944).
limits. Indeed, the Commission has set them for itself. Section 375.301 states
that:
Condition No. 2, Certificate Order, App. C at 1 (Ex. C). The Certificate also
expressly provides that only the Director of OEP may approve MVP’s submissions
7
authorization from the Director of OEP before commencing construction of any
Paul Friedman is not a designee to whom the Director could lawfully delegate
not even listed on FERC’s organizational chart, which includes deputy directors
and branch chiefs. See Fed. Energy Reg. Comm’n, Organizational Chart, (May 11,
whom the direct delegation was made. Because Friedman is not a “designee” to
whom the Director could delegate authority, the letter orders granting MVP’s
request to commence construction are null and void and MVP should not be allowed
to proceed.
Rather than simply have the Director or a designee approve the requests (which
would have been an easy fix), the Commission claimed that its delegation
regulations do not apply when it delegates authority through an order. See Order
Denying Rehearing, Mountain Valley Pipeline, 163 FERC ¶ 61,099 (2018) (“Order
or limited by section 375.301 . . .) (Ex. B). The Commission’s argument ignores the
plain language of its own regulation. Section 375.301 applies any time that the
8
Commission “delegates functions to Commission officials and permits them to
order. Here, the Commission delegated authority to the Director of OEP to approve
requests for authorization to proceed, and the Director in turn was permitted to pass
C). The Commission fails to explain or point to any authority that would exempt
this type of delegation of authority by order from the ambit of its own regulations.
delegated power from being passed too far down the food chain. By limiting an
the official’s deputy or a division head, Section 375.301 draws a line in the sand
with respect to how low delegation can go. Without the limits set by Section
FERC, 629 F.3d 231, 236 (DC Cir 2011). There, the petitioner argued that a Branch
Branch Chief is not a designee of the Director, who had original approval authority.
The court acknowledged that the argument had some merit. Nevertheless, the court
9
ruled against the petitioner after finding that on rehearing, the Commission had
expressly “adopt[ed] the Director's action, through his designee, as [its] own.” Id.
at 235.
By contrast, here, the Commission did not address the merits of Mr.
Friedman’s actions or adopt them as its own. The Commission affirmed that Mr.
Friedman had authority to approve the notices, but it did not “adopt his actions as
its own” as it did in Murray Energy. Id. In fact, the Commission never examined
Mr. Friedman’s findings at all – even after Bold argued on rehearing that the serial
stating that “the Notices to Proceed do not grant Mountain Valley any additional
rights to access land and construct the project beyond what they have acquired
Rehearing at ¶12 (Ex. B). The Commission’s answer is non-responsive because the
only rights acquired in the eminent domain proceeding are those that were granted
by the Commission.
construction plan. Murray Energy v. FERC, 629 F.3d 231 (DC Cir 2011). By
10
contrast, this proceeding involves ongoing approvals by Mr. Friedman. In this case,
two months and a half months transpired before the Commission reviewed Mr.
Friedman’s action. Two and a half months is a long time for parties to have to operate
unauthorized activity is ongoing, this Court must not only invalidate the past notices
to proceed, but enjoin Mr. Friedman from acting on other requests in the future. Bold
B. Bold and Its Members Will Suffer Irreparable Harm Absent the Stay
irreparable harm. Certificate Order at ¶ 189 (“it will take decades for [trees] to
mature and return the forested wetlands to their original condition and function.”)
potentially disrupt migratory bird nesting and breeding habitat, see Certificate
Order at ¶ 206 (Ex. C), or deprive landowners of unnecessary tree loss and other
damage.
The Supreme Court and the Fourth Circuit recognize that this kind of
environmental harm, “by its nature, can seldom be adequately remedied by money
11
Amoco v. Vill. of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 545 (1987); Nat’l Audubon Soc’y v. Dep’t
of Navy, 422 F.3d 174, 201 (4th Cir. 2005). For example, courts in this Circuit have
found that filling a stream valley constitutes irreparable harm because “the damage
cannot be undone” and “money cannot rectify this type of loss.” Ohio Valley Envtl.
Coal. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 528 F.Supp. 2d 625, 631-32 (S.D.W. Va.
2007). And numerous courts have found that the cutting of mature trees constitutes
irreparable harm that warrants preliminary relief. See, e.g., League of Wilderness
Defs. v. Connaughton, 752 F.3d 755, 764 (9th Cir. 2014); Tioronda, LLC v. New
York, 386 F. Supp. 2d 342, 350 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). For these reasons, a stay is
necessary to protect Petitioners’ members from irreparable harm until the Court
The harm resulting from Mr. Friedman’s approval also causes another type
of irreparable harm: the continuing unauthorized approvals deprive Bold and its
rights. See e.g., Preston v. Thompson, 589 F.2d 300, 303 n. 3 (7th Cir. 1978) (“The
numerous challenges to the Commission order and MVP’s use of eminent domain
are resolved will result in destruction of landowners’’ property before these legal
12
issues can be decided which in turn, will deprive them of their due process rights.
Reilly Decl. at ¶¶ 3, 10-12 (Ex. E). For these reasons, a stay is justified.
A stay pending review will not hurt the Commission or MVP. The
Commission can avoid a drawn out proceeding by simply instructing the Director
to act on future approvals as its regulations require and by remanding the eight
letters that are the subject of this case. In fact, Bold’s challenge is so easy to resolve
that it defies logic as to why the Commission has not simply fixed it.
since it has already cleared hundreds of trees and the project is well underway.
Moreover, MVP had no expectation of clearing trees well into May; as noted
earlier, MVP represented during the eminent domain proceedings that all tree
clearing would be required to cease by March 31. W. Dist. Va. Civil Docket for
or Case No. 7:17-cv-00492-EKD ECF No. 318 at 18. And while MVP is sure to
argue that delay in construction will cost it millions of dollars, economic harm to
one party does not outweigh irreparable environmental harm. See Connaughton,
752 F.3d at 766 (finding that temporary delay of one year resulting in economic
harm to ski resort developer was not so substantial as to outweigh the irreparable
environmental harm faced by plaintiffs). See also Bair v. Cal. Dep’t of Transp.,
13
(irreparable harm to redwoods outweighed cost of delaying the project for a year
222 F.3d 562, 569 (9th Cir. 2000) (finding irreparable harm of cutting old growth
communities).
Granting a stay serves the public interest at large. The landowners and
public have a compelling interest in ensuring that the Commission – the agency
responsible for oversight of the costly and dangerous MVP pipeline – abides by
its own regulations. Likewise, all of the parties in this proceeding, from the
decisions, which is impossible if the officials acting on the agency’s behalf lack
the delegated authority to take a given action. This Court should not abide the
CONCLUSION
Wherefore, for the foregoing reasons, Bold respectfully requests that this Court
(1) stay all construction improperly authorized by the eight notices to proceed
14
that are the subject of review; (2) enjoin the Commission from allowing Mr.
Friedman or other low-ranking staff who do not meet the definition of “designee”
to grant notices to proceed and/or other approvals required for the project; (3)
award Bold attorneys fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 42 U.S.C. §2412
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Carolyn Elefant
Carolyn Elefant
LAW OFFICES OF CAROLYN
ELEFANT
1440 G Street N.W., Eighth Floor
Washington D.C. 20005
202-297-6100
carolyn@carolynelefant.com
Counsel for Bold Alliance & Bold
Education Fun
May 1, 2018
15
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on May 11, 2018, a copy of the Petition for Review and
Request for Stay was served on the Solicitor for the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission and all of the parties on the official FERC Service List (Attachment
D to Petition for Review), via email with an option to receive a hard copy of the
petition, and was also filed in the Commission Docket for No. CP16-10.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Carolyn Elefant
Carolyn Elefant
LAW OFFICES OF CAROLYN ELEFANT
1440 G Street N.W., Eighth Floor
Washington D.C. 20005
202-297-6100
carolyn@carolynelefant.com
Counsel for Bold Alliance and
Bold Education Fund
I grant your January 16, 2018 request for Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC
(Mountain Valley) to commence construction at the three compressor stations, the
Mobley Interconnect, and associated extra workspaces and access roads, in Wetzel,
Braxton, Fayette, and Greenbrier Counties, West Virginia, for which you state that
Mountain Valley has received landowner permission for all the requested construction
activities. In considering this notice to proceed, we have reviewed your Implementation
Plan, filed on October 31, 2017, and its supplements. The Implementation Plan and your
supplements included the information necessary to meet the applicable Environmental
Conditions of the Commission’s October 13, 2017 Order Issuing Certificates and
Granting Abandonment Authority (Order) in the above-referenced docket governing
commencement of construction. In addition, we have confirmed the receipt of all federal
authorizations relevant to the approved activities herein.
This letter does not authorize any construction activities anywhere else within the
project area.
-2-
I remind you that Mountain Valley must comply with all applicable remaining
terms and conditions of the Order.
Sincerely,
Paul Friedman
Environmental Project Manager
Re: Notice to Proceed with Construction at Certain Yards and Access Roads in
West Virginia
I grant your January 17, 2018 request for Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC
(Mountain Valley) to commence construction at 7 yards/staging areas and 101 access
roads in Braxton, Doddridge, Greenbrier, Harrison, Lewis, Monroe, Nicholas, Summers,
and Webster Counties, West Virginia, listed on Attachment A of your request, for which
you state that Mountain Valley has received landowner permission for all the requested
construction activities. In considering this notice to proceed, we have reviewed your
Implementation Plan, filed on October 31, 2017, and its supplements. The
Implementation Plan and your supplements included the information necessary to meet
the conditions of the Commission’s October 13, 2017 Order Issuing Certificates and
Granting Abandonment Authority (Order) in the above-referenced docket governing
commencement of construction.
This letter does not authorize any construction activities anywhere else within the
project area, that was not previously authorized in letters from FERC dated January 21
and 29, 2018. I remind you that Mountain Valley must comply with all applicable
remaining terms and conditions of the Order.
Sincerely,
Paul Friedman
Environmental Project Manager
Re: Notice to Proceed with Construction from Milepost 0.0 to 9.6, and Certain Extra
Workspaces, and Access Roads in West Virginia
I grant your January 26, 2018 request (Request for Notice to Proceed No. 4) for
Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC (Mountain Valley) to commence construction of its
pipeline between mileposts 0.0 and 9.6 and at 59 additional temporary workspaces in
Wetzel County, and to use 38 access roads in Braxton, Doddridge, Greenbrier, Harrison,
Lewis, Monroe, Nicholas, Webster, and Wetzel Counties, West Virginia, listed on
Attachment A of your request. In considering this notice to proceed, we have reviewed
your Implementation Plan, filed on October 31, 2017, and its supplements. The
Implementation Plan and your supplements included the information necessary to meet
the conditions of the Commission’s October 13, 2017 Order Issuing Certificates and
Granting Abandonment Authority (Order) in the above-referenced docket governing
commencement of construction.
This letter does not authorize any construction activities anywhere else within the
project area, that was not previously authorized in letters from FERC dated January 21
and 29, and February 8, 2018. I remind you that Mountain Valley must comply with all
applicable remaining terms and conditions of the Order.
Sincerely,
Paul Friedman
Environmental Project Manager
I grant your January 26 request, supplemented on January 30, 2018 (Request for
Notice to Proceed No. 5), for Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC (Mountain Valley) to
commence construction of portions of its pipeline between mileposts (MP) 198.5 and
210.8, at 44 additional temporary workspaces, and 14 staging areas and/or access roads in
Giles County, Virginia, listed on Attachment A of your request. In considering this
notice to proceed, we have reviewed your Implementation Plan, filed on October 31,
2017, and its supplements. The Implementation Plan and your supplements included the
information necessary to meet the conditions of the Commission’s October 13, 2017
Order Issuing Certificates and Granting Abandonment Authority (Order) in the above-
referenced docket governing commencement of construction.
You may not construct within the boundaries of the Big Stony Creek Historic
District (between about MPs 200.2 and 200.5) and the Greater Newport Rural Historic
District (between about MPs 210.8. and 216.9) in Giles County, Virginia, until the
revised Treatment Plans for these districts, filed February 5, 2018, have been reviewed by
2
Sincerely,
Paul Friedman
Environmental Project Manager
I grant your January 31, 2018 request (Request for Notice to Proceed No. 6) for
Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC (Mountain Valley) to commence construction of portions
of its pipeline between mileposts 177.0 and 190.1, and at 45 additional temporary
workspaces in Monroe County, West Virginia, listed on Attachment A of your request.
In considering this notice to proceed, we have reviewed your Implementation Plan, filed
on October 31, 2017, and its supplements. The Implementation Plan and your
supplements included the information necessary to meet the conditions of the
Commission’s October 13, 2017 Order Issuing Certificates and Granting Abandonment
Authority (Order) in the above-referenced docket governing commencement of
construction.
This letter does not authorize any construction activities anywhere else within the
project area, that was not previously authorized in letters from the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission dated January 21 and 29, and February 8, 9, and 12, 2018. I
remind you that Mountain Valley must comply with all applicable remaining terms and
conditions of the Order.
Sincerely,
Paul Friedman
Environmental Project Manager
I grant your February 2, 2018 request (Request for Notice to Proceed No. 7) for
Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC (Mountain Valley) to commence construction of portions
of its pipeline between mileposts 283.9 and 289.1 and 289.5 and 303.9 in Pittsylvania
County, and the Transco Interconnect, and 6 yards, 91 additional temporary workspaces,
11 ancillary areas and points of intersection, and 1 access road in Montgomery, Franklin,
and Pittsylvania Counties in Virginia, listed on Attachment A of your request. In
considering this notice to proceed, we have reviewed your Implementation Plan, filed on
October 31, 2017, and its supplements. The Implementation Plan and your supplements
included the information necessary to meet the conditions of the Commission’s October
13, 2017 Order Issuing Certificates and Granting Abandonment Authority (Order) in the
above-referenced docket governing commencement of construction.
This letter does not authorize any construction activities anywhere else within the
project area, that was not previously authorized in letters from the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission dated January 21 and 29, and February 8, 9, 12, and 13, 2018. I
remind you that Mountain Valley must comply with all applicable remaining terms and
conditions of the Order.
Sincerely,
Paul Friedman
Environmental Project Manager
I grant your February 5, 2018 request (Request for Notice to Proceed No. 8), for
Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC (Mountain Valley) to commence construction of portions
of its pipeline between mileposts (MP) 9.3 and 65.5, and at 267 additional temporary
workspaces in Doddridge, Harrison, and Lewis Counties, West Virginia, listed on
Attachment A of your request. In considering this notice to proceed, we have reviewed
your Implementation Plan, filed on October 31, 2017, and its supplements. The
Implementation Plan and your supplements included the information necessary to meet
the conditions of the Commission’s October 13, 2017 Order Issuing Certificates and
Granting Abandonment Authority (Order) in the above-referenced docket governing
commencement of construction.
You may not construct within the boundaries of the Underwood Farmstead
(Historic Site LE-150) at about MP 44.6 and St. Bernard’s Church and Cemetery
(Historic Site NR#85001583) at about MP 53.1, in Lewis County, West Virginia, until
after Mountain Valley documents the completion of fieldwork via the filing of a
Management Summary, as stipulated in our permission to implement treatment measures
issued on January 29, 2018.
2
This letter does not authorize any construction activities anywhere else within the
project area, that was not previously authorized in letters from the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission issued on January 21 and 29, February 8, 9, 12, 13, and 14,
2018. I remind you that Mountain Valley must comply with all applicable remaining
terms and conditions of the Order.
Sincerely,
Paul Friedman
Environmental Project Manager
I grant your February 7, 2018 request (Request for Notice to Proceed No. 9), for
Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC (Mountain Valley) to commence construction of
discontiguous portions of its pipeline between mileposts (MP) 217.1 and 283.9, and at
185 additional temporary workspaces, 62 access roads, 2 yards, 4 anode beds, and 2
points of intersection, in Craig, Franklin, Montgomery, and Roanoke Counties, Virginia,
listed on Attachment A of your request. In considering this notice to proceed, we have
reviewed your Implementation Plan, filed on October 31, 2017, and its supplements. The
Implementation Plan and your supplements included the information necessary to meet
the conditions of the Commission’s October 13, 2017 Order Issuing Certificates and
Granting Abandonment Authority (Order) in the above-referenced docket governing
commencement of construction.
You may not construct within the Jefferson National Forest between about MPs
196.2 and 197.8, 218.5 and 219.4, and 219.8 and 220.8 until after permission is granted
by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service and the U.S. Department of the
Interior (USDOI) Bureau of Land Management and documented in a filing with the
2
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). You may not construct within the
boundaries of the Blue Ridge Parkway Historic District between about MPs 246.1 and
246.6 until after permission is granted by the USDOI National Park Service and
documented in a filing with the FERC. You may not construct within the boundaries of
North Fork Valley Rural Historic District between about MPs 226.3 and 228.3, and the
Bent Mountain Rural Historic District between about MPs 242.0 and 246.6, until after the
Virginia Department of Historic Resources comments on the Treatment Plans filed
February 2 and 14, 2018, and Mountain Valley documents the completion of fieldwork
via the filing of a Management Summary, as stipulated in the PA. In addition, Mountain
Valley will voluntarily withhold construction through skips along the pipeline route
between about MPs 219.7 and 219.8, 223.9 and 226.1, 228.3 and 228.7, 234.1 and 234.2,
235.1 and 235.4, 238.1 and 242.0, 248.4 and 249.8, 253.7 and 253.9, 254.7 and 254.9,
257.9 and 258.0, and 258.1 and 258.4, listed on Attachment A.
This letter does not authorize any construction activities anywhere else within the
project area, that was not previously authorized in letters from the FERC issued on
January 21 and 29, and February 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, and 15, 2018. I remind you that
Mountain Valley must comply with all applicable remaining terms and conditions of the
Order.
Sincerely,
Paul Friedman
Environmental Project Manager
1. In January and February 2018, the Director of the Office of Energy Projects
(OEP), through his designee, issued nine letter orders granting Mountain Valley Pipeline,
LLC (Mountain Valley) authorization to proceed with construction of certain facilities
associated with the Mountain Valley Pipeline Project (MVP Project) in West Virginia,
and Virginia (Notices to Proceed). On February 23, 2018, the Bold Alliance and Bold
Educational Fund (collectively, Bold Alliance) filed a request for rehearing of the Notices
to Proceed. Additionally, on February 26, 2018, Preserve Craig filed a motion for
reconsideration and clarification of the February 16, 2018 Notice to Proceed. For the
reasons discussed below, we will deny the requests for rehearing and reconsideration.
I. Background
1
15 U.S.C. § 717f(c) (2012).
2
Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC, 161 FERC ¶ 61,043 (2017) (Certificate Order).
20180504-3064 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 05/04/2018
procedural order tolling that statutory time period “for the limited purpose of further
consideration” of the timely-filed requests for rehearing of the Certificate Order.4
3. On January 22 and 29, and February 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16, 2018,
Commission staff issued notices to proceed with construction of certain facilities
associated with the MVP Project. With the exception of the January 22, 2018 Notice to
Proceed, each notice to proceed was issued by the environmental project manager for the
MVP Project. On February 23, 2018, Bold Alliance filed a request for rehearing of all
nine Notices to Proceed.5 On February 26, 2018, Preserve Craig filed a motion for
reconsideration and clarification of the February 16, 2018 Notice to Proceed. We deem
Preserve Craig’s motion to be essentially a request for rehearing.
II. Discussion
4. Bold Alliance seeks rehearing of the January 22, 2018 Notice to Proceed.
Pursuant to section 19(a) of the Natural Gas Act, an aggrieved party must file a request
for rehearing within thirty days.6 The 30-day rehearing deadline is a statutory
requirement and cannot be waived or extended. Because Bold Alliance’s request for
rehearing of the January 22, 2018 Notice to Proceed was filed after the 30-day deadline
of February 22, 2018, we reject the request for rehearing as it relates to the January 22,
2018 notice.
3
See Delegation of Authority to the Secretary, the Director of the Office of
Electric Power Regulation and the General Counsel, Order No. 585, FERC Stats. &
Regs., Regulations Preambles 1991-1996 ¶ 31,030 (1995) (“1995 Delegation Order”)
(codified in 18 C.F.R. § 375.302(v) (2017)).
4
Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC, Docket No. CP16-10-001, et al. (Dec. 13, 2017)
(Tolling Order).
5
The request for rehearing was filed after 5:00 p.m. on February 22, 2018.
Pursuant to Rule 2001 of the Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 C.F.R.
§ 385.2001(a)(2) (2017), any document received after regular business hours is
considered filed on the next business day. The Commission's regular business hours end
at 5:00 p.m., U.S. Eastern Time. 18 C.F.R. § 375.101(c) (2017) (“[T]he offices of the
Commission are open each day, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Holidays, from 8:30 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m.”). Therefore, the request for rehearing was filed on February 23, 2018.
6
15 U.S.C. § 717r (2012).
20180504-3064 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 05/04/2018
5. Bold Alliance argues that the environmental project manager lacked authority to
issue the Notices to Proceed. Bold Alliance states that the Certificate Order only grants
the Director of the Office of Energy Project, or the Director’s designee, authority to
respond to requests for a notice to proceed with construction. 7 Bold Alliance claims that
the Commission’s regulations limit those individuals who may be delegated authority to
issue notices to proceed to the Deputy Director, the head of a division, or a comparable
official.8 Bold Alliance asserts that because the environmental project manager is not
listed on the Commission’s organizational chart, it cannot be categorized as a
“comparable official.”
7
Bold Alliance notes that Environmental Condition 9 of the Certificate Order
states that Mountain Valley must “receive written authorization from the Director of OEP
before commencing construction of any project facilities.” Bold Alliance’s Request for
Rehearing at 5.
8
Bold Alliance’s Request for Rehearing at 5 (citing 18 C.F.R. § 375.301(b)
(2017)).
9
Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, 161 FERC ¶ 61,287, at PP 17-26 (2017)
(Algonquin) (rejecting claims that a notice to proceed with construction was improperly
subdelegated to a branch chief); Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C., 162 FERC
¶ 61,013, at P 22 (2017) (same).
10
See 18 C.F.R. §§ 375.301 to .375. See also Streamlining Commission
Procedures for Review of Staff Action, Order No. 530, 55 Fed. Reg. 50,677, 50,678
(1990) (defending the Commission’s statutory authority to delegate Commission
functions to office directors).
11
Certificate Order, 161 FERC ¶ 61,043 at App. C, Environmental Condition 2
(providing that the “Director of OEP, or the Director’s designee, has delegated authority
to address any requests for approvals or authorizations necessary to carry out the
conditions of the order”). See, e.g., Rockies Express Pipeline, LLC, 128 FERC ¶ 61,045,
at P 21 (2009) (Rockies Express) (affirming the Commission’s delegation of authority in
a certificate order to the Director of OEP to approve project construction).
20180504-3064 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 05/04/2018
7. Bold Alliance argues that allowing Mountain Valley to proceed with construction
while requests for rehearing and stay are pending violates due process rights. Bold
Alliance asserts that allowing construction will effectively moot some of its claims,
including its motion to stay the Certificate Order, and foreclose the relief it seeks. Bold
Alliance states that once construction has begun on the project any relief, including a
combined pipeline with the Atlantic Coast Project, is foreclosed. Similarly, Preserve
Craig asserts that by authorizing construction in advance of decisions on motions for stay
and requests for rehearing, Preserve Craig is effectively denied its requested relief. Bold
Alliance avers that even if the Certificate Order was vacated and Mountain Valley was
required to decommission its pipeline, the resulting environmental harm associated with
constructing and then deconstructing a project is irreparable and can never be fully
remediated.
8. We disagree that the Notices to Proceed violate due process rights or prejudge or
foreclose relief on the requests for rehearing of the Certificate Order. The Natural Gas
Act is explicit in stating that, unless the Commission grants a stay, a request for rehearing
shall not operate as a stay of the Commission’s order,13 and Courts have agreed that a
natural gas certificate goes into effect immediately upon issuance by the Commission.14
12
Rockies Express, 128 FERC ¶ 61,045 at P 21; see also East Tennessee Natural
Gas Co., 106 FERC ¶ 61,159, at P 12 (2004) (rejecting argument that letter order
authorizing pipeline to place facilities in service signed by the Director of the Division of
Gas — Environment and Engineering was not valid because it was not actually signed by
the Director of OEP); Algonquin, 161 FERC ¶ 61,287 at PP 19-20 (finding that “[w]ith
respect to clearances for environmental conditions and authorization to begin
construction, the [Branch Chief] who has direct responsibility for ensuring compliance
with the conditions is appropriately situated to evaluate whether those conditions have
been met, and therefore is a ‘comparable official’ to a deputy or division head in this
situation, as required by section 375.301(b) of the Commission’s regulations”).
13
15 U.S.C. § 717r(c) (2012).
14
See Panhandle Eastern Line Co. v. FERC, 881 F.2d 1101, 1119 (D.C. Cir.
1989) (application for rehearing or judicial review does not stay a natural gas certificate).
20180504-3064 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 05/04/2018
The Commission routinely grants notices to proceed with construction while rehearing
requests are pending.15
9. We also disagree with Bold Alliance’s assertion that irreparable harm would occur
if the Certificate Order is subsequently vacated. It is well established that to the extent
that Mountain Valley elects to proceed with construction of project facilities while
rehearing is pending, it bears the risk that we will revise or reverse our initial decision or
that our order will be overturned on appeal.16 If this were to occur, Mountain Valley
might not be able to utilize any of the new facilities, and could be required to remove
them, change their location, or undertake remediation.17 Such remediation would help
ensure that any resulting environmental effects are minimized.
10. Bold Alliance further contends that because Mountain Valley has not acquired all
property rights for the project, granting of the Notices to Proceed will lead to piecemeal
tree felling, which can have significant adverse environmental impacts. Bold Alliance
states that tree felling may not even be completed within the construction window for tree
15
See, e.g., Town of Dedham v. FERC, No. CV 15-12352-GAO, 2015 WL
4274884, at *1 (D. Mass. July 15, 2015) (Commission granted authority to proceed with
construction while request for rehearing of certificate order was pending); see
also Rockies Express, 128 FERC ¶ 61,045 at PP 1-2, 10 (Commission granted
construction order while request to stay and reconsider tree-cutting order was pending);
Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Co., LLC, 162 FERC ¶ 61,192, at PP 13-15 (2018)
(rejecting argument that the Commission wrongfully issued notices to proceed with
construction before responding substantively to the party’s request for rehearing of the
Certificate Order); Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., L.L.C., 158 FERC ¶ 61,002, at P 12
(2017) (rejecting claim that a stay is necessary to avoid the “state of administrative
limbo” created by allowing construction to proceed before the issues raised on rehearing
are resolved).
16
See e.g., Nw. Pipeline, LLC, 156 FERC ¶ 61,086, at P 15 (2016);
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co., LLC, 150 FERC ¶ 61,183, at P 18 (2015) (rejecting
argument that the Commission prejudges the outcome of a request for rehearing when it
allows construction to proceed before the issues raised in the rehearing are fully
resolved).
17
See Millennium Pipeline Co., L.L.C., 141 FERC ¶ 61,022, at PP 17, 21 (2012)
(noting that if the Commission modified, on rehearing, a certificate order or if the court
eventually remanded the certificate order to the Commission for further proceedings or
otherwise ruled in favor of petitioners, the company would not be able to utilize the new
facilities, and in the worst case could be required to remove them).
20180504-3064 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 05/04/2018
removal, which could result in more extensive environmental harm if trees are removed
but the property is not mitigated until construction on the other segments begins. Bold
Alliance also avers that the Notices to Proceed have caused confusion among landowners
who do not realize that Mountain Valley cannot begin construction on parcels that it has
not yet acquired. Bold Alliance request the Commission vacate the Notices to Proceed
and prohibit any tree-removal or ground-breaking activity until all pending claims are
resolved.
11. Bold Alliance provides no support to demonstrate how “piecemeal tree felling”
would have significant environmental impacts different from those already addressed in
the Certificate Order and Environmental Impact Statement for the project. Bold Alliance
provided no evidence showing that significant environmental harms will be caused if tree
felling is not completed prior to the completion of the tree clearing window. Moreover,
Mountain Valley must conduct mitigation in accordance with the commitments made in
its application, the conditions of the Certificate Order, and its Implementation Plan.
12. To the extent that the Notices to Proceed have caused confusion among
landowners, we clarify that the Notices to Proceed do not grant Mountain Valley any
additional rights to access land and construct the project beyond what they have acquired
through easement negotiations or eminent domain proceedings.
13. Preserve Craig argues that the February 16, 2018 Notice to Proceed18 wrongly
approves construction in the area of the Adlai Jones Family Farm (Jones Farm), located
in Craig and Giles Counties, Virginia, between mileposts 215 and 218 of the MVP
Project mainline. Preserve Craig asserts that the Jones Farm includes several historic
structures and resources, and that Mountain Valley has misidentified the proximity of
these resources to the project. Preserve Craig states that in response to the Criteria of
Effects Report, which identifies the Jones Farm resources, the Virginia State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) recommended that Mountain Valley and the Commission
consult with consulting and interested parties to correct any outstanding deficiencies.
Preserve Craig states that neither the Commission nor Mountain Valley have contacted
the representatives of the Jones Farm to address the errors.
14. Preserve Craig contends that the Commission has wrongly concluded that no
historic properties have been identified in Craig County, Virginia. Specifically, Preserve
Craig states that both the Fisher and Jones Cemeteries, and other historic structures that
are part of the Jones Farm, are located in Craig County. Preserve Craig argues that
18
Among other things, the February 16, 2018 Notice to Proceed authorized
construction between mileposts 217.1 and 283.9 of the Mountain Valley pipeline.
20180504-3064 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 05/04/2018
Mountain Valley previously mischaracterized the cemeteries as being from the twentieth
century, which is contrary to the evidence submitted that shows that the cemeteries
contain markers dating to the Civil War era. Preserve Craig avers that because neither
the Commission nor Mountain Valley consulted with local governments regarding these
properties, section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) was not
followed.
15. Last, Preserve Craig argues that the revised Treatment Plan for the Greater
Newport Rural Historic District wrongly finds that the pipeline will have no adverse
effect on the Adlai Jones Farm, and does not include any avoidance, minimization, or
mitigation measures specific to the farm. Preserve Craig states that the SHPO and
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation have not provided review of the revised
treatment plan. Therefore, Preserve Craig concludes that the February 16, 2018 Notice to
Proceed wrongly authorized construction prior to resolution of the effects on historic
properties.
16. Preserve Craig incorrectly concludes that the February 16, 2018 Notice to Proceed
authorized construction at the Jones Farm. The Jones Farm is located in Giles County,
Virginia, at milepost 216.8, and is within the Greater Newport Rural Historic District. As
the February 16, 2018 Notice to Proceed makes clear, Mountain Valley is only authorized
to construct between mileposts 217.1 and 283.9. With respect to historic resources within
the Greater Newport Rural Historic District, we determined that adverse effects on those
historic properties must be mitigated through measures described in the Treatment Plan
for the Greater Newport Rural Historic District.19 This plan was filed on February 23,
2018, and is being reviewed by the Virginia SHPO.
17. With respect to the Fisher Cemetery, Denny Jones Farmstead Ruins, Jones
Cemetery, and Bub Jones House Ruins, each of these resources are located in Craig
County, Virginia, and outside the Greater Newport Rural Historic District boundaries.
During review of the MVP Project, each of these properties was evaluated under the
criteria set forth in the regulations20 implementing section 106 of the NHPA for its
eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), none were determined to
be eligible, and the Virginia SHPO agreed with this determination.21 Therefore, the
Commission had no further section 106 obligations with respect to the properties.
19
Certificate Order, 161 FERC ¶ 61,043 at P 252.
20
See 36 C.F.R. pt. 800 (2017) (regulations governing the protection of historic
properties).
21
Final EIS for the MVP Project at 4-460.
20180504-3064 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 05/04/2018
18. We also disagree with Preserve Craig’s assertion that local governments were not
afforded the opportunity to review these findings with respect to historic properties or
participate as consulting parties pursuant to section 106 of the NHPA. As stated in the
Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the MVP Project, the Commission
initiated consultation with local governments crossed by the pipeline route in its April 17,
2015 Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Planned
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and
Notice of Public Scoping Meetings.22 As a result we granted the requests of several
counties, including Craig County, Virginia, to be consulting parties. Each consulting
party that signed a non-disclosure agreement was provided the privileged archeological
reports. Additionally, historic architectural reports and Treatment Plans for Historic
Districts were publically filed in the docket for the MVP Project, and all parties were
provided an opportunity to comment on the filings. Commission staff considered the
counties comments on the Treatment Plans prior to their approval and in accordance with
the December 2017 Programmatic Agreement for this project, which was also provided
to the counties for review and comment. Last, several counties commented on the Draft
EIS for the project, and those individual comments were addressed by staff in the Final
EIS.23 Therefore, we find that the Commission properly afforded local governments the
opportunity to become consulting parties and participate pursuant to section 106 of the
NHPA.
(A) Bold Alliance’s request for rehearing of staff’s January 22, 2018 Notice to
Proceed is dismissed.
(B) Bold Alliance’s request for rehearing of staff’s January 29, and February 8,
9, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16, 2018, Notices to Proceed is denied.
(C) Preserve Craig’s request for rehearing of staff’s February 16, 2018 Notice
to Proceed is denied.
(SEAL)
22
Final EIS at 4-403.
23
See Final EIS at Appendix AA.
20180504-3064 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 05/04/2018
Today’s order denies rehearing of the Notices to Proceed on the Mountain Valley
Pipeline Project (MVP). I write separately today because I did not support the
Commission’s original authorization of the project.1 As explained in my earlier dissent,
after a careful balancing of the need for the project and its environmental impacts, I
concluded the project as proposed was not in the public interest. As a result, I cannot
support the Notices to Proceed to construct this project.2
________________________
Cheryl A. LaFleur
Commissioner
1
Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC, 161 FERC ¶ 61,043 (2017) (LaFleur, Comm’r,
dissenting).
2
I note that today’s separate statement does not reflect any concern with
Commission staff review of the environmental information submitted as part of
compliance with the environmental conditions appended to our orders prior to issuing a
notice to proceed.
20180504-3064 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 05/04/2018
Document Content(s)
CP16-10-002.DOCX......................................................1-11
Exhibit C – Certificate Order
161 FERC ¶ 61,043
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
1. On October 23, 2015, Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC (Mountain Valley) filed an
application in Docket No. CP16-10-000, pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act
(NGA) 1 and Part 157 of the Commission’s regulations, 2 for authorization to construct and
operate its proposed Mountain Valley Pipeline Project in West Virginia and Virginia
(MVP Project). The project is designed to provide up to 2,000,000 dekatherms (Dth) per
day of firm transportation service from Wetzel County, West Virginia to Transcontinental
Pipe Line Company, LLC’s (Transco) Compressor Station 165 in Pittsylvania County,
Virginia. Mountain Valley also requests a blanket certificate under Part 157, Subpart F
of the Commission’s regulations to perform certain routine construction activities and
operations and a blanket certificate under Part 284, Subpart G of the Commission’s
regulations to provide open-access transportation services.
1
15 U.S.C. § 717f(c) (2012).
2
18 C.F.R. pt. 157 (2017).
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 -2-
Project in Wetzel County, West Virginia (Equitrans Expansion Project). As part of the
project, Equitrans also proposes to abandon, pursuant to section 7(b) of the NGA, 3 its
existing 4,800-horsepower (hp) Pratt Compressor Station in Greene County,
Pennsylvania.
3. For the reasons discussed in this order, the Commission grants the requested
certificate authorizations, subject to conditions.
I. Background
4. Mountain Valley, 4 a Delaware limited liability company, does not currently own
or operate any interstate pipeline facilities and does not provide any services subject to
the Commission’s jurisdiction. Upon commencement of operations proposed in its
application, Mountain Valley will become a natural gas company within the meaning of
section 2(6) of the NGA, 5 and, as such, will be subject to the jurisdiction of the
Commission.
3
15 U.S.C. § 717f(b) (2012).
4
Five companies own Mountain Valley: (1) MVP Holdco, LLC, a subsidiary of
EQT Corporation; (2) US Marcellus Gas Infrastructure, LLC, a subsidiary of NextEra
Energy Capital Holdings, Inc.; (3) WGL Midstream, Inc., a subsidiary of WGL Holdings,
Inc.; (4) RGC Midstream, LLC, a subsidiary of RGC Resources, Inc.; and (5) Con Edison
Gas Midstream, LLC, a subsidiary of Consolidated Edison, Inc. See Exhibit A to the
Joinder Agreement filed on January 27, 2016; see also Appalachian Mountain
Advocates’ December 22, 2016 Comment on the Draft EIS at 12-13 (stating that Vega
Energy Partners, Ltd., an original owner of Mountain Valley, sold its shares to WGL
Midstream, Inc. in late October 2016).
5
15 U.S.C. § 717(a)(6) (2012).
6
Two subsidiaries of EQT Midstream Partners, LLC (Equitrans Investments, LLC
and Equitrans Services, LLC) own Equitrans. EQT Midstream Partners, LLC is a
subsidiary of EQT Corporation.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 -3-
II. Proposals
7
See Mountain Valley’s October 14, 2016 Filing (revised pipeline route).
8
Mountain Valley also proposes to install ancillary facilities at each compressor
station, such as a storage/maintenance building, gas and utility piping, separators, and
safety equipment.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 -4-
• Four new meter and regulating stations, one at each of the new
interconnects;
9
The MVP Project will receive gas from Equitrans at two points: Mountain
Valley’s proposed Mobley Interconnect and Equitrans’ proposed Webster Interconnect in
Wetzel County, West Virginia.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 -5-
10. On January 27, 2016, Consolidated Edison of New York, Inc. (ConEd) executed
a binding precedent agreement for 250,000 Dth per day of transportation service made
available by USG reducing its firm transportation capacity commitment from 500,000
Dth per day to 250,000 Dth per day. 10 In addition, Con Edison Gas Midstream, LLC, the
parent company of ConEd, has become a part owner of Mountain Valley. 11 Currently,
the project has five shippers for the contracted volumes below:
10
See Mountain Valley’s January 27, 2016 Supplemental Information at 1.
11
See id. at 1-2.
12
EQT Energy, LLC is a gas marketing subsidiary of EQT Corporation (an
indirect owner of Mountain Valley), providing optimization of capacity and storage
assets, natural gas liquids sales and natural gas sales to commercial and industrial
customers.
13
Roanoke Gas Company, a subsidiary of RGC Resources, Inc. (as is Mountain
Valley owner, RGC Midstream, LLC), is a utility that provides local natural gas
distribution services in Virginia.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 -6-
The precedent agreements require the project shippers to execute 20-year term firm
transportation service agreements.
11. Mountain Valley also conducted a non-binding open season from September 17,
2015 to October 1, 2015, for short-term firm transportation service between various
receipt points in the Appalachian Basin area to the new WB Interconnect in Braxton
County, West Virginia, during the interim period between when the WB Interconnect
with Columbia is placed into service and when the Transco Interconnect is placed into
service. No precedent agreements have yet been executed for the offered short-term firm
service.
12. Mountain Valley estimates that the MVP Project will cost approximately
$3.7 billion. The project shippers each agreed to pay negotiated rates.
13. Mountain Valley also requests approval of its proposed pro forma tariff.
Mountain Valley proposes initial maximum and minimum recourse reservation and
usage rates set forth under Rate Schedules FTS (Firm Transportation Service), ITS
(Interruptible Transportation Service), and ILPS (Interruptible Lending and Parking
Service). Mountain Valley also proposes an Interim Service Period, during which it will
provide firm and IT service to the WB Interconnect prior to the completion of the entire
project.
14
USG Properties Marcellus Holdings, LLC, a subsidiary of NextEra Energy, Inc.,
and affiliate of Mountain Valley-owner US Marcellus Gas Infrastructure, LLC, is a
natural gas production and distribution company.
15
WGL Midstream, Inc., which is also an owner of Mountain Valley, engages in
developing, acquiring, investing in, managing and optimizing natural gas storage and
transportation assets.
16
ConEd, an affiliate of Mountain Valley-owner Con Edison Gas Midstream,
LLC, is a public utility that provides electric and natural gas distribution services.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 -7-
14. Mountain Valley requests a Part 284, Subpart G blanket certificate of public
convenience and necessity pursuant to section 284.221 of the Commission’s regulations
authorizing it to provide transportation service to customers requesting and qualifying for
transportation service under its proposed FERC Gas Tariff, with pre-granted
abandonment authority. 17
15. Mountain Valley also requests a blanket certificate of public convenience and
necessity pursuant to section 157.204 of the Commission’s regulations authorizing future
facility construction, operation, and abandonment as set forth in Part 157, Subpart F of
the Commission’s regulations. 18
16. Equitrans proposes to construct and operate its Equitrans Expansion Project to
provide up to 600,000 Dth per day of firm transportation service from southern
Pennsylvania and northern West Virginia to proposed interconnections with the MVP
Project in West Virginia.
• Six new segments of natural gas pipelines, totaling about 7.87 miles, on
Equitrans’ existing mainline system:
17
18 C.F.R. § 284.221 (2017).
18
Id. § 157.204.
19
EQT Gathering, LLC is a gathering subsidiary of EQT Corporation.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 -8-
18. Additionally, Equitrans also requests authorization to abandon its existing 4,800-
hp Pratt Compressor Station in Greene County, Pennsylvania, which will no longer be
needed to provide service after construction of the new Redhook Compressor Station.
Equitrans will use the abandoned site of the Pratt Compressor Station as a storage yard
during operation of the Expansion Project. Specifically, Equitrans proposes to abandon
two 1,080-hp compressor units, three 880-hp compressor units, the station building,
coolers, storage tanks, auxiliary equipment and related piping, and a small portion of
Equitrans’ M-80 and H-158 pipelines.
19. Equitrans conducted a non-binding open season for firm transportation capacity
from March 5, 2015, through March 20, 2015, for potential deliveries to existing and
future interconnects, including interconnects with Texas Eastern, Dominion
Transmission, Inc., and the MVP Project. As a result of the open season, Equitrans
executed a precedent agreement with EQT Energy for 400,000 Dth of firm transportation
service on the Expansion Project. Equitrans also conducted a reverse open season but did
not receive any offers to turn back capacity. Equitrans states that it will enter into a 20-
year firm transportation service agreement under Equitrans’ existing Rate Schedule FTS
for the subscribed capacity prior to the in-service date of its project.
20. Equitrans estimates the total cost of the project is approximately $172 million.
Equitrans proposes to use its existing mainline system rates as the initial recourse rates
for firm transportation service. Equitrans and EQT Energy have entered into a negotiated
rate agreement for firm transportation service on the Expansion Project.
III. Procedural
21. Notice of Mountain Valley’s and Equitrans’ applications was published in the
Federal Register on November 13, 2015 (80 Fed. Reg. 70,196), with interventions,
comments, and protests due by November 27, 2015. 20 The parties listed in Appendix A
filed timely, unopposed motions to intervene, which were granted by operation of Rules
214(a)(2) and 214(c) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. 21 Late
20
The Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure provide that, if a filing
deadline falls on a Saturday, Sunday, holiday, or other day when the Commission is not
open for business, the filing deadline does not end until the close of business on the next
business day. 18 C.F.R. § 385.2007(a)(2) (2017). The filing deadline fell on November
26, 2015, which was Thanksgiving Day. Thus, the filing deadline was the close of
business on Friday, November 27, 2015.
21
Id. §§ 385.214(a)(2) and 385.214(c).
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 10 -
interventions were granted by notice issued on June 9, 2017, and this order, and are listed
in Appendix B of this order. 22 ICG Eastern, LLC (ICG Eastern) filed a late, opposed
motion to intervene, which we grant, as discuss below.
22. ICG Eastern, the owner of coal mines that may be affected by the MVP Project,
filed a late motion to intervene in the MVP Project proceeding on July 20, 2017.
Mountain Valley filed a motion to oppose the late intervention on August 11, 2017,
arguing that ICG Eastern was notified of the application on October 25, 2015, but sat on
its right to intervene. To date, the Commission’s practice in certificate proceedings has
generally been to grant motions to intervene filed prior to issuance of the Commission’s
order on the merits. 23 While ICG Eastern’s motion pushes this practice, we find that ICG
Eastern has demonstrated a sufficient interest in the proceeding and under the
circumstances here, we will grant its late motion to intervene.
23. Numerous entities and individuals filed comments and protests regarding various
issues, including project purpose and need; project alternatives; geological hazards; water
resources; wetlands; forested habitat; wildlife and threatened, endangered, and other
special status species; land use, recreational areas, and visual resources; cultural
resources; air quality and noise impacts; and safety. These concerns are addressed in the
final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and/or below.
B. Answers
24. Mountain Valley; Coronado Coal, LLC (Coronado Coal); Roanoke County,
Virginia; ConEd, NextEra Energy Resources, LLC (NextEra), WGL Midstream, Newport
Rural Historic District Committee (Greater Newport); Louisa Gay; Four Corners Farm;
and Appalachian Mountain Advocates filed answers. Some submitted multiple answers
in response to other’s answers.
26. Although the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure do not permit
answers to protests or answers to answers, we find good cause to waive our rules and
22
See id. § 385.214(d).
23
See Dominion Transmission, Inc., 155 FERC ¶ 61,106, at P 9 (2016) (finding
that granting the untimely motions to intervene filed prior to the issuance of the
certificate order generally does not delay, disrupt, or unfairly prejudice other parties to
the proceeding).
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 11 -
accept the answers because they provide information that has assisted in our decision
making process. 24
27. Several entities, including the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League (Blue
Ridge); jointly, the Shenandoah Valley Network, Highlanders for Responsible
Development, Virginia Wilderness Committee, Shenandoah Valley Battlefields
Foundation, and Natural Resources Defense Council (collectively Shenandoah Valley
Network); Preserve Giles County; and Greater Newport request a formal hearing for both
projects.
28. Although our regulations provide for a hearing, neither section 7 of the NGA nor
our regulations require that such hearing be a formal, trial-type evidentiary
hearing. 25 When, as is usually the case, the written record provides a sufficient basis for
resolving the relevant issues, it is our practice to provide for a hearing based on the
written record. 26 That is the case here. We have reviewed the requests for an evidentiary
hearing and conclude that all issues of material fact relating to Mountain Valley’s and
Equitrans’ proposals are capable of being resolved on the basis of the written record.
Accordingly, we will deny the requests for a formal hearing.
IV. Discussion
29. Since the proposed facilities will be used to transport natural gas in interstate
commerce and the facilities to be abandoned have been used to transport natural gas in
interstate commerce subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, the proposed
24
See 18 C.F.R. § 385.213(a)(2) (2017).
25
See Minisink Residents for Environmental Preservation and Safety v. FERC,
762 F.3d 97, 114 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (Minisink Residents) (stating “FERC’s choice whether
to hold an evidentiary hearing is generally discretionary.”).
26
See NE Hub Partners, L.P., 83 FERC ¶ 61,043, at 61,192 (1998), reh’g denied,
90 FERC ¶ 61,142 (2000); Pine Needle LNG Co., LLC, 77 FERC ¶ 61,229, at 61,916
(1996). Moreover, courts have recognized that even where there are disputed issues, the
Commission need not conduct an evidentiary hearing if the disputed issues “may be
adequately resolved on the written record.” Minisink Residents, 762 F.3d at 114 (quoting
Cajun Elec. Power Coop., Inc. v. FERC, 28 F.3d 173, 177 (D.C. Cir. 1994)).
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 12 -
abandonment, construction, and operation of the facilities are subject to subsections (b),
(c), and (e) of section 7 of the NGA. 27
30. The Certificate Policy Statement provides guidance for evaluating proposals to
certificate new construction. 28 The Certificate Policy Statement establishes criteria for
determining whether there is a need for a proposed project and whether the proposed
project will serve the public interest. The Certificate Policy Statement explains, that in
deciding whether to authorize the construction of major new natural gas facilities, the
Commission balances the public benefits against the potential adverse consequences.
The Commission’s goal is to give appropriate consideration to the enhancement of
competitive transportation alternatives, the possibility of overbuilding, subsidization by
existing customers, the applicant’s responsibility for unsubscribed capacity, the
avoidance of unnecessary disruptions of the environment, and the unneeded exercise of
eminent domain in evaluating new pipeline construction.
31. Under this policy, the threshold requirement for pipelines proposing new projects
is that the pipeline must be prepared to financially support the project without relying on
subsidization from existing customers. The next step is to determine whether the
applicant has made efforts to eliminate or minimize any adverse effects the project might
have on the applicant’s existing customers, existing pipelines in the market and their
captive customers, or landowners and communities affected by the construction. If
residual adverse effects on these interest groups are identified after efforts have been
made to minimize them, the Commission will evaluate the project by balancing the
evidence of public benefits to be achieved against the residual adverse effects. This is
essentially an economic test. Only when the benefits outweigh the adverse effects on
economic interests will the Commission proceed to complete the environmental analysis
where other interests are considered.
32. As stated, the threshold requirement is that the applicant must be prepared to
financially support the project without relying on subsidization from its existing
customers. Mountain Valley is a new pipeline entrant with no existing customers. Thus,
27
15 U.S.C. §§ 717f(b), 717f(c), and 717f(e) (2012).
28
Certification of New Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline Facilities, 88 FERC
¶ 61,227 (1999), clarified, 90 FERC ¶ 61,128, further clarified, 92 FERC ¶ 61,094 (2000)
(Certificate Policy Statement).
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 13 -
33. Several parties and commenters challenged the need for the proposed MVP
Project on several grounds, including: (1) the availability of existing infrastructure to
serve demand for natural gas in Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina;
(2) compliance with the Clean Power Plan or a shift in power generation could render the
project’s capacity unnecessary; (3) need for heightened scrutiny of precedent agreements
with Mountain Valley affiliates; (4) potential of shifting of costs to captive ratepayers;
(5) unreliability of Mountain Valley’s market demand study; and (6) Mountain Valley’s
open seasons were not legitimate.
34. Several commenters, such as Shenandoah Valley Network, argue that the MVP
Project, Atlantic Coast Project, 29 Transco’s Appalachian Connector, 30 and Columbia’s
WB Xpress Project, 31 are redundant because they all are designed to deliver gas from the
Marcellus and Utica production area 32 to Transco’s mainline system. They argue that
29
The Atlantic Coast Pipeline Project is designed to increase firm transportation
service by 1.5 billion Dth per day in West Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina. The
project is currently pending before the Commission in Docket Nos. CP15-554, CP15-555,
and CP15-556.
30
Transco has not filed an application, nor has it initiated a pre-filing process, with
the Commission for its Appalachian Connector Project.
31
Columbia’s proposed WB Xpress Project is designed to provide up to an
additional 1.3 million Dth per day of bi-directional firm transportation service on
Columbia’s system. The WB Xpress Project is currently pending before the Commission
in Docket No. CP16-38-000.
32
The Marcellus shale formation extends deep underground from Ohio and West
Virginia, northeast through Pennsylvania and southern New York. The Utica shale
formation lies a few thousand feet below Marcellus shale formation in primarily the
same, but slightly larger area as the Marcellus shale formation. See Beardslee v.
Inflection Energy, LLC, 761 F.3d 221, 224 (2d Cir. 2014).
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 14 -
35. Commenters, such as Shenandoah Valley Network, also argue that a state’s
compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan 35 or potential
switch to renewable fuel for power generation may render the capacity on the Mountain
Valley system unnecessary. They argue that this potential should be considered in
assessing project need.
36. In support of their positions, commenters rely on several studies. First, they cite
a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) study for the proposition that increasing utilization
33
The Atlantic Sunrise Project will enable Transco to flow gas bidirectionally
on its mainline system in order to provide up to 1.7 million Dth per day of firm
transportation service from northern Pennsylvania to Alabama. The Commission issued
a certificate for the fully-subscribed project on February 3, 2017. Transcontinental Gas
Pipe Line Company, LLC, 158 FERC ¶ 61,125 (2017) (Transo).
34
In addition to this argument, in its November 25, 2015 Motion to Intervene,
Blue Ridge also asserts that the U.S. Department of Energy’s estimates of recoverable
shale gas supply is overly optimistic and has created a “bubble” for the commodity,
which will ultimately harm the economy. Blue Ridge’s argument is beyond the scope of
this order because the Commission has no jurisdiction to regulate the production or
gathering of natural gas. See 15 U.S.C. § 717(b) (2012). States, not the Commission,
regulate production activities and are most likely to have the information necessary to
foresee future production. The Commission can only act on the application before us.
35
See EPA, Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary
Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units, 80 Fed. Reg. 64,662 (2015). See also West
Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, 136 S.Ct. 1000 (2016) (staying the final
rule).
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 15 -
rates of existing interstate gas pipelines, re-routing gas flows, and expanding existing
pipeline capacity are potentially lower-cost alternatives to building new infrastructure. 36
37. Commenters also cite to a study by Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. (Synapse)
that Southern Environmental Law Center and Appalachian Mountain Advocates
commissioned, which asserts that existing gas pipeline capacity, existing storage in
Virginia and the Carolinas, and the future operation of Transco’s Atlantic Sunrise Project
and Columbia’s WB Xpress Project can satisfy the growing peak demand in that region. 37
The study concludes that the natural gas infrastructure capacity of the Virginia and the
Carolinas region is more than sufficient to meet expected future peak demand. 38
38. Appalachian Mountain Advocates and others also cite to a study by the Institute
for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), which argues, in part, that
interstate pipeline infrastructure to ship natural gas from the Marcellus and Utica region
is overbuilt. 39
36
See Shenandoah Valley Network’s November 27, 2015 Motion to Intervene
and Protest at 12-13 (quoting U.S. DEP’T OF ENERGY, NATURAL GAS INFRASTRUCTURE
IMPLICATIONS OF INCREASED DEMAND FROM THE ELECTRIC POWER SECTOR at 31
http://energy.gov/epsa/downloads/report-natural-gas-infrastructure-implications-
increased-demand-electric-power-sector (DOE Study)).
37
SYNAPSE ENERGY ECONOMICS, INC., ARE THE ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE AND
THE MOUNTAIN VALLEY PIPELINE NECESSARY? (2016) (filed as Exhibit B of
Appalachian Mountain Advocates’ December 22, 2016 Comment on the Draft
Environmental Impact Study) (Synapse Study).
38
Specifically, the Synapse Study analyzes the winter peak hour gas usage under
various scenarios, and finds that even under the highest gas usage scenario modeled,
natural gas supply exceeds demand by approximately 100 million cubic feet per day
(which is equivalent to about 100,000,000 Dth per day) through 2030. Synapse Study at
Figure ES-2.
39
INSTITUTE FOR ENERGY ECONOMICS AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS, RISKS
ASSOCIATED WITH NATURAL GAS EXPANSION IN APPALACHIA (April 2016) (attached to
Friends of Nelson’s December 9, 2016 Comment on the Draft EIS) (IEEFA Study).
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 16 -
39. In response to commenters, Mountain Valley filed its own market demand study. 40
The Wood Mackenzie Study estimates that demand growth for natural gas capacity in the
Southeast will reach 8.3 billion cubic feet (Bcf) per day41 by 2030. 42 Much of the gas
needed to meet this demand would be from the Marcellus and Utica shale regions, which
would require additional pipeline capacity. 43 Mountain Valley points out the other new
projects, which the commenters argue make its project unnecessary, are being
constructed to serve different, specific customers/markets and are themselves nearly fully
subscribed. In turn, Appalachian Mountain Advocates and other commenters counter
that the Wood Mackenzie Study is unreliable because it relies on data from an unusually
cold winter and assumes gas will be flexible to meet the variable needs of generators.
40. The Certificate Policy Statement established a policy under which the Commission
would allow an applicant to rely on a variety of relevant factors to demonstrate need,
rather than continuing to require that a percentage of the proposed capacity be subscribed
under long-term precedent or service agreements. 44 These factors might include, but are
not limited to, precedent agreements, demand projections, potential cost savings to
consumers, or a comparison of projected demand with the amount of capacity currently
serving the market. 45 The Commission stated that it would consider all such evidence
submitted by the applicant regarding project need. However, although the Certificate
Policy Statement broadened the types of evidence certificate applicants may present to
show the public benefits of a project, it did not compel an additional showing. The policy
40
WOOD MACKENZIE, INC., SOUTHEAST U.S. NATURAL GAS MARKET DEMAND IN
SUPPORT OF THE MOUNTAIN VALLEY PIPELINE PROJECT (Jan. 2016) (filed as Exhibit A
of Mountain Valley’s January 27, 2016 Answer) (Wood Mackenzie Study).
41
A volumetric capacity of 8.3 Bcf per day is equivalent to 8,300,000,000 Dth
per day.
42
Wood Mackenzie Study at 6.
43
See id. at 20-21.
44
Certificate Policy Statement, 88 FERC at 61,747. Prior to the Certificate
Policy Statement, the Commission required a new pipeline project to have contractual
commitments for at least 25 percent of the proposed project’s capacity. See id. at 61,743.
The fully subscribed MVP Project and the two-thirds subscribed Equitrans Expansion
Project would both have satisfied this prior, more stringent, requirement.
45
Certificate Policy Statement, 88 FERC at 61,747.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 17 -
statement made clear that, although precedent agreements are no longer required to be
submitted, they are still significant evidence of project need or demand. 46
41. Mountain Valley has entered into long-term, firm precedent agreements with five
shippers for 2,000,000 Dth per day of firm transportation service – the project’s full
design capacity. Equitrans has entered into a precedent agreement for 66 percent of the
design capacity of its project. Further, Ordering Paragraph (C)(4) of this order requires
that Mountain Valley and Equitrans file a written statement affirming that they have
executed final contracts for service at the levels provided for in their precedent
agreements prior to commencing construction. The shippers on the MVP and Equitrans
Expansion Projects will supply gas to a variety of end users and those shippers have
determined that there is a market for their gas and the MVP and Equitrans Expansion
Projects are the preferred means of delivering or receiving that gas. We find that the
contracts entered into by the shippers are the best evidence that additional gas will be
needed in the markets that the MVP and Equitrans Expansion Projects are intended to
serve. 47 We find that Mountain Valley has sufficiently demonstrated that there is market
demand for its project. We also find that end users will generally benefit from the
projects because they will develop gas infrastructure that will serve to ensure future
46
Id. at 61,748.
47
While, as discussed above, we have relied on the existence of precedent
agreements to find there is a need for the proposed projects, we will note that the findings
of the studies may have been somewhat over stated by their filers. For example, rather
than demonstrating that the current pipeline network is overbuilt, the DOE Study explains
that the reason far less pipeline capacity is projected to be added between 2015 and 2030
(34 to 38 Bcf per day) than in the past (127 Bcf per day between 1998 and 2013) [See
DOE Study at 20-21, 31] is that natural gas production and natural gas demand are now
geographically dispersed; instead of pipelines stretching over a thousand miles, e.g., from
the Rockies to the East Coast, the Marcellus shale supply is located much closer to the
East Coast markets. [See DOE Study at 2-3.] Similarly, while the study notes that natural
gas companies are increasingly using underutilized capacity on existing pipelines, re-
routing natural gas flows, and expanding existing pipeline capacity, it does not contend
that this supplants the need to build new infrastructure. [See DOE Study at n.51
(acknowledging that in some cases unsubscribed capacity is not available on existing
pipelines and expanding existing pipeline capacity is not a viable option)]. The Synapse
Study makes an unlikely assumption that all gas is flowed by primary customers along
their contracted paths, failing to take into consideration the use of regional pipeline
capacity by shippers outside of Virginia and the Carolinas by means of interruptible
service or capacity release.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 18 -
domestic energy supplies and enhance the pipeline grid by connecting sources of natural
gas to markets in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and Southeast regions. 48
42. We disagree with commenters’ assertion that the Commission should examine the
need for pipeline infrastructure on a region-wide basis. Commission policy is to examine
the merits of individual projects and each project must demonstrate a specific need. 49
While the Certificate Policy Statement permits the applicant to show need in a variety of
ways, it does not suggest that the Commission should examine a group of projects
together and pick which projects best serve an estimated future regional demand. In fact,
projections regarding future demand often change and are influenced by a variety of
factors including economic growth, the cost of natural gas, environmental regulations,
and legislative and regulatory decisions by the federal government and individual states.
Given this uncertainty associated with long-term demand projections, such as those in the
various studies noted by the applicants and commenters above, where an applicant has
precedent agreements for long-term firm service, the Commission deems the precedent
agreements to be the better evidence of demand. Thus, the Commission primarily relies
– as it does here – on evaluating individual projects based on demonstrated need from
specific shippers in the form of precedent agreements. We also note that neither any
existing or proposed pipeline nor any pipeline customers have suggested that the MVP
Project would have negative impacts on them, as one would expect them to do if they
anticipated being burdened with the cost of unused capacity.
43. The final EIS considers the availability of capacity on other pipelines to serve as
alternatives to the MVP and Equitrans Expansion Projects and determines that sufficient
capacity to and from the necessary receipt and delivery points was not available. 50
Similarly, the final EIS concludes that renewable energy is not a comparable replacement
for the transportation of natural gas to be provided by the projects. 51 It is speculative and
outside of the scope of this proceeding to consider whether a state would comply with the
EPA’s Clean Power Plan regulations (which regulations are subject to a judicial stay and
48
See ETC Tiger Pipeline, LLC, 131 FERC ¶ 61,010, at P 20 (2010).
49
With respect to comments requesting the Commission assess the market demand
for gas to be transported by other proposed interstate pipeline projects, we note that the
Commission will evaluate the proposals in those proceedings in accordance with the
criteria established in the policy statement.
50
See Final EIS at 3-1 to 3-4.
51
Id. at 3-1.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 19 -
a notice of proposed rulemaking to repeal 52) and how a state would manage its electric-
power fuel source for the next 20 years.
52
EPA, Repeal of Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary
Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units (Oct. 10, 2017), https://www.epa.gov/sites/
production/files/2017-10/documents/frn_cpp_repeal_2060-at55_proposal_
20171010disclaimer.pdf.
53
Appalachian Mountain Advocates and other commenters cite to Millennium
Pipeline Co., L.P., 100 FERC ¶ 61,277, at P 58 (2002) (Milennium), as an example of
when the Commission exercised a heightened standard of review to prevent affiliate
abuse of our regulation of interstate gas pipelines. However, the Commission did not
exercise any heightened standard of review in the cited proceeding. Rather, in the
referenced discussion, the Commission explained that it can exercise control over a non-
jurisdictional affiliate of a pipeline when there is evidence that that affiliate is acting in
concert with its pipeline in connection with interstate transport of natural gas in a manner
that frustrates the Commission’s effective regulation of the interstate pipeline. See id.
(citing Arkla Gathering Services Co., 67 FERC ¶ 61,257 (1994)). However, in
Millennium, as here, the Commission stated that we do not distinguish between pipelines’
precedent agreements with affiliates or independent marketers in establishing the market
need for a proposed project. Id. at P 57.
54
National Fuel Gas Supply Corp., 158 FERC ¶ 61,145 (2017) (National Fuel).
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 20 -
45. We disagree. The fact that the project shippers are affiliated with Mountain
Valley does not require the Commission to look behind the precedent agreements to
evaluate project need. 55 As the court affirmed in Minisink Residents for Environmental
Preservation & Safety v. FERC, the Commission may reasonably accept the market need
reflected by the applicant’s existing contracts with shippers. 56 An affiliated shipper’s
need for new capacity and its obligation to pay for such service under a binding contract
are not lessened just because it is affiliated with the project sponsor. 57 When considering
applications for new certificates, the Commission’s primary concern regarding affiliates
of the pipeline as shippers is whether there may have been undue discrimination against a
non-affiliate shipper. 58 Here, no such allegations have been made, nor have we found
that the project sponsors have engaged in any anticompetitive behavior. As discussed
above, Mountain Valley and Equitrans held both non-binding and binding open seasons
for capacity on their projects and all potential shippers had the opportunity to contract for
service.
46. Former Chairman Bay’s separate statement in National Fuel summarizes recent
arguments that appear in our natural gas certificate proceedings. In particular, Chairman
Bay encouraged the Commission to not focus exclusively on precedent agreements but to
also take into account all the public benefit considerations listed in the Certificate Policy
55
Millennium, 100 FERC ¶ 61,277 at P 57 (“as long as the precedent agreements
are long-term and binding, we do not distinguish between pipelines’ precedent
agreements with affiliates or independent marketers in establishing the market need
for a proposed project”). See also Certificate Policy Statement, 88 FERC at 61,748
(explaining that the Commission’s policy is less focused on whether the contracts are
with affiliated or unaffiliated shippers and more focused on whether existing ratepayers
would subsidize the project); see also id. at 61,744 (the Commission does not look behind
precedent agreements to question the individual shippers’ business decisions to enter into
contracts) (citing Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., 82 FERC ¶ 61,084, at 61,316
(1998)).
56
Minisink Residents, 762 F.3d at 110 n.10; see also Sierra Club v. FERC, 867
F.3d 1357, 1379 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (Sabal Trail) (finding that pipeline project proponent
satisfied Commission’s “market need” where 93 percent of the pipeline project’s capacity
has already been contracted for).
57
See, e.g., Greenbrier Pipeline Company, LLC, 101 FERC ¶ 61,122, at P 59
(2002), reh’g denied, 103 FERC ¶ 61,024 (2003).
58
See 18 C.F.R. § 284.7(b) (2017) (requiring transportation service to be provided
on a non-discriminatory basis).
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 21 -
47. Appalachian Mountain Advocates also argue that we should treat ConEd as an
“overnight” affiliate shipper because it was formed months after Mountain Valley filed
its application. 59 Citing Independence Pipeline Company, 60 it argues that we should be
dubious of the demand created by an overnight affiliate of an owner.
48. Independence is distinguishable from the facts here. Independence was a pre-
Certificate Policy Statement proceeding. Thus, as discussed above, 61 under the then-
applicable policy the pipeline was required to demonstrate contractual commitments for
at least 25 percent of the proposed project’s capacity. However, Independence had
provided no contractual evidence of market support when it filed its application. After
repeated statements by Independence that eleven shippers had expressed interest in the
project, followed by its failure to provide precedent agreements to support those
statements, Commission staff informed Independence that it would dismiss
Independence’s application by September 24, 1997, if the precedent agreements were not
submitted. 62 On the eve of the deadline, Independence created an affiliate marketer with
whom it signed a precedent agreement. 63 The Commission rejected the precedent
agreement as evidence of market support for the project finding Independence had
created an affiliate “virtually overnight” to falsely evidence market need for the project. 64
49. Here, Mountain Valley’s binding open season conducted in 2014 resulted in
commitments from USG and EQT. By the time Mountain Valley filed its application in
October 2015, it had signed binding precedent agreements with two additional shippers.
Three months after it filed its application, ConEd both became an affiliate of Mountain
Valley and a shipper on the project, taking, as described above, capacity previously
subscribed by USG, another Mountain Valley affiliate. However, while a new affiliate of
59
See Appalachian Mountain Advocates’ December 22, 2016 Comments on the
Draft EIS at 12-13.
60
89 FERC ¶ 61,283 (1999) (Independence).
61
See supra note 44.
62
See 89 FERC at 61,820.
63
See id. at 61,840.
64
See id.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 22 -
Mountain Valley, ConEd is a longstanding company, created many years prior to the
filing date of Mountain Valley’s application. 65
50. Appalachian Mountain Advocates and other commenters argue that two project
shippers, Roanoke Gas and ConEd, will pass the cost of the firm transportation service on
the MVP Project through to their captive ratepayers through annual gas adjustment
mechanisms. Appalachian Mountain Advocates also argue that because neither the
Virginia nor New York public utility regulators have approved the precedent agreements,
it is important for the Commission to scrutinize the proposal to determine whether the
project is needed. Similarly, they argue that because USG and WGL Midstream, both
owners of Mountain Valley, signed precedent agreements with Mountain Valley, they are
able to bypass state public utility commission regulatory review when they pass the cost
of the project through to their affiliate utility companies (i.e., Florida Power & Light
Company (FPL) and Washington Gas Light Company (WGL)). Because state regulatory
review of the precedent agreements have been lacking, customers of the affiliate utilities
do not have a forum to contest rates.
52. NextEra and WGL Midstream also filed an answer to Appalachian Mountain
Advocates’ comment, in which they deny the allegation that USG and WGL Midstream
are attempting to avoid state regulatory oversight. They assert that both FPL and WGL
contract for gas transportation on their own behalf and operate largely independently
from their affiliates; thus neither USG nor WGL Midstream can pass along their costs
from the MVP Project through to FPL or WGL. NextEra and WGL Midstream also
contend that in the event either FPL or WGL enter into gas supply arrangements with any
MVP Project shipper, or become project shippers themselves, those actions would be
subject to state regulatory prudence review.
65
In its December 22, 2016 Comment on the Draft EIS, Appalachian Mountain
Advocates specifically identifies Con Edison Gas Midstream, LLC as an “overnight
affiliate,” but Appalachian Mountain Advocates’ argument is misdirected. Its argument
is centered on alleged false demand created by an “overnight” affiliate shipper. In this
case, ConEd is the affiliate shipper, not Con Edison Gas Midstream, LLC, and has been
an active corporation in the state of New York since 1884.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 23 -
54. Appalachian Mountain Advocates and other commenters argue that the precedent
agreements are not a result of the open season process. They contend that Mountain
Valley had to extend its binding open seasons five times because no shipper subscribed to
service in the prior open seasons. They assert that these extensions—along with the fact
that the project is subscribed by only affiliates—suggest that the market does not support
the project. Our open season policy for new interstate pipeline construction only requires
that a pipeline applicant conduct a fair and transparent open season, prior to filing its
application, for potential shippers to seek and obtain firm capacity rights. 69 One purpose
of an open season is to provide the project sponsor with valuable information about
66
91 FERC ¶ 61,285 (2000) (Guardian).
67
Id. at 61,966-67.
68
See, e.g., Southern Natural Gas Co., 76 FERC ¶ 61,122, at 61,635 (1996);
Williams Natural Gas Co., 70 FERC ¶ 61,306, at 61,924 (1995); Tennessee Gas Pipeline
Co., 69 FERC ¶ 61,239, at 61,901 (1994).
69
See Pine Prairie Energy Center, LLC, 135 FERC ¶ 61,168, at P 30 (2011).
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 24 -
market interest that it can utilize to properly design and size its project. 70 Our policy does
not limit the number of open seasons a project sponsor can hold. The significant fact is
that the project is fully subscribed, not how long it took this to occur. The fact that no
project was proposed before the Commission until market participants had indicated, by
signing precedent agreements, that the ultimate proposal would indeed meet their needs,
is indicative of the validity of the Commission’s process and policy.
55. In conclusion, we find that the MVP Project will make reliable natural gas service
available to end use customers and the market. Precedent agreements signed by multiple
shippers for 100 percent of the project’s capacity adequately demonstrate that the project
is needed.
56. The MVP Project is designed to transport domestically-sourced natural gas from
the Marcellus and Utica supply areas to markets in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and
Southeast regions. No transportation service provider or captive customer has protested
this project. Therefore, we find that the MVP Project will have no adverse impact on
existing pipelines or their captive customers.
57. Regarding impacts on landowners and communities along the project route,
Mountain Valley proposes to locate its pipeline within or parallel to existing rights-of-
way, where feasible. Approximately 30 percent of the MVP Project’s rights-of-way will
be collocated or adjacent to existing pipeline, roadway, railway, or utility rights-of-way. 71
The new compressor stations will be constructed on land owned by Mountain Valley.
Mountain Valley participated in the Commission’s pre-filing process 72 and has been
working to address landowner and community concerns and input. Specifically, in order
to address landowner requests, avoid sensitive environmental resources, such as
archaeological sites and wetlands, and avoid steep terrain or side slopes, Mountain Valley
incorporated over 11 route variations and 571 minor route variations (during pre-filing),
and another 2 route variations and 130 additional minor variations (post-application
filing) into its proposal. 73 Additionally, Mountain Valley has stated that it will make
70
Id.
71
Final EIS at 2-10.
72
Docket No. PF15-3-000.
73
Final EIS at ES-3 and 3-17.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 25 -
good faith efforts to negotiate with landowners for any needed rights, and will resort only
when necessary to the use of the eminent domain. Accordingly, while we are mindful
that Mountain Valley has been unable to reach easement agreements with many
landowners, for purposes of our consideration under the Certificate Policy Statement, we
find that Mountain Valley has generally taken sufficient steps to minimize adverse
impacts on landowners and surrounding communities.
58. Several commenters argue that the use of eminent domain in connection to the
project would be unconstitutional because the project would only benefit private entities,
not the public. 74 Several landowners, many of whom are intervenors in this proceeding,
filed a complaint and petition for injunctive relief in U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Virginia (Berkley Complaint) arguing that the Commission’s issuance of a
certificate to Mountain Valley, which effectuates eminent domain authority under NGA
section 7(h), would result in the unlawful and unconstitutional takings of the plaintiffs’
property. 75 Similarly, Bold Alliance, Bold Education Fund, Friends of Nelson, and
individual landowners (collectively, Bold Alliance) filed a petition for declaratory order
and injunctive relief in Federal District Court for the District of Columbia. 76 Bold
Alliance alleges that the eminent domain provisions of the NGA and the Commission’s
Certificate Policy Statement do not further a public use, and therefore, violate the Due
Process Clause and Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
59. The Commission itself does not confer eminent domain powers. Under NGA
section 7, the Commission has jurisdiction to determine if the construction and operation
of proposed interstate pipeline facilities are in the public convenience and necessity.
Once the Commission makes that determination and issues a natural gas company a
certificate of public convenience and necessity, it is NGA section 7(h) that authorizes that
certificate holder to acquire the necessary land or property to construct the approved
facilities by exercising the right of eminent domain if it cannot acquire the easement by
an agreement with the landowner. 77
74
See, e.g., David and Judith Rauchle’s November 25, 2015 Comment at 1;
Helena Teekell’s July 4, 2016 Comment at 1; and Anthony Novitzki’s December 13,
2016 Comment at 1.
75
See Orus Ashby Berkley v. Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC, No. 7:17-cv-00357,
Plaintiffs’ Complaint and Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for a
Preliminary Injunction (July 27, 2017).
76
The petition was filed with the Commission on September 6, 2017.
77
15 U.S.C. § 717f(h) (2012).
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 26 -
60. While this matter is currently before the court, we note that both the Berkley
Complaint’s and Bold Alliance’s legal theory is unfounded. Both sets of plaintiffs
generally argue that the Commission’s certification process falls short of the standard
required by the Constitution for a taking: that the exercise of eminent domain is for a
“public use.” As noted above, Congress provided in NGA section 7(h) that a certificate
holder was entitled to use eminent domain. Congress did not suggest that there was a
further test, beyond the Commission’s determination under NGA section 7(c)(e), 78 that a
proposed pipeline was required by the public convenience and necessity, such that certain
certificated pipelines furthered a public use, and thus were entitled to use eminent
domain, while others did not. The Commission has interpreted the section 7(c)(e) public
convenience and necessity determination as requiring the Commission to weigh the
public benefit of the proposed project against the project’s adverse effects. 79 We
undertake this balancing through our application of the Certificate Policy Statement
criteria, under which we balance the public benefits of a project against the residual
adverse effects. 80 Thus, through this balancing process we make findings that support
our ultimate conclusion that the public interest is served by the construction of the
proposed project. 81 Accordingly, once a natural gas company obtains a certificate of
78
15 U.S.C. § 717f(e) (2012).
79
As the agency that administers the Natural Gas Act, and in particular as the
agency with expertise in addressing the public convenience and necessity standard in the
Act, the Commission’s interpretation and implementation of that standard is accorded
deference. See Chevron, USA, Inc. v. Natural. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837,
842-43 (1984); Delaware Riverkeeper Network v. FERC, 857 F.3d 388, 392 (D.C. Cir.
2017); Office of Consumers’ Counsel v. FERC, 655 F.2d 1132, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 1980);
See Total Gas & Power N. Am., Inc. v. FERC, No. 4:16-1250, 2016 WL 3855865, at *21
(S.D. Tex. July 15, 2016), aff’d, 859 F.3d 325 (5th Cir. 2017); see also MetroPCS Cal.,
LLC v. FCC, 644 F.3d 410, 412 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (under Chevron, the Court “giv[es]
effect to clear statutory text and defer[s] to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of any
ambiguity”).
80
Certificate Policy Statement, 88 FERC at 61,747-49.
81
Midcoast Interstate Transmission, Inc. v. FERC, 198 F.3d 960, 973 (D.C. Cir.
2000) (because the Commission declared that the subject pipeline would serve the public
convenience and necessity, the takings complained of did serve a public purpose); see
also Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C. v. 529.42 Acres of Land, 210 F. Supp. 2d 971, 974 (N.D.
Ill. 2002) (no evidence of public necessity other than the Commission’s determination is
required).
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 27 -
public convenience and necessity, it may exercise the right of eminent domain in a U.S.
District Court or a state court.
61. The Commission, having determined that the MVP Project is in the public
convenience and necessity, need not make a separate finding that the project serves a
“public use” to allow the certificate holder to exercise eminent domain. In short, the
Commission’s public convenience and necessity finding is equivalent to a “public use”
determination. 82 In enacting the NGA, Congress clearly articulated that the
transportation and sales of natural gas in interstate commerce for ultimate distribution to
the public is in the public interest. 83 This congressional recognition that natural gas
transportation furthers the public interest is consistent with the Supreme Court’s
emphasis on legislative declarations of public purpose in upholding the power of eminent
domain. 84
62. Bold Alliance erroneously cites to Transco, 85 where the Commission, after
evaluating record evidence of need for the project at issue, found that there was a need
82
See Midcoast Interstate Transmission, Inc. v. FERC, 198 F.3d at 973; see also
Troy Ltd. v. Renna, 727 F.2d 287, 301 (3rd Cir. 1984) (“authoriz[ing] an occupation of
private property by a common carrier . . . engaged in a classic public utility function” is
an “exemplar of a public use”); E. Tenn. Natural Gas Co. v. Sage, 361 F.3d 808 (4th Cir.
2004) (“Congress may, as it did in the [Natural Gas Act], grant condemnation power to
‘private corporations . . . execut[ing] works in which the public is interested.’”) (quoting
Miss. & Rum River Boom Co. v. Patterson, 98 U.S. 403, 406 (1878)).
83
15 U.S.C. § 717(a) (2012) (declaring that the “business of transporting and
selling natural gas for ultimate distribution to the public is affected with a public
interest”). See also Thatcher v. Tennessee Gas Transmission Co., 180 F.2d 644, 647 (5th
Cir. 1950) (Thatcher), cert. denied, 340 U.S. 829 (1950) (explaining that Congress, in
enacting the NGA, recognized that “vast reserves of natural gas are located in States of
our nation distant from other States which have no similar supply, but do have a vital
need of the product; and that the only way this natural gas can be feasibly transported
from one State to another is by means of a pipe line.”).
84
Kelo v. City of New London, Conn., 545 U.S. 469, 479-80 (2005) (upholding a
state statute that authorized the use of eminent domain to promote economic
development); see also id. at 480 (noting that without exception the Court has defined the
concept of “public purpose” broadly, reflecting the Court’s longstanding policy of
deference to the legislative judgments in this field).
85
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co., LLC, 158 FERC ¶ 61,125 (2017).
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 28 -
for the project for purposes of section 7(c) of the NGA 86 and that the project served a
public purpose sufficient to satisfy the Takings Clause. 87 We have done the same here.
The proposed projects in this proceeding, are designed to primarily serve natural gas
demand in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and Southeast regions. Through the
transportation of natural gas from the projects, the public at large will benefit from
increased reliability of natural gas supplies. Furthermore, upstream natural gas producers
will benefit from the project by being able to access additional markets for their product.
Therefore, we conclude that the proposed project is required by the public convenience
and necessity.
63. Notwithstanding the fact that we addressed a takings argument raised in Transco
and here, such a question is beyond our jurisdiction: only the courts can determine
whether Congress’ action in passing section 7(h) of the NGA conflicts with the
Constitution. We note, however, that courts have found eminent domain authority in
section 7(h) of the NGA to be constitutional. 88
e. Conclusion
64. We find that the benefits that the MVP Project will provide to the market outweigh
any adverse effects on existing shippers, other pipelines and their captive customers, and
landowners or surrounding communities. Consistent with the criteria discussed in the
Certificate Policy Statement and NGA section 7(e), and subject to the environmental
discussion below, we find that the public convenience and necessity requires approval of
Mountain Valley’s proposal, as conditioned in this order.
86
Id. PP 20-33.
87
Id. PP 66-67.
88
See Thatcher, 180 F.2d at 647. In addition, the eminent domain authority in
many federal statutes mirror the authority in section 7(h) of the NGA. For instance,
section 21 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. § 814 (2012), provides that when a
licensee cannot acquire by contract lands or property necessary to construct, maintain, or
operate a licensed hydropower project, it may acquire the same by the exercise of the
right of eminent domain in a U.S. District Court or a state court. The U.S. Supreme
Court has not questioned the constitutionality of section 21 of the FPA. See FPC v.
Tuscarora Indian Nation, 362 U.S. 99, 123-24 (1960). Similarly, Congress included the
same eminent domain authority for permit holders for electric transmission facilities
when it enacted the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 16 U.S.C. § 824p(e)(1) (2012).
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 29 -
65. As stated, the threshold requirement for pipelines proposing new projects is that
the applicant must be prepared to financially support the project without relying on
subsidization from its existing customers. The Commission has determined, in general,
that where a pipeline proposes to charge incremental rates for new construction that are
higher than the company’s existing system rates, the pipeline satisfies the threshold
requirement that the project will not be subsidized by existing shippers. 89 Here,
Equitrans calculated the incremental firm transportation base reservation rate, which was
lower than its existing system-wide rate. Equitrans therefore proposes to charge its
existing mainline system rates as the initial recourse rates, which will recover the costs of
the project. Accordingly, we find that the Equitrans Expansion Project will not be
subsidized by existing customers and satisfies the threshold no-subsidy requirement
under the Certificate Policy Statement.
67. Commission staff’s review of the engineering data submitted in the proceeding
confirms that the Equitrans Expansion Project would not adversely affect Equitrans’
89
See Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., 98 FERC ¶ 61,155, at 61,552 (2002)
(noting that the Commission has previously determined that where a pipeline proposes to
charge an incremental rate for new construction, the pipeline satisfies the threshold
requirement that the project will not be subsidized by existing shippers) (citations
omitted); see also Dominion Transmission, Inc., 155 FERC ¶ 61,106 (2016) (same).
90
See Equitrans’ February 24, 2017 Data Request Response at 1; Peoples’
April 18, 2017 Notice of Withdrawal of Protest at 2.
91
Peoples’ April 18, 2017 Notice of Withdrawal of Protest at n.3 (Equitrans and
Peoples agreed that if the MVP Project shippers nominate natural gas flows less than
levels assumed in Equitrans’ flow models, then flows to Mountain Valley and the use of
the Redhook Compressor Station will be reduced accordingly in order to transport gas to
Peoples’ delivery points “in the same manner as it is today”).
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 30 -
ability to meet its firm contractual obligations to Peoples and other existing customers.
We appreciate that the parties have negotiated an understanding that reinforces Equitrans’
certificate obligation to operate its system in a manner that will meet all of its contractual
obligations. However, based on Commission staff’s finding that operation of the
Equitrans Expansion Project would not adversely affect Peoples’ service on Equitrans’
existing system, we find that the inclusion of the requested language in this order is
unnecessary and therefore, we decline to include it. In the unanticipated event service on
the Equitrans Expansion Project causes service disruptions to Peoples under its firm
transportation service contract, Peoples may file a complaint with the Commission, seek
reservation charge credits, or seek damages under its contract in court. Thus, we find that
the proposal will not adversely affect Equitrans’ existing customers because there will be
no degradation of existing service. In addition, other pipelines and their captive
customers will not be adversely impacted because the proposal is not intended to replace
service on other pipelines. Rather, the project would allow Equitrans to provide
additional transportation services to EQT Energy on its system. Further, no pipeline or
their captive customers have protested the application.
68. We also find that the Equitrans Expansion Project will have minimal adverse
impacts on landowners and communities. Approximately 32 percent of the right-of-way
for the proposed project will be collocated or adjacent to existing pipeline, roadway,
railway, or utility rights-of-way. 92 Additionally, the Redhook Compressor Station will be
located on land owned by Equitrans.
70. We find that the benefits that the Equitrans Expansion Project will provide to the
market outweigh any adverse effects on existing shippers, other pipelines and their
captive customers, and on landowners and surrounding communities. Consistent with the
criteria discussed in the Certificate Policy Statement and subject to the environmental
92
Final EIS at ES-7.
93
15 U.S.C. § 717f(b) (2012).
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 31 -
discussion below, we find that the public convenience and necessity requires approval of
Equitrans’ proposal, as conditioned in this order.
B. Blanket Certificates
71. Mountain Valley requests a Part 284, Subpart G blanket certificate in order to
provide open-access transportation services. Under a Part 284 blanket certificate,
Mountain Valley will not require individual authorizations to provide transportation
services to particular customers. Mountain Valley filed a pro forma Part 284 tariff to
provide open-access transportation services. Since a Part 284 blanket certificate is
required for Mountain Valley to offer these services, we will grant Mountain Valley a
Part 284 blanket certificate, subject to the conditions imposed herein.
72. Mountain Valley also requests a Part 157, Subpart F blanket certificate. A Part
157 blanket certificate gives an interstate pipeline NGA section 7 authority to
automatically, or after prior notice, perform certain activities related to the construction,
acquisition, abandonment, and replacement and operation of pipeline facilities.
74. Roanoke County presents no arguments why Mountain Valley’s specific request
for a blanket certificate should be denied; rather it seems to take general issue with the
Commission’s blanket certificate program. Part 157, Subpart F of the Commission’s
regulations authorizes a certificate holder to engage in a limited number of routine
activities under a blanket certificate, subject to certain reporting, notice, and protest
requirements. 94 The blanket certificate procedures are intended to increase flexibility and
reduce regulatory and administrative burdens. Because the eligible activities permitted
under a blanket certificate regulations can satisfy our environmental requirements and
meet the blanket certificate cost limits, they will have minimal impacts, such that the
close scrutiny involved in considering applications for case-specific certificate
authorization is not necessary to ensure compatibility with the public convenience and
necessity. For almost all eligible activities, a certificate holder seeking to engage in such
activities must notify landowners prior to commencing the activity. 95 For activities that
require prior notice, an opportunity to protest is afforded once notice of the certificate
94
See 18 C.F.R. § 157.203 (2017).
95
See id. § 157.203(d).
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 32 -
holder’s request is issued to the public. 96 If a protest cannot be resolved, then the
certificate holder may not perform the requested activity under a blanket certificate. 97
Thus, because Mountain Valley will be operating a jurisdictional pipeline facility for
which this order grants certificate authorization, we will also grant the requested Part
157, Subpart F blanket construction certificate authorizing Mountain Valley’s
performance of certain routine activities in conjunction with its operation of the pipeline.
C. Rates
75. Under the proposed pro forma tariff, Mountain Valley proposes to provide firm
transportation service under its Rate Schedule FTS, interruptible transportation service
under its Rate Schedule ITS, and interruptible lending and parking service under its Rate
Schedule ILPS, all pursuant to Part 284 of the Commission’s regulations. Instead of
paying cost-based recourse rates, the project shippers have elected to pay negotiated rates
for transportation service on the project. 98 Mountain Valley states that it will file the
negotiated rate agreements, as specified by the Commission’s regulations.
76. To derive its firm recourse transportation charges, Mountain Valley states that it
utilized a straight-fixed variable rate design methodology and designed its rates on a
postage-stamp basis. For firm transportation service under Rate Schedule FTS, Mountain
Valley proposes a monthly reservation recourse charge of $29.5967 per Dth and a
commodity charge of $0.0035 per Dth based on annual reservation determinants of
730,000,000 Dth and an annual cost of service of $712,903,260. 99 Mountain Valley
proposes to charge a maximum daily IT recourse rate of $0.9766 per Dth, based on the
maximum daily FTS reservation charge plus the FTS commodity charge. Mountain
96
See id. § 157.205.
97
See id. § 157.205(f).
98
Details of the negotiated rate authority are contained in Mountain Valley’s
General Terms & Conditions (GT&C) section 6.27.
99
Exhibit P, Schedule 1, Page 2 of Mountain Valley’s Application. Mountain
Valley breaks down the annual cost of service into $710,320,684 for fixed costs and
$2,582,576 for variable costs.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 33 -
Valley also proposes to charge a maximum rate of $0.9755 per Dth for lending and
parking under its Rate Schedule ILPS.
77. In addition, Mountain Valley proposes to offer Interim Period Service, from
Wetzel County to the WB Interconnect, prior to the in-service date of the entire
project. 100 Mountain Valley’s proposed Interim Period Service rates under Rate Schedule
FTS consist of a $15.9014 per Dth monthly reservation recourse charge and a $0.0032
per Dth commodity charge based on annual reservation determinants of 377,651,265 Dth
and an annual cost of service of $198,628,658. 101 The Interim Period Service IT recourse
rate of $0.5260 per Dth is based on the maximum daily FTS reservation rate plus the FTS
commodity charge.
78. The Commission has reviewed Mountain Valley’s proposed cost of service and
initial rates and finds that they generally reflect current Commission policy, except for
Mountain Valley’s proposed return on equity (ROE), which we discuss below. The
Commission accepts Mountain Valley’s proposed recourse rates as the initial rates for
service on its project, subject to the revisions discussed below.
79. Mountain Valley developed its proposed initial rates based on a capital structure of
40 percent debt and 60 percent equity, with a debt cost of 6 percent and a ROE of 14
percent. Mountain Valley states that its expected capital structure is reflective of the
large capital expenditure necessary to construct the project, which it alleges will result in
a large non-recourse placement of debt in the debt markets. Mountain Valley’s weighted
average cost of capital under its proposed capital structure is 10.8 percent.
80. Mountain Valley’s combined return on equity and capital structure proposal does
not reflect current Commission policy. For new pipelines, the Commission has approved
an ROE of 14 percent, but only where the equity component of the capitalization is no
100
See Mountain Valley’s Application, Exhibit P, Part II – Pro Forma Tariff,
Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC, FERC Gas Tariff, Volume No. 1, Section 4.1 Statement
of Rates – FTS.
101
Exhibit P, Schedule 2, Page 2 of Mountain Valley’s Application. Mountain
Valley breaks down the annual cost of service into $197,431,290 for fixed costs and
$1,197,368 for variable costs.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 34 -
more than 50 percent. 102 In Florida Southeast Connection, LLC, the Commission
approved a greenfield pipeline’s proposed 14 percent ROE but rejected its capital
structure of 60-percent equity and 40-percent debt. The Commission found that imputing
a capitalization containing such a large equity ratio is more costly to ratepayers, because
equity financing is typically more costly than debt financing and the interest incurred on
debt is tax deductible. 103 Consequently, the Commission required that the greenfield
pipeline design its cost-based rates on a capital structure that included at least 50-percent
debt. 104
81. Appalachian Mountain Advocates argue that Mountain Valley’s requested 14-
percent ROE is higher than the ROE in other utility sectors. It also contends that the high
ROE motivates the project shippers to become owners of Mountain Valley because the
shipper/owner can then recover the “generous” return on equity. 105
102
Florida Southeast Connection, LLC, 154 FERC ¶ 61,080, order on reh’g,
156 FERC ¶ 61,160 (2016), vacated and remanded sub nom. Sabal Trail, 867 F.3d 1357
(affirming the Commission’s approval of a 14-percent ROE based on a 50-50 debt-equity
capital structure); MarkWest Pioneer, L.L.C., 125 FERC ¶ 61,165 (2008).
103
See Florida Southeast Connection, 154 FERC ¶ 61,080 at P 117.
104
See id.
105
Appalachian Mountain Advocates’ Dec. 22, 2016 Comments on Draft EIS at
11, 17-18.
106
See, e.g., Rate Regulation of Certain Natural Gas Storage Facilities, Order No.
678, FERC Stats & Regs. 31,220, at P 127 (2006) (explaining that existing pipelines who
need only acquire financing for incremental expansions face less risk than “a greenfield
project undertaken by a new entrant in the market”).
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 35 -
83. Further, as explained below, we are requiring Mountain Valley to file a cost and
revenue study at the end of its first three years of actual operation to justify its existing
cost-based rates. The three-year report will provide an opportunity for the Commission
and the public to review Mountain Valley’s original estimates, upon which its initial rates
are based, to determine whether Mountain Valley is over-recovering its cost of service
with its approved initial rates, and whether the Commission should exercise its authority
under section 5 of the NGA to establish just and reasonable rates. Alternatively,
Mountain Valley may elect to make a NGA section 4 filing to revise its initial rates. In
such section 4 proceeding, the public would have an opportunity to review Mountain
Valley’s proposed return on equity and other cost of service components at that time and
would have an opportunity to raise issues relating to the rate of return, as well as all other
cost components. Accordingly, we find that Mountain Valley’s proposed rates will
“ensure that the consuming public may be protected” until just and reasonable rates can
be determined through the more thorough and time-consuming ratemaking sections of the
NGA. 108
84. For the foregoing reasons we approve Mountain Valley’s proposed 14 percent
ROE as reflective of current Commission policy for a new pipeline entity. However,
Mountain Valley must design its cost-based rates on a capital structure that includes at
least 50 percent debt. Mountain Valley is directed to recalculate its recourse rates in its
compliance filing.
c. Fuel Charge
85. Mountain Valley states that it will implement a retainage factor to track and
recover actual experienced fuel and lost and unaccounted for gas. Mountain Valley states
that the initial posted retainage factor will be 1.36 percent based on the fuel study
submitted as Exhibit Z-3 of its application. The Commission finds the fuel study
107
The Commission has previously concluded that distribution companies are less
risky than a pipeline company. See, e.g., Trailblazer Pipeline Co., 106 FERC ¶ 63,005,
at P 94 (2004) (rejecting inclusion of local distribution companies in a proxy group
because they face less risk than a pipeline company).
108
Id. at 392.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 36 -
acceptable and approves the proposed 1.36 percent retainage factor as Mountain Valley’s
initial retainage rate.
86. As previously mentioned, Mountain Valley will enter into negotiated rate
agreements with the project shippers on its system. Such agreements include provisions
regarding fuel retention. The Commission prohibits a pipeline from shifting costs
associated with negotiated rate shippers to recourse rate shippers. 109 Consistent with this
policy, the Commission has held that when a pipeline negotiates fuel retainage
percentage factors with a negotiated rate shipper, the pipeline must bear the risk of under-
recovery of its fuel costs and cannot shift unrecovered fuel costs to its recourse rate
shippers. 110 Accordingly, in any fuel proceeding, Mountain Valley will have the burden
of showing that its proposal does not shift any unrecovered fuel costs from negotiated
rate shippers to recourse rate shippers.
87. Consistent with Commission precedent, Mountain Valley is required to file a cost
and revenue study at the end of its first three years of actual operation to justify its
existing cost-based firm and interruptible recourse rates. 111 In its filing, the projected
units of service should be no lower than those upon which Mountain Valley’s approved
initial rates are based. The filing must include a cost and revenue study in the form
specified in section 154.313 of the Commission’s regulations to update cost of service
data. 112 Mountain Valley’s cost and revenue study should be filed through the eTariff
portal using a Type of Filing Code 580. In addition, Mountain Valley is advised to
include as part of the eFiling description, a reference to Docket No. CP16-10-000 and the
cost and revenue study. 113 After reviewing the data, the Commission will determine
whether to exercise its authority under NGA section 5 to investigate whether the rates
remain just and reasonable. In the alternative, in lieu of this filing, Mountain Valley may
make a NGA general section 4 rate filing to propose alternative rates to be effective no
later than three years after the in-service date for its proposed facilities.
109
See Ruby Pipeline, L.L.C., 128 FERC ¶ 61,224, at P 62 (2009).
110
Id.
111
Rover Pipeline LLC, 158 FERC ¶ 61,109, at P 82 (2017); Bison Pipeline LLC,
131 FERC ¶ 61,013, at P 29 (2010); Ruby Pipeline, 128 FERC ¶ 61,224 at P 57.
112
18 C.F.R. § 154.313 (2017).
113
Electronic Tariff Filings, 130 FERC ¶ 61,047, at P 17 (2010).
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 37 -
88. Equitrans proposes to use its existing mainline system rates as the initial recourse
rates for firm transportation service on the Expansion Project. Equitrans calculated an
illustrative monthly incremental reservation charge for the project of $4.2408 per Dth. 114
This illustrative charge is lower than Equitrans’ currently effective reservation charge for
Rate Schedule FTS of $6.1206 per Dth for Winter (November 1 to March 31) and
$7.5189 per Dth for Non-Winter (April 1 to October 31). 115 In addition, Equitrans’
illustrative incremental commodity charge is lower than its currently-effective
commodity charge. 116 Commission policy requires that when an incremental rate is
lower than the system rate, the system rate is used as the initial recourse rate for
providing service on the expansion project. 117 Therefore, we will approve the use of
Equitrans’ existing system rates as the initial recourse rates for services utilizing the new
capacity created by the expansion facilities.
b. Fuel
89. Equitrans states that the expected fuel usage for the new project facilities is
approximately 0.98 percent per Dth, which is less than its Mainline System Retainage
Factor of 2.72 percent. Therefore, it maintains that existing customers will not subsidize
the project. In addition to the lower fuel percentage, Equitrans has a fixed fuel rate set
forth in its Commission-approved tariff. Thus, in the event service under the project
causes Equitrans to use more fuel than it recovered from its project shipper, Equitrans
will bear the risk of any under recovery of fuel as its fuel rates are fixed and it is unable
114
Exhibit N, page 2 of Equitrans’ Application. $30,522,569 (Cost of Service) ÷
219,000,000 (annual billing determinants [600,000 x 365]) = $0.1394 per Dth. $0.1394 x
365 ÷ 12 = $4.2408 per Dth per month.
115
Equitrans, L.P., FERC NGA Gas Tariff, Equitrans Tariff, Section 4.1,
Transportation Rates NOFT, FTS, STS-1 & FTSS, 15.1.0.
116
Equitrans calculates a commodity rate of $0.0071, compared to the mainline
commodity rate of $0.1481 for winter, and $0.1466 for base, based on total first-year
operation and maintenance expense of $1,562,448.
117
See, e.g., Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C., 157 FERC ¶ 61,208, at
P 19 (2016); Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company, 156 FERC ¶ 61,054, at P 21 (2016)
(Eastern Shore).
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 38 -
to pass through any underrecovery of fuel costs. 118 Therefore, existing customers will not
subsidize the fuel recovery of the project.
90. Equitrans requests a predetermination that it may roll the costs associated with the
project into its system-wide rates in a future NGA section 4 rate case. In considering a
request for a predetermination that a pipeline may roll the costs of a project into its
system-wide rates in its next NGA general section 4 rate proceeding, a pipeline must
demonstrate that rolling in the costs associated with the construction and operation of
new facilities will not result in existing customers subsidizing the expansion. 119 In
general, this means that a pipeline must show that the revenues to be generated by an
expansion project will exceed the cost of the project. For purposes of making such a
determination, we compare the cost of the project to the revenues generated utilizing
actual contract volumes and the maximum recourse rate (or the actual negotiated rate if
the negotiated rate is lower than the recourse rate). 120
91. Here, EQT Energy has elected to pay a negotiated rate that is less than the system
rate. We find that the projected revenues from actual contract volumes are greater than
the expected cost of service. Equitrans’ Exhibit N estimates a total cost of service of
$30,533,569 for the first year of service, $29,447,151 for the second year, and
$28,200,111 for the third year, and revenues of $45,397,640 for each year. 121 The
revenues are derived from multiplying the contract quantity by Equitrans’ maximum rate
for the appropriate season. Therefore, we will grant a predetermination of rolled-in rate
treatment for the costs associated with the project in its next NGA general section 4 rate
proceeding, barring a significant change in circumstances.
3. Negotiated Rates
92. Mountain Valley and Equitrans propose to provide service to their project shippers
under negotiated rate agreements. Mountain Valley and Equitrans must file their
negotiated rate agreements or tariff records setting forth the essential elements of the
agreements in accordance with the Commission’s Alternative Rate Policy Statement and
the Commission’s negotiated rate policy. Consistent with Commission policy, Mountain
Valley and Equitrans must either file the negotiated rate agreements or a tariff record
118
See, e.g., Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC, 139 FERC ¶ 61,082 (2012).
119
See Certificate Policy Statement, 88 FERC at 61,746.
120
See Eastern Shore, 156 FERC ¶ 61,219 at P 24.
121
Exhibit N of Equitrans’ Application.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 39 -
setting forth the essential terms of these agreements at least 30 days, but not more than 60
days, before the proposed effective date for such rates.
93. Mountain Valley and Equitrans entered into precedent agreements that contained
certain contractual rights not available to other customers, which they state may be
viewed as material deviations, but are necessary incentives to secure the level of
contractual commitments to develop the projects. Mountain Valley and Equitrans request
that the Commission approve these non-conforming contract provisions.
1. Mountain Valley
94. Mountain Valley states that the service agreements will grant the project shippers
certain contractual rights not available to other customers, which could be viewed as
material deviations, but were necessary to obtain the capacity commitments to advance
the project and are provided in recognition of the shippers’ financial commitments to the
project. Mountain Valley states that all prospective customers were given the
opportunity to become an initial shipper through the open season process and requests
that the Commission approve its service provisions as permissible deviations.
95. In its April 28, 2016 data response, Mountain Valley provided unexecuted firm
transportation agreements and identified the following three non-conforming provisions:
• Most Favored Nations (MFN) clause. The agreement with EQT Energy includes
an MFN clause.
• Contractual Right of First Refusal (ROFR). 122 The agreements with EGT Energy,
USG, WGL Midstream, and Roanoke Gas provide the customer with a ROFR at
122
See Mountain Valley’s April 28, 2016 Response to Data Request.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 40 -
the expiration of the Primary Term, for a renewal term of no less than five years,
in accordance with Mountain Valley’s tariff.
• Meter Rights. The agreement with EQT Energy provides the customer with in-
path meter capacity of at least 1.5 times the Contract MDQ. 123
98. We find that the above described non-conforming provisions constitute material
deviations from Mountain Valley’s pro forma service agreement for Rate Schedule FTS.
However, with the exception of the contractual ROFR provision, these non-conforming
provisions are permissible because they do not present a risk of undue discrimination, do
not adversely affect the operational conditions of providing service to other shippers, and
do not result in any shipper receiving a different quality of service.
123
Mountain Valley’s January 6, 2017 Response to Data Request.
124
See Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 97 FERC ¶ 61,221, at 62,002 (2001)
(Columbia Gas).
125
Monroe Gas Storage Co., LLC, 130 FERC ¶ 61,113, at P 28 (2010).
126
Columbia Gas, 97 FERC at 62,003-04.
127
Midcontinent Express Pipeline LLC, 124 FERC ¶ 61,089, at P 82 (2008);
Rockies Express Pipeline LLC, 116 FERC ¶ 61,272, at P 78 (2006).
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 41 -
99. With regard to the contractual ROFR provision, the provision states that the
shipper may apply for a renewal term of “no less than five years.” In contrast, Mountain
Valley’s tariff has no term requirement for executing a ROFR. While the negotiation of
a contractual ROFR with a shipper is permissible, Commission policy states that it is not
permissible for a negotiated contractual ROFR to “supersede” the provisions of the
pipeline’s ROFR as stated in its tariff.128 A contractual ROFR is equivalent to the tariff
ROFR and is subject to the ROFR process set forth in the tariff.129 For this reason, we
find Mountain Valley’s contractual ROFR provision an impermissible non-conforming
provision that violates the Commission’s policy. Therefore, any revised contractual
ROFR provision that Mountain Valley files in compliance with this order must in all
respects conform to the ROFR open season provisions in revised General Terms and
Conditions (GT&C) section 6.21.
2. Equitrans
101. Equitrans states that EQT Energy, its anchor shipper, has been granted certain
contractual rights as an anchor shipper not available to other customers. Equitrans states
it offered these incentives to obtain the capacity commitments required to advance the
project and to recognize the shipper’s financial commitments to the project. Equitrans
requests that the Commission approve the following non-conforming service provisions
as permissible pursuant to these standards:
128
Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas Transmission LLC, 119 FERC ¶ 61,225, at P 8
(2007).
129
Id.
130
Our determination of non-conforming provisions in this certificate proceeding
does not waive our right to review such provisions in the future, when the executed
copies of the non-conforming agreements and a tariff record identifying the agreements
as non-conforming are filed with the Commission, consistent with section 154.112 of the
Commission’s regulations. See Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., L.L.C., 150 FERC ¶ 61,160,
at P 44, n.33 (2015).
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 42 -
103. Following the Commission’s policy in Columbia Gas, 132 as discussed above, 133 we
find that the above described non-conforming provisions constitute material deviations
from Equitrans’ pro forma service agreement for Rate Schedule FTS. However, we find
that, with the exception of the contractual ROFR provision, these non-conforming
provisions are permissible because they do not present a risk of undue discrimination, do
not adversely affect the operational conditions of providing service to other shippers, and
do not result in any shipper receiving a different quality of service. 134
104. Equitrans’ contractual ROFR provision states that it will apply for a renewal term
of “no less than five years.” Equitrans’ tariff, however, has no term requirement for
executing a ROFR. As discussed above, while a contractual ROFR is permissible,
Commission policy states it is not permissible for a negotiated contractual ROFR to
“supersede” the provisions of the pipeline’s ROFR as stated in its tariff. A contractual
ROFR must be equivalent to the tariff ROFR and is subject to the ROFR process set forth
in the tariff. 135 For this reason, Equitrans’ contractual ROFR provision is an
impermissible non-conforming provision.
131
Equitrans identified this provision in its initial application.
132
Columbia Gas, 97 FERC at 62,002.
133
See supra P 97.
134
See, e.g., Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. L.L.C., 156 FERC ¶ 61,156 (2016).
135
Wyoming Interstate Co. L.L.C., 145 FERC ¶ 61,289, at P 6 (2013).
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 43 -
106. As part of its application, Mountain Valley has included a pro forma FERC gas
tariff. We approve the pro forma tariff subject to the revisions discussed below.
Mountain Valley is directed to file tariff records 30 to 60 days prior to its in-service date
that incorporate the Commission directed revisions
107. Section 6.8(1)(f) of the GT&C of Mountain Valley’s pro forma tariff states: “To
the extent that the desired delivery point is an electricity generation facility, Customer
must also separately provide the hourly quantity profile for each day’s nomination.” 137 In
its November 2, 2016 data response, Mountain Valley explained that obtaining hourly
quantity profiles for gas-fired electric generation facilities will assist it in planning system
flows throughout the day. However, if the hourly quantity is not provided, Mountain
Valley states that it will assume that gas will flow at a uniform hourly rate consistent with
Daily Rates of Flow detailed in Rate Schedules FTS of its tariff.
108. While the Commission acknowledges the need for pipelines and generators to
cooperate and share information, we are concerned about the tariff’s requirement that a
customer nominating a delivery point to serve an electric generation facility “must”
provide the hourly quantity profile. A marketer might not have direct access to hourly
quantity profile information when making a nomination to the delivery point and could
thus potentially be unduly discriminated against by Mountain Valley. Therefore,
136
Our determination of non-conforming provisions in this certificate proceeding
does not waive our right to review such provisions in the future, when the executed copy
of the non-conforming agreement and a tariff record identifying the agreement as non-
conforming are filed with the Commission, consistent with section 154.112 of the
Commission’s regulations. See, e.g., Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., L.L.C., 150 FERC
¶ 61,160 at P 44, n.33.
137
Section 6.8(1)(f) of Exhibit P, Part II, of Mountain Valley’s Application
(emphasis added).
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 44 -
Mountain Valley is directed to revise its tariff such that the required information is
provided on a “best efforts” or “maximum extent practicable” basis.
109. Section 6.9(3) of the GT&C states that Mountain Valley may request information
from a customer in order to implement any curtailment of services. The information
requested may include the customer’s monthly requirement by priority service categories,
including information for individual industrial customers served by Mountain Valley’s
customer. In its November 2, 2016 data response, Mountain Valley states that it does not
anticipate utilizing the customer’s monthly requirements by priority service category in a
curtailment situation and proposes to eliminate this requirement in its compliance filing.
Mountain Valley is directed to revise its tariff accordingly.
110. Section 6.12(9)(a)(i) of the GT&C sets forth the procedure for calculating the
Monthly Index Price for monthly imbalance cashouts. In its November 2, 2016 data
response, Mountain Valley notes that it will use the “Columbia Gas, Appalachia” price as
published in Gas Daily for deliveries to Columbia’s WB System and the “Transco, Zone
5 Delivered” price as published in Gas Daily for deliveries to Roanoke Gas and Transco
Compressor Station 165.
112. GT&C section 6.21 provides a regulatory right of first refusal (ROFR) to shippers
whose contracts meet the requirements provided in section 284.221(d)(2) of the
Commission’s regulations, and a contractual ROFR to shippers whose contracts do not
138
Policy Statement on Natural Gas and Electric Price Indices, 104 FERC
¶ 61,121, at P 41 (2003), Order on Clarification of Policy Statement on Natural Gas and
Electric Price Indices, 105 FERC ¶ 61,282, Order Further Clarifying Policy Statement
on Natural Gas and Electric Price Indices, 112 FERC ¶ 61,040 (2005) (Price Index
Policy Statement).
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 45 -
otherwise qualify for the regulatory ROFR. We will require Mountain Valley to revise
the following aspects of GT&C section 6.21 to be consistent with Commission policy and
precedent.
113. GT&C section 6.21(2)(b) states that a “Customer shall be permitted to designate a
quantity of gas less than its existing [Maximum Daily Quantity (MDQ)] which Customer
wishes to retain under the Right of First Refusal.” While this language is permissible, we
note that Commission policy entitles the ROFR shipper to decide how much capacity it
wishes to retain, 139 and that the decision to retain only a volumetric portion of its capacity
does not have to be made until after the pipeline presents the ROFR shipper with the best
bid for the purpose of matching. 140 Although GT&C section 6.21(2)(b) provides that a
customer may elect to retain only a portion of its capacity at the start of ROFR process, it
does not provide the customer that option after the bids have been received. Therefore,
Mountain Valley is directed to clarify GT&C section 6.21 to provide that a shipper is not
required to elect how much capacity it will seek to retain through the ROFR process until
after receiving notification from Mountain Valley as to the best offer(s) for its expiring
capacity, and may then notify Mountain Valley of its intent to match the best offer(s) for
all or a volumetric portion of its capacity.
139
See Dominion Transmission, Inc., 111 FERC ¶ 61,135, at PP 18-22 (2005).
140
See Sierrita Gas Pipeline, LLC, 147 FERC ¶ 61,192, at P 78 (2014);
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., 101 FERC ¶ 61,267, at P 26 (2002).
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 46 -
115. The phrase “the offer having the greatest economic value” in GT&C section
6.21(2)(e) does not clearly describe the methodology to be used. The tariff should clearly
state the methodology that the pipeline will use to determine the best third-party bids in a
ROFR open season. 142 Mountain Valley is directed to revise this language in its
compliance filing to articulate how it intends to evaluate bids in a ROFR open season.
116. Section 6.22(3)(f) of the GT&C states that a releasing customer may “release
capacity on a firm or interruptible basis.” In its November 2, 2016 data response,
Mountain Valley proposes to eliminate the “or interruptible” reference from its tariff.
Mountain Valley is directed to make the proposed revision in its tariff compliance filing.
117. Section 6.27 of the GT&C permits Mountain Valley to charge a negotiated rate for
service under any Rate Schedule and addresses certain aspects of its negotiated rate
transactions, including the types of rates that may be negotiated, how negotiated rate
capacity is treated for purposes of capacity release, and the right to seek discount-type
adjustments for negotiated rate transactions in future general rate proceedings.
141
Section 6.21(2)(e) of Exhibit P, Part II, of Mountain Valley’s Application
(emphasis added).
142
See, e.g., Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, FERC NGA Gas
Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume No. 1, Section 48, Right of First Refusal Procedures, 0.0.0.
Commission policy also requires that the same methodology should be used to determine
the best bid and whether the ROFR shipper has matched the bid. See Transcontinental
Gas Pipe Line Corp., 105 FERC ¶ 61,365, at P 19 (2003).
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 47 -
118. We find that section 6.27 lacks key provisions required by the Alternative Rate
Policy Statement 143 and the Commission’s negotiated rate policy. 144 Commission policy
requires pipelines to file with the Commission all negotiated rate service agreements or a
tariff record stating the name of the shipper, the rate schedule, the receipt and delivery
points, the contract quantity, and, where applicable, the exact formula underlying a
negotiated rate. 145 Pipelines with negotiated rate authority are also required to maintain
separate records for all revenues associated with negotiated rate agreements and maintain
and provide separately identified and totaled volume, billing determinant, rate or
surcharge component, and revenue accounting information for their negotiated rate
arrangements in any general or limited rate change filing that it makes. 146 Therefore,
Mountain Valley is directed to revise section 6.27 to be consistent with the Commission’s
negotiated rate policy and include these provisions in its tariff.
119. Mountain Valley is proposing to recover its actual fuel gas, and lost and
unaccounted for gas in-kind from shippers pursuant to section 6.28 of its GT&C.
Section 6.28(2) describes how Mountain Valley proposes to determine its retainage
factor. This section simply states that “[Mountain Valley] shall adjust the Retainage
Factor on a quarterly basis to more accurately reflect actual experienced fuel and lost and
unaccounted for gas” and, further, “[Mountain Valley] may file to adjust the Retainage
Factor to reflect a material change in the actual experienced fuel and unaccounted for
gas.” Section 6.28(3) describes how Mountain Valley proposes to reconcile its actual
fuel and lost and unaccounted for volumes versus the volumes actually retained. To
143
Alternatives to Traditional Cost-of-Service Ratemaking for Natural Gas
Pipelines; Regulation of Negotiated Transportation Services of Natural Gas Pipelines,
74 FERC ¶ 61,076, order granting clarification, 74 FERC ¶ 61,194, order on reh’g and
clarification, 75 FERC ¶ 61,024, reh’g denied, 75 FERC ¶ 61,066, reh’g dismissed,
75 FERC ¶ 61,291 (1996), petition denied sub nom. Burlington Res. Oil & Gas Co. v.
FERC, 172 F.3d 918 (D.C. Cir. 1998).
144
Natural Gas Pipelines Negotiated Rate Policies and Practices; Modification of
Negotiated Rate Policy, 104 FERC ¶ 61,134 (2003), order on reh’g and clarification,
114 FERC ¶ 61,042, dismissing reh’g and denying clarification, 114 FERC ¶ 61,304
(2006).
145
Natural Gas Pipelines Negotiated Rate Policies and Practices; Modification of
Negotiated Rate Policy, 104 FERC ¶ 61,134 at PP 31-34.
146
Id.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 48 -
120. Mountain Valley’s proposed retainage mechanism fails to comply with the notice
and filing requirements of, respectively, sections 154.207 147 and 154.403 148 of the
Commission’s regulations. Pipelines are not permitted to impose fuel charges on
shippers without making a tariff filing and providing notice and the opportunity to
participate in the proceedings. 149 As proposed, Mountain Valley’s fuel retainage
mechanism would allow Mountain Valley to revise its retainage factor without any
review or comment by its shippers and without prior Commission approval. Therefore,
when Mountain Valley files actual tariff records in accordance with the ordering
paragraphs herein, it is required to revise GT&C section 6.28 to conform to the notice
and filing requirements of sections 154.207 and 154.403 of the Commission’s
regulations.
121. GT&C section 6.31 states that Mountain Valley has adopted Version 3.0 of the
Business Practices and Electronic Communications Standards adopted by NAESB
Wholesale Gas Quadrant (WGQ), which are required by section 284.12(a) of the
Commission’s regulations. 150 Mountain Valley’s pro forma tariff generally complies
with Version 3.0, but Mountain Valley is directed to make the following ten revisions:
147
18 C.F.R. § 154.207 (2017).
148
Id. § 154.403.
149
See MarkWest Pioneer, L.L.C., 125 FERC ¶ 61,165 at P 31.
150
18 C.F.R. § 284.12(a) (2017).
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 49 -
f. Add an asterisk [*] to standards 0.4.2, 1.3.8, 1.3.9, 1.4.1, 1.4.2, 1.4.3, 1.4.4,
1.4.5, 1.4.6, 1.4.7, 2.4.1, 2.4.3, 2.4.4, 2.4.5, 3.4.1, 5.3.56, 5.4.16, 5.4.20,
5.4.21, 5.4.22, 5.4.24, and 5.4.26;
g. List standards 0.4.1 and 0.4.4 in the section titled “Standards Incorporated
by Reference;”
h. Either list standards 1.3.81, 4.3.104, and 4.3.105 in the section titled
“Standards Incorporated by Reference” or include the text of the standards;
i. Revise the text of the section titled “Timely Nomination Cycle” in GT&C
section 6.8, Scheduling of Services, to provide that scheduled quantities
should be effective at the start of the next Gas Day; and
F. Environmental Analysis
1. Pre-filing Review
122. On October 31, 2014, Commission staff granted Mountain Valley’s request to use
the pre-filing process in Docket No. PF15-3-000. As part of the pre-filing review, on
April 17, 2015, the Commission issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental
Impact Statement for the Planned Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Request for
Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping Meetings (Mountain
Valley NOI). The Mountain Valley NOI was published in the Federal Register on April
28, 2015, 151 and mailed to 2,846 entities, including federal, state, and local government
representatives and agencies; elected officials; regional environmental groups and non-
governmental organizations; Indian Tribes and Native Americans; affected property
owners; other interested entities; and local libraries and newspapers. The Mountain
Valley NOI briefly described the project and the Commission’s environmental review
process, provided a preliminary list of issues identified by Commission staff, invited
151
80 Fed. Reg. 23,535 (2015).
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 50 -
written comments on the environmental issues that should be addressed in the draft EIS,
listed the date and location of six public scoping meetings 152 to be held in the project
area, and established June 16, 2015, as the deadline for comments.
123. A total of 169 people presented oral comments at the pre-filing public scoping
meetings. Transcripts of the scoping meeting were placed into the Commission’s public
record for this proceeding. In addition, during the official scoping period, between April
17 and June 16, 2015, we received well over 1,000 written or electronically filed
comment letters. 153
124. On April 9, 2015, Commission staff granted Equitrans’ request to use the pre-
filing process in Docket No. PF15-22-000. On August 11, 2015, the Commission issued
a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Planned
Equitrans Expansion Project, and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues
(Equitrans NOI). The Equitrans NOI stated that because the Equitrans Expansion Project
would interconnect to the MVP Project, it was the intent of the Commission staff to
conduct an environmental analysis of both projects combined in a single comprehensive
EIS. The Equitrans NOI was sent to 575 entities, and published in the Federal Register
on August 17, 2015. 154 The comment period closed on September 14, 2015. During that
scoping period, we received a total of five comment letters. Because of the low response
to the Equitrans NOI, Commission staff did not hold separate public scoping meetings in
the Equitrans Expansion Project area.
2. Application Review
125. The pre-filing review period ended when Mountain Valley filed its project
application on October 23, 2015 and Equitrans filed its project application on October 27,
2015.
152
Commission staff held the public scoping meetings between May 4 and 13,
2015, in Pine Grove, Weston, Summersville, and Lindside, West Virginia, and Ellison
and Chatham, Virginia.
153
Table 1.4-1 of the draft and final EIS provides a list of environmental issues
raised during scoping.
154
80 Fed. Reg. 49,217 (2015).
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 51 -
126. To satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA), 155 Commission staff evaluated the potential environmental impacts associated
with the construction and operation of the MVP and Equitrans Expansion Projects in an
EIS. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (Forest Service); U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Army Corps); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS); U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT); West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection (WVDEP), and West Virginia Department of Natural
Resources (WVDNR) participated as cooperating agencies.
127. Commission staff issued the draft EIS for the projects on September 16, 2016,
addressing the issues raised during the scoping period and up to the point of publication.
Notice of the draft EIS was published in the Federal Register on September 27, 2016, 156
setting a 90-day comment period ending on December 22, 2016. The draft EIS was
mailed to the environmental mailing list for the projects, including additional interested
entities that were added since issuance of the NOIs. Commission staff held seven public
comment sessions between November 2 and 9, 2016, in the areas of the projects 157 to take
comments on the draft EIS. Over 260 speakers provided oral comments at these sessions.
Transcripts of the draft EIS comment sessions were placed into the public record for the
proceedings. 158 Between the issuance of the draft EIS on September 16 and the end of
the comment period on December 22, 2016, we received 1,237 written or electronically
filed letters. 159
128. In October 2016, after the issuance of the draft EIS, Mountain Valley filed a
number of minor route modifications to address recommendations in the draft EIS, avoid
sensitive environmental areas, accommodate landowner requests, or for engineering
155
42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq. (2012). See also 18 C.F.R. pt. 380 (2017)
(Commission’s regulations implementing NEPA).
156
81 Fed. Reg. 66,268 (2016).
157
Commission staff held public comment sessions in Weston, Summersville, and
Peterstown, West Virginia, Roanoke, Rocky Mount, and Chatham, Virginia, and Coal
Center, Pennsylvania.
158
Copies of the transcripts were filed in the Commission’s eLibrary system on
November 3, 2016 (accession number 20161103-4005) and November 16, 2016
(accession number 20161116-4001).
159
Table 1.4-2 of the final EIS lists the range of issues raised in comments on the
draft EIS.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 52 -
design reasons. On January 17, 2017, Commission staff mailed letters to 45 newly-
affected landowners, requesting comments on the route modifications during a
supplemental comment period that ended February 21, 2017. In response, three
landowners filed letters in the Commission’s public record.
129. Commission staff issued the final EIS on June 23, 2017, notice of which was
published in the Federal Register on June 29, 2017. 160 The final EIS addressed timely
comments received on the draft EIS. 161 The final EIS was mailed to the same entities as
the draft EIS, as well as to newly-identified landowners and any additional entities that
commented on the draft EIS. 162 The final EIS addresses geological hazards such as
landslides, earthquakes, and karst terrain; water resources including wells, streams, and
wetlands; forested habitat; wildlife and threatened, endangered, and other special status
species; land use, recreational areas, and visual resources; socioeconomic issues such as
property values, environmental justice, tourism, and housing; cultural resources; air
quality and noise impacts; safety; cumulative impacts; and alternatives.
130. The final EIS concludes that construction and operation of the MVP and Equitrans
Expansion Projects may result in some adverse environmental impacts on specific
resources. The final EIS concludes that impacts on most environmental resources would
be temporary or short-term. However, in the case of the clearing of forest, the final EIS
concludes that impacts will be long-term and significant. For the other resources,
impacts will be reduced to less-than-significant levels with the implementation of
mitigation measures proposed by the applicants and other mitigation measures
recommended by Commission staff and included as environmental conditions in this
order.
131. Between the issuance of the final EIS on June 23, 2017 and September 11, 2017,
the Commission received numerous written individual letters or electronic filings
commenting on the final EIS or about the projects. These comments letters raise
concerns regarding impacts on drinking water sources, surface water, karst, steep slopes,
cultural resources, threatened and endangered species, forests, erosion, invasive species,
visual resources, and health and safety.
160
82 Fed. Reg. 29,539 (2017).
161
Appendix AA of the final EIS includes copies of letters about the draft EIS
received through the close of the comment period on December 22, 2016, along with
Commission staff responses.
162
The distribution list is provided in Appendix A of the final EIS.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 53 -
132. Several commenters, including Allegheny Defense Project and James Workman,
argue that the draft EIS was insufficient and the Commission should revise it or issue a
supplemental draft EIS. They assert that the draft EIS lacks a discussion of project need
under section 7(c) of the NGA and inappropriately postpones submittal of certain
information to the end of the draft EIS comment period or before commencement of
construction. Commenters argue that they should have an opportunity to comment on
this new information.
133. A purpose of a draft EIS is to elicit suggestions for change. 163 The Council of
Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulation that the commenters reply upon calls for a
supplemental draft EIS if the agency “makes substantial changes in the proposed action
that are relevant to environmental concerns” or “there are significant new circumstances
or information relevant to environmental concerns.” 164 The Supreme Court, in Marsh v.
Oregon Natural Resources Council, stated that under the “rule of reason,” “an agency
need not supplement an [EIS] every time new information comes to light after the EIS is
finalized.” 165 Further, NEPA only requires agencies to employ proper procedures to
ensure that environmental consequences are fully evaluated, not that a complete plan be
presented at the outset of environmental review. 166 In National Committee for New River
v. FERC, 167 the court held that “if every aspect of the project were to be finalized before
any part of the project could move forward, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to
construct the project.” 168
163
See City of Grapevine v. DOT, 17 F.3d 1502, 1507 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (“[t]he
very purpose of a [draft EIS] is to elicit suggestions for change.”).
164
40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c)(1) (2017).
165
Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360, 373 (1989).
166
See Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 352 (1989).
167
National Committee for New River v. FERC, 373 F.3d 1323 (D.C. Cir. 2004)
(New River).
168
New River, 373 F.3d at 1329 (citing East Tennessee Natural Gas Co., 102
FERC ¶ 61,225, at 61,659 (2003)).
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 54 -
134. As shown in the final EIS, the additional information submitted by the applicants
between the issuance of the draft EIS and of the final EIS did not cause the Commission
to make “substantial changes in the proposed action,” nor did it present “significant new
circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns.” The final EIS
analyzed the relevant environmental information and recommended environmental
conditions. We adopt most of the recommended environmental conditions in this order.
Applicants must satisfy the environmental conditions contained in Appendix C of this
order before they may proceed with their projects.
136. Nan Gray states that the final EIS was deficient because it lacked analyses of
avoidance areas, no-build zones, 171 alternatives, cumulative effects, cultural, visual,
aquatic, geological, soil, and biological resources. This is not accurate. The final EIS
provides an analysis of alternatives (in section 3), geological resources (section 4.1), soils
(section 4.2), biological resources (sections 4.5 and 4.7), aquatic resources (section 4.6),
visual resources (section 4.8), cultural resources (section 4.10), and cumulative impacts
(section 4.13).
b. Programmatic EIS
137. Nan Gray and other commenters request that the Commission prepare a
programmatic EIS. CEQ regulations do not require broad or “programmatic” NEPA
reviews. CEQ’s guidance provides that such a review may be appropriate where an
agency is: (1) adopting official policy; (2) adopting a formal plan; (3) adopting an
agency program; or (4) proceeding with multiple projects that are temporally and
169
40 C.F.R. § 1502.13 (2017); see also National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation,
158 FERC ¶ 61,145 at P 95 (citing City of Grapevine, Tex. v. U.S. DOT., 17 F.3d at
1506).
170
See section IV.A.1.b. of this order (discussing project need).
171
Nan Gray and others argue that karst terrain should be considered a “no-build”
zone although no law provides such a prohibition. Section 4.1 of the final EIS and
section IV.F.3.c. of this order discuss project impacts on karst terrain and mitigation
measures.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 55 -
spatially connected. 172 The Supreme Court has held that a NEPA review covering an
entire region (that is, a programmatic review) is required only if there has been a report or
recommendation on a proposal for major federal action with respect to the region. 173
Moreover, there is no requirement for a programmatic EIS where the agency cannot
identify projects that may be sited within a region because individual permit applications
will be filed later. 174
138. We have explained that there is no Commission plan, policy, or program for the
development of natural gas infrastructure. 175 Rather, the Commission acts on individual
applications filed by entities proposing to construct interstate natural gas pipelines.
Under NGA section 7, the Commission is obligated to authorize a project if it finds that
the construction and operation of the proposed facilities “is or will be required by the
present or future public convenience and necessity.” 176 What is required by NEPA, and
what the Commission provides, is a thorough examination of the potential impacts of
specific projects. As to projects that have a clear physical, functional, and temporal
nexus such that they are connected or cumulative actions, 177 the Commission will prepare
172
Memorandum from CEQ to Heads of Federal Departments and Agencies,
Effective Use of Programmatic NEPA Reviews 13-15 (Dec. 24, 2014) (citing 40 C.F.R.
§ 1508.18(b)), https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/
effective_use_of_programmatic_nepa_reviews_18dec2014.pdf. We refer to the
memorandum as the 2014 Programmatic Guidance.
173
Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390 (1976) (Kleppe) (holding that a broad-
based environmental document is not required regarding decisions by federal agencies to
allow future private activity within a region).
174
See Piedmont Environmental Council v. FERC, 558 F.3d 304, 316-17 (4th Cir.
2009) (Piedmont Environmental Council).
175
See, e.g., National Fuel Gas Supply Corp., 158 FERC ¶ 61,145 at PP 82-88;
National Fuel Gas Supply Corp., 154 FERC ¶ 61,180, at P 13 (2016); Texas Eastern
Transmission, LP, 149 FERC ¶ 61,259, at PP 38-47 (2014); Columbia Gas Transmission,
LLC, 149 FERC ¶ 61,255 (2014).
176
15 U.S.C. § 717f(e) (2012).
177
40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(a)(1)-(2) (2017) (defining connected and cumulative
actions).
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 56 -
a multiple-project environmental document. 178 Other than the relationship between the
MVP and Equitrans Expansion Projects, such is not the case here.
139. The Commission is not engaged in regional planning. Rather, the Commission
processes individual pipeline applications in carrying out its statutory responsibilities
under the NGA. That there currently are a number of planned, proposed, or approved
infrastructure projects to increase infrastructure capacity to transport natural gas from the
Marcellus and Utica Shale does not establish that the Commission is engaged in regional
development or planning. 179 Instead, this confirms that pipeline projects to transport
Marcellus and Utica Shale gas are initiated solely by a number of different companies in
private industry. As we have noted previously, a programmatic EIS is not required to
evaluate the regional development of a resource by private industry if the development is
not part of, or responsive to, a federal plan or program in that region. 180
140. The Commission’s siting decisions regarding pending and future natural gas
pipeline facilities respond to proposals by private industry, and the Commission has no
way to accurately predict the scale, timing, and location of projects, much less the kind of
facilities that will be proposed. 181 Any broad, regional environmental analysis would “be
little more than a study . . . containing estimates of potential development and attendant
178
See, e.g., EA for the Monroe to Cornwell Project and the Utica Access Project,
Docket Nos. CP15-7-000 & CP15-87-000 (filed Aug. 19, 2015); Final Multi-Project
Environmental Impact Statement for Hydropower Licenses: Susquehanna River
Hydroelectric Projects, Project Nos. 1888-030, 2355-018, and 405-106 (filed Mar. 11,
2015).
179
See, e.g., Sierra Club v. FERC, 827 F.3d 36, 50 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (Freeport
LNG) (rejecting claim that NEPA requires FERC to undertake a nationwide analysis of
all applications for liquefied natural gas export facilities); cf. Myersville Citizens for a
Rural Cmty., Inc. v. FERC, 783 F.3d 1301, 1326-27 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (Myersville)
(upholding FERC determination that, although a Dominion Transmission Inc.-owned
pipeline project’s excess capacity may be used to move gas to the Cove Point terminal for
export, the projects are “unrelated” for purposes of NEPA).
180
See Kleppe, 427 U.S. at 401-02 (holding that a regional EIS is not required
where there is no overall plan for regional development).
181
Lack of jurisdiction over an action does not necessarily preclude an agency
from considering the potential impacts. As explained in the indirect and cumulative
impact sections of this order, however, it reinforces our finding that because states, and
not the Commission, have jurisdiction over natural gas production and associated
development (including siting and permitting), the location, scale, timing, and potential
impacts from such development are even more speculative.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 57 -
environmental consequences,” 182 and could not present “a credible forward look” that
would be “a useful tool for basic program planning.” 183 In these circumstances, the
Commission’s longstanding practice to conduct an environmental review for each
proposed project, or a number of proposed projects that are interdependent or otherwise
interrelated or connected, “facilitate[s], not impede[s], adequate environmental
assessment.” 184 Thus, the Commission’s environmental review of only the MVP and
Equitrans Expansion Projects together in a single EIS is appropriate under NEPA.
141. In sum, CEQ states that a programmatic EIS can “add value and efficiency to the
decision-making process when they inform the scope of decisions,” “facilitate decisions
on agency actions that precede site- or project-specific decisions and actions,” or
“provide information and analyses that can be incorporated by reference in future NEPA
reviews.” 185 The Commission does not believe these benefits can be realized by a
programmatic review of natural gas infrastructure projects because the projects subject to
our jurisdiction do not share sufficient elements in common to narrow future alternatives
or expedite the current detailed assessment of each particular project. Thus we find a
programmatic EIS is neither required nor useful under the circumstances here.
c. Geological Resources
142. Several commenters, including Giles and Roanoke Counties, Virginia (Counties),
expressed concern that the projects could contribute to unstable slopes and cause
landslides or other slope and soil failures.
143. About 32 percent of the MVP Project and 45 percent of the approximately eight-
mile long Equitrans Expansion Project will cross topography with steep (greater than a
15 percent grade) slopes. 186 About 67 percent of the MVP Project and all of the
Equitrans Expansion Project will cross areas susceptible to landslides.
182
Kleppe, 427 U.S. at 402.
183
Piedmont Environmental Council, 558 F.3d at 316.
184
Id.
185
2014 Programmatic Guidance at 13.
186
Final EIS at ES-4.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 58 -
144. The final EIS acknowledges and addresses the projects’ landslide potential. 187
Mountain Valley and Equitrans have committed to use specialized construction
techniques on steep slopes, including cut-and-fill and two-tone grading, to minimize
adverse effects. 188 Mountain Valley will use thicker Class 2 pipe to mitigate hazards to
the pipeline from triggered slope displacement, and will employ geotechnical experts to
inspect construction in areas of potential subsidence or landslide concern.
145. To prevent landslides, both Mountain Valley and Equitrans developed Landslide
Mitigation Plans, which was revised in March 2017. However, because the Mountain
Valley’s Landslide Mitigation Plan does not adopt some industry best management
practices to reduce the potential for landslides in steep slope areas, we require, as
Environmental Condition No. 19, that Mountain Valley revise its Landslide Mitigation
Plan to outline construction measures to be used when crossing steep slopes at angles
perpendicular to contours and to include a more robust monitoring program. Moreover,
to bolster pipeline integrity and safety in landslide hazard areas, we further require that
Mountain Valley revise its Landslide Mitigation Plan to expand its post-construction
monitoring program to cover all potential landslide areas project-wide. The Commission
finds that these additional measures would effectively mitigate potential impacts from the
projects’ constructions in areas of high susceptibility to landslides.
146. The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (Virginia Department of
Game) expresses concern that slope failures will cause instream sedimentation. The final
EIS discusses the potential for landslides and measures to ensure slope stability and
prevent instream sedimentation, including the measures outlined in Mountain Valley’s
Landslide Mitigation Plan, to which, as discussed above, we are requiring enhancements.
Mountain Valley also agreed to follow the measures outlined in the Commission’s
Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan (Commission’s Plan) and
its Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures, which include
erosion controls to prevent sedimentation into waterbodies. The final EIS concludes that
these plans cannot fully prevent sedimentation, but would provide adequate protections
by reducing sedimentation into streams and reducing the potential for slope failures.
147. Several commenters note the MVP Project is routed through an area with a history
of seismic activity and assert that constructing a gas pipeline in such an area poses a
danger to the community.
187
Final EIS at 4-52 to 4-58.
188
Final EIS at 4-55.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 59 -
148. The MVP Project will be in close proximity to the active Giles County Seismic
Zone. 189 An earthquake in this zone would only be expected to cause generally light
damage. In areas where seismic hazards exist, Mountain Valley will install pipeline with
Class 2 or Class 3 thickness, under DOT’s pipeline safety regulations in 49 C.F.R. Part
192, to withstand a seismic event and mitigate for potential soil liquefaction.
Additionally, Mountain Valley has committed to a post-construction monitoring program
utilizing sequentially-acquired the Light Imaging Detection and Ranging (LiDAR)
imagery to detect slope movement in the area where the pipeline traverses through the
seismic zone. Due to the use of thicker pipe and a post-construction monitoring program,
we find that Mountain Valley will sufficiently manage the safety issues from seismic
activity in the MVP Project area.
149. The Equitrans Expansion Project will not cross any Quaternary faults. 190 It is in
an area identified to have a low probability of a significant seismic event. Soil
liquefaction is a phenomenon often associated with seismic activity in which saturated,
non-cohesive soils temporarily lose their strength and liquefy (i.e., behave like viscous
liquid) when subjected to forces such as intense and prolonged ground shaking. Due to
the low potential for significant ground shaking, we agree with the final EIS’s conclusion
that soil liquefaction in the area of the Equitrans Expansion Project is unlikely.
150. Commenters expressed concerns regarding subsidence and sinkholes affecting the
construction and integrity of the pipeline in areas of karst terrain and potential impacts on
karst-related groundwater.
151. Karst features, such as sinkholes and caves, form as a result of the long-term
action of groundwater on subsurface soluble carbonate rocks (e.g., limestone and
dolostone). The Equitrans Expansion Project will not be located at any areas known to
contain karst features. Conversely, the MVP Project will cross about 67 miles of karst
terrain. The MVP Project will cross minor karst development from about MPs 172 to
174 and significant karst development from about MPs 191 to 239. As stated in the final
EIS, Mountain Valley’s Karst Hazard Assessment identified 99 karst features in
189
The Giles County Seismic Zone is located in the western part of the Valley and
Ridge province, south of the Appalachian bend near Roanoke, Virginia. It is considered
seismically active, experienced 12 earthquakes that span 4 orders of magnitude and over
2 decades, from 1959 through 1980. See Final EIS at 4-23 to 4-24.
190
A Quaternary fault is a fault that has experienced displacement in the last
2.6 million years and is predicted to most likely demonstrate displacement again. See
Final EIS at 4-24.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 60 -
Summers and Monroe Counties, West Virginia, and Giles, Craig, and Montgomery
Counties, Virginia. 191 Karst features could present a hazard to the MVP Project due to
cave or sinkhole collapse.
152. To mitigate potential impacts, Mountain Valley adopted the Mount Tabor
Variation into its proposed route, as recommended in the draft EIS, to reduce project
impacts on karst features within the Mount Tabor Sinkhole Plain in Montgomery County,
Virginia. Section 3.5.1 of the final EIS concludes that Variation 250 would reduce the
environmental impacts on the Slussers Chapel Conservation Site (e.g., the variation is
shorter and has less impact on perennial waterbodies, forest, and karst features) compared
to the proposed pipeline route. It also avoids waterbodies that are of concern to the
VADCR. We agree with this conclusion. 192 Thus, Environmental Condition No. 16 of
this order requires Mountain Valley to adopt Variation 250, which modifies the Mount
Tabor Variation, between MPs 221.0 and 222.2, to further reduce impacts on karst terrain
and the Slussers Chapel Conservation Site, which is located within the Mount Tabor
Sinkhole Plain.
153. Mountain Valley also developed a Karst Mitigation Plan and a Karst-specific
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Environmental Condition No. 20 of this order
requires Mountain Valley to revise its Karst Mitigation Plan to include post-construction
monitoring using LiDAR data to further ensure safe operation of the pipeline over its
lifetime. We agree with the final EIS’s conclusions that, with implementation Mountain
Valley’s mitigation measures and the conditions included in the Appendix C, impacts on
karst resources would be adequately minimized.
191
Final EIS 4-37.
192
The Blue Ridge Land Conservancy states that Variation 250 would result in
impacts on the Slusser Chapel Conservation Site.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 61 -
route would affect about 2.5 miles less of National Forest System lands, 1.1 miles less of
side slope, about 25 fewer acres of interior forest, and one mile less of shallow bedrock.
In balancing the factors evaluated, the final EIS did not find an overall significant
environmental advantage for the VADCR alternative when compared to the proposed
route. However, as noted above, we are requiring that Mountain Valley adopt Variation
250 into its proposed route to reduce impacts on the Slussers Chapel Conservation Site.
155. The VADCR requests that Mountain Valley conduct additional dye-tracing studies
to determine the underground connectivity and relationships between karst features and
sinkholes in the vicinity of the MVP Project. As stated in section 4.1.2.5 of the final EIS,
Mountain Valley’s Karst Mitigation Plan outlines inspection criteria for known karst
features identified during construction in proximity to the right-of-way. If a karst feature
is identified, Mountain Valley will conduct a weekly inspection and document soil
subsidence, rock collapse, sediment filling, swallets, springs, seeps, caves, voids, and
morphology. If any changes are identified during the weekly inspection, Mountain
Valley will then conduct more in-depth additional inspections. Any required in-depth
additional inspections will include visual assessment, geophysical survey, track drill
probes, infiltration, or dye tracing. If a feature is found to have a direct connection to a
subterranean environment or groundwater flow system, Mountain Valley will work with
the karst specialist and appropriate state agencies to develop mitigation measures for the
karst feature.
156. Section 4.1.1.5 of the final EIS states that surface water will typically flow
overland down slope to recharge features, such as swallets (underground streams).
Groundwater will flow vertically through the unsaturated zone along interconnected
fractures, and conduits, and along preferential paths downslope until reaching the
saturated (phreatic) zone where groundwater will flow from areas of high hydraulic head
(recharge locations) to areas of low hydraulic head (discharge locations). Mountain
Valley’s analysis included evaluating recharge features (swallets, sinkholes, and sinking
streams), resurgence features (spring and seeps), topography, bedrock structure (strike
and dip) as well as the results of the fracture trace-lineament analysis, and the results of
previous dye-trace studies. Using these data, groundwater flow paths can be extrapolated
and additional dye testing at these locations would not significantly change the
understanding of groundwater flow. Performing a dye-trace analysis of every sinkhole or
sink point along the pipeline alignment is not feasible or necessary.
d. Mining Operations
158. After issuance of the final EIS, Coronado Coal and Mountain Valley, through
multiple filings, disputed whether the project would cross active mines leased by
Coronado Coal in Greenbrier and Nicholas Counties, West Virginia (Pocahontas Nos. 6
and 7). Coronado Coal owns and manages Greenbrier Minerals LLC, which owns
Matoaka Land Company, LLC (Matoaka). Matoaka leased the mineral rights to the two
coal reserves from Coronado, and then leased its mineral rights to MWV Community
Development and Land Management, LLC. Highland Mineral Resources LLC and its
affiliate Plum Creek Timberlands L.P. lease the surface rights to the land where the coal
reserves are located from Weyerhaeuser, the land owner. 193 Coronado Coal contends that
the project would cause subsidence and other impacts on its existing and future mining
operations, resulting in a depreciation of its mineral rights and an increase of its coal-
mining operating costs. Coronado Coal requests that the order be conditioned on
requiring Mountain Valley to compensate it for loss of coal value and increased costs,
which was initially recommended in the draft EIS but was subsequently removed in the
final EIS.
159. Coronado Coal and Mountain Valley debate the degree of activity that would
constitute as “active” mining. Coronado Coal states that it has developed plans for
completing permitting and mining within the schedule set forth in its mineral lease, drove
entry-ways and constructed shafts for workers to access and supply the mines, and
obtained a permit from West Virginia to install a station to access Pocahontas No. 7
seam, which it completed. 194 In response, Mountain Valley argues that Coronado Coal is
not actively mining Pocahontas Nos. 6 or 7 because it does not have a current permit or a
pending application to mine those seams. 195 Mountain Valley contends that Coronado
Coal’s current permits are for mines located over a mile away from the project. 196
160. For the purposes of whether the project would depreciate the value of Coronado
Coal’s mineral rights, the specific level of activity that would constitute “active” mining
is irrelevant. The heart of this issue is the value of Coronado Coal’s mineral rights,
193
See Coronado Coal’s August 4, 2016 Comment at 2-5.
194
See Coronado Coal’s August 23, 2017 Answer at n.25.
195
See Mountain Valley’s August 11, 2017 Answer at 10.
196
Id.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 63 -
which is not a matter for the Commission to adjudicate. 197 Section 7 of the NGA only
authorizes the Commission to grant certificates of public convenience and necessity and
does not empower us to determine the value of various property interests or to award
related damages. 198 Instead appropriate compensation is a matter of negotiation between
the property owner and the pipeline and, if an agreement cannot be made, courts are the
appropriate venue. 199 Thus, if negotiation fails, Coronado Coal must seek relief from
courts in connection to its claim that the MVP Project would result in a loss in value of its
coal mines.
161. As for Coronado Coal’s concern about the project’s potentially disruptive effect
on its current and future mining operations, in previous situations where pipeline
facilities are proposed to be constructed through active and proposed coal mining areas
with known areas of present or potential ground instability resulting from mining
operations, the Commission has required a pipeline applicant to establish a site-specific
plan addressing specific mining subsidence problems. 200 In other instances, where no
active or proposed mining activities are occurring near proposed pipeline construction
activities, we have refrained from speculating on the details of vague and uncertain
potential coal mining activities, their ambiguous effects, and attempts to mitigate such
effects through a construction and operation subsidence plan. 201 We have noted that
197
15 U.S.C. § 717f(h) (2012). American Energy Corp. v. Rockies Express
Pipeline LLC, 622 F.3d 602, 606 (6th Cir. 2010) (American Energy Corp.) (holding that
the Commission lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate damages to property, including
conversion, caused by a certificated gas project).
198
American Energy Corp., 622 F.3d at 606; see 15 U.S.C. § 717f (2012).
199
See 15 U.S.C. § 717f(h) (2012).
200
See Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, 131 FERC ¶ 61,164, at PP 18-21 (2010)
(Texas Eastern) (affirming that pipeline must comply with all applicable safety
requirements and resolve any subsidence mitigation issues within the purview of the
relevant state agency that might come into play at such time as active mining is
authorized to proceed under any of its facilities). See also Rockies Express Pipeline LLC,
123 FERC ¶ 61,234, reh’g denied, 125 FERC ¶ 61,160 (2008), reh’g granted and denied,
128 FERC ¶ 61,045 (2009) (requiring the pipeline applicant to develop, and file with the
Commission prior to construction, a construction and operation plan for a portion of the
project to ensure the integrity of the pipeline and to ensure that the project does not
compromise existing or future mining activities).
201
See, e.g., Texas Eastern, 131 FERC ¶ 61,164 at P 19.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 64 -
pipeline applicants must comply with all applicable safety requirements when they
conduct active mining operations in the future. 202
162. Here, the facts align most closely with Texas Eastern. As in Texas Eastern, the
mining company has not actively mined in the project area and has not yet proposed a
plan to mine. In the absence of specific information about the details of how potential
mining activities would go forward, what they would involve, and how they would likely
be affected by the construction of the project, the pipeline mitigation plans that Coronado
Coal would have us require would be based only on speculation. Where coal mining in
the vicinity of a proposed pipeline is a reasonably foreseeable future action, 203 the
Commission has considered the impacts that mining activities might have on a proposed
pipeline as part of our environmental review of the project. 204 Should Coronado Coal at
some point in the future engage in long-wall mining beneath the facilities Mountain
Valley will construct, Mountain Valley would remain under an obligation to comply with
all relevant DOT Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
safety requirements for existing pipelines. 205
163. We expect Mountain Valley to consult with companies planning to extract coal
beneath the approved right-of-way and to follow procedures to maintain its facilities’
integrity when mining operations undercut a pipeline. As discussed in the final EIS, 206
the MVP Project is subject to the oversight of PHMSA, and thus must adhere to any
measures that PHMSA requires to mitigate risks when mining operations occur in
proximity to pipelines, and is also subject to certain state requirements related to the
project’s construction and operation.
164. Thus, we reject Coronado Coal’s request to condition construction of the MVP
Project on mitigation of potential impacts from speculative future coal mining operations.
202
Id. at P 22.
203
See 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7 (2017) (NEPA regulations describing cumulative
impacts).
204
See e.g. Final EIS at 4-48 (noting that if subsidence becomes an issue Mountain
Valley would supplement its Mining Area Construction Plan through consultation with
the WVDEP and mine operators with regards to potential hazards).
205
See also Final EIS at 4-48 to 4-49 (addressing future longwall mining).
206
Id. at 1-23 and 4-558.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 65 -
e. Water Resources
i. Groundwater
165. Commenters argue that the projects would harm groundwater supplies, especially
in karst terrain areas.
166. The project areas are primarily comprised of bedrock aquifers with minor surficial
aquifers along streams. The pipeline trench will rarely exceed 10 feet in depth, but could
encounter shallow groundwater. In those situations, the trench will be dewatered through
filters into adjacent vegetated uplands so that there will be some recharge to shallow
aquifers.
167. As stated in the final EIS, the MVP Project will cross two groundwater wellhead
protection areas 207 located in the Nettie-Leivasy Public Service District in Nicholas
County, West Virginia. In addition, the MVP Project will cross surface water protection
areas, including 6 Zones of Critical Concern and 14 Zones of Peripheral Concern 208 in
West Virginia. The MVP Project will cross the Red Sulphur Public Service District’s
Zone of Critical Concern and Zone of Peripheral Concern at MP 195.4 in Monroe
County, West Virginia. No groundwater source protection areas were identified in the
vicinity of the Equitrans Expansion Project.
168. The MVP Project will be within 0.1 mile of two public water supplies: one well in
Greenbrier County, West Virginia (the Greenbrier County Public Supply District #2), and
the other in Pittsylvania County, Virginia (the Robin Court Subdivision). The MVP
Project will also be within 0.3 mile of Rich Creek Spring, located near MP 195.2, which
is used as a water supply by the Red Sulphur Public Service District. No public water
supply resources were identified within one mile of the Equitrans Expansion Project.
207
The 1986 Amendment of the Safe Drinking Water Act required states to
develop wellhead protection programs to protect public supply wells from contamination.
See 42 U.S.C. § 300h-7 (2012).
208
Zones of Critical Concern and Zones of Peripheral Concern are generally
established buffers mapped around all sources that contribute directly to a public water
supply intake.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 66 -
172. Because field surveys for both projects have not been completed due to lack of
approved access, Mountain Valley and Equitrans have been unable to identify all private
wells and springs used for domestic water supplies within 150 feet of the pipelines (500
feet in karst terrain). Therefore, Environmental Condition No. 12 of this order requires
the applicants to file an updated list of the locations of water wells, springs, and other
drinking water sources within 150 feet (500 feet in karst terrain) of construction work
areas and aboveground facilities, prior to construction. In areas where a public or private
water supply well or spring is identified within 150 feet of the projects (500 feet in karst
terrain), the applicants will flag the wellhead or spring as a precaution and notify the
owner or operator of the water resource. The applicants will conduct pre-construction
water quality evaluations on water wells. Further, Environmental Condition Nos. 21 and
35 of this order require Mountain Valley and Equitrans to conduct post-construction
testing of domestic water supplies evaluated during the pre-construction process. In
situations where project-related construction damages the quantity or quality of domestic
water supplies, the applicants will compensate the landowner for damages, repair or
replace the water systems to near pre-construction conditions, and provide temporary
sources of water.
173. On July 31, 2017, Indian Creek Watershed Association filed a report prepared by
Thomas Bouldin regarding sedimentation in streams crossed by the MVP Project. Mr.
Bouldin states that estimates of sedimentation into waterbodies contained in the final EIS
are flawed because they do not account for runoff from construction workspaces. In
addition, Mr. Bouldin claims that final EIS ignores points made in the Hydrologic
Analysis of Sedimentation report prepared by Mountain Valley for the Forest Service.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 67 -
174. We disagree. Section 4.3 of the final EIS discusses runoff caused by
construction 209 and includes a summary of the findings of Mountain Valley’s Hydrologic
Analysis of Sedimentation report. Further, the final EIS states that Mountain Valley will
work with the Forest Service and appropriate agencies to develop a stream monitoring
plan that it will implement during operation of the MVP Project.
175. Section 4.3.2 of the final EIS provides a discussion of two peer-reviewed scientific
studies, including one prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey, regarding sedimentation
into waterbodies crossed from dry-ditch methods. The final EIS states that the dry-ditch
methods would result in minor, short-term, and localized increases in sedimentation in
waterbodies crossed by the MVP Project. 210 Those minor increases in sedimentation at
pipeline stream crossings should not significantly affect aquatic resources within the
waterbodies.
176. As outlined in the final EIS (section 2.4.1.1), Mountain Valley agreed to adopt the
Commission’s Plan without modifications and the Wetland and Waterbody Construction
and Mitigation Procedures with modifications. The Commission’s Plan and Procedures
provide baseline mitigation measures, including erosion control devices, that would limit
sedimentation and runoff from all work areas. Based on Commission staff’s experience
with pipeline construction, and Mountain Valley’s commitment to cross waterbodies via
dry-ditch methods, adherence to the measures in the Commission’s Plan and Procedures,
Mountain Valley’s proposal to conduct a stream monitoring plan, and use of the
Commission’s third-party construction compliance program, we determine that impacts
on waterbodies due to sedimentation will be effectively minimized.
177. We conclude that impacts on groundwater will be adequately minimized with the
implementation of the applicants’ best management practices as appropriate and the
implementation of the environmental conditions in Appendix C.
209
See, e.g., Final EIS at 4-137 (“The use of heavy equipment for construction
could cause compaction of near-surface soils, an effect that could result in increased
runoff into surface waters in the immediate vicinity of the proposed construction right-of-
way. Increased surface runoff could transport sediment into surface waters, resulting in
increased turbidity levels and increased sedimentation rates in the receiving waterbody.
Disturbances to stream channels and stream banks could also increase the likelihood of
scour after construction.”).
210
Final EIS at 4-217.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 68 -
178. Some commenters, including the Appalachian Mountain Advocates, question the
adequacy of the final EIS’s discussion on the MVP Project’s impacts on surface waters.
179. The MVP Project will cross 389 perennial surface waterbodies, 5 of which are
defined as major waterbodies (i.e., more than 100-feet-wide). Mountain Valley will cross
all waterbodies using dry open-cut (flumed, dam-and-pump, or cofferdam) methods,
except for the Pigg River. The MVP Project crosses the Pigg River, a state-designated
Scenic River that contains habitat for the federally-endangered Roanoke logperch
(freshwater fish), in Pittsylvania County, Virginia. To minimize potential impacts on the
Pigg River and the Roanoke logperch, Environmental Condition No. 23 of this order
requires Mountain Valley to use a horizontal directional drill (HDD) to cross under the
Pigg River.
180. The Equitrans Expansion Project will cross 15 perennial surface waterbodies. Of
these, the Monongahela River is a major river more than 100-feet-wide. Equitrans will
cross all waterbodies using either dry open-cut or HDD crossing methods. Nine
waterbody crossings will be completed by HDD: the Monongahela River, South Fork
Tenmile Creek, and seven crossings of unnamed tributaries of the South Fork Tenmile
Creek. Because Equitrans has not completed environmental surveys for the New Cline
Variation, which is incorporated in Equitrans’ proposal, we will require, Environmental
Condition No. 36, that Equitrans file the results of all the environmental surveys for the
New Cline Variation prior to construction.
181. The MVP Project will cross four waterbodies (i.e., Left Fork Holly River, Elk
River, Greenbrier River, and Craig Creek) listed on the National Park Service’s (NPS)
National Rivers Inventory as rivers with outstanding qualities that may qualify for wild,
scenic, or recreational designation. The MVP Project will also cross Greenbrier River, a
waterbody protected under the Natural Streams Preservation Act of West Virginia, and
two waterbodies (i.e., Blackwater River and the Pigg River) on the Virginia Scenic
Rivers List.
182. The MVP Project will cross 23 perennial waterbodies in West Virginia and 10
perennial waterbodies in Virginia that contain freshwater mussels. The Virginia
Department of Game defines windows in which construction should not occur in streams
that contain freshwater mussels characterized as long-term brooders, such as the yellow
lampmussel and green floater. The restricted windows are April 15 through June 15 and
August 15 through September 30. Further, construction will be restricted in streams that
contain freshwater mussels characterized as short-term brooders, such as the James
spinymussel and Atlantic pigtoe, from May 15 through July 31. Mountain Valley has
agreed to adhere to these in-water work windows.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 69 -
183. Mountain Valley estimates that about 58,422,382 gallons of water may be needed
for the hydrostatic testing of its pipeline, with about 46,644,831 gallons coming from
municipal sources, and about 11,777,551 gallons from surface water sources (i.e.,
Meadow River and the Greenbrier River). For pipeline segments that will be tested using
surface water sources, the withdrawal and discharge of the hydrostatic test water will
occur within the same watersheds. About 55,000 gallons per day of water from
unidentified surface or groundwater sources may be required for dust control for each
spread along the MVP Project. Environmental Condition No. 22 requires Mountain
Valley to reveal the sources and quantities of water to be utilized for dust control prior to
construction.
184. Commenters, such as the Counties, expressed concerns regarding potential effects
on surface waterbodies during construction and operation of the projects due to
sedimentation or spills or leaks of hazardous materials.
185. The final EIS concludes that dry open-cut waterbody crossings result in temporary
(less than 4 days) and localized (for a distance of only a few hundred feet of the crossing)
increases in turbidity downstream of construction, but the magnitude of this increase is
minimal compared to increased turbidity associated with natural runoff events. Once
construction is complete, Mountain Valley will stabilize and restore streambeds and
banks consistent with its Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation
Procedures. In addition, Mountain Valley and Equitrans will follow their Wetland and
Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures, which stipulates the use of clean
gravel or native cobbles for the upper one foot of trench backfill in all waterbodies that
are classified as coldwater fisheries. Mountain Valley and Equitrans will minimize
impacts on riparian vegetation at the edge of waterbodies by narrowing the width of the
standard construction rights-of-way at waterbody crossings to 75 feet, and by locating
most temporary workspaces at least 50 feet away from stream banks. Outside of the 10-
foot-wide corridor over the pipeline maintained clear of trees, Mountain Valley will hand
plant shrubs and trees within the temporary workspaces at specific waterbody crossings,
up to 100 feet from the stream bank. The applicants will minimize impacts on surface
waterbodies by implementation of the construction practices outlined in their project-
specific Erosion and Sediment Control Plans, the Commission’s Plan (for the MVP
Project), Equitrans’ project-specific Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and
Maintenance Plan (Equitrans Plan), and Equitrans’ project-specific Wetland and
Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures (Equitrans’ Procedures). As stated
in the final EIS, Commission staff reviewed these plans and procedures and determined
that they will provide acceptable protection of surface waterbodies. 211
186. To avoid or minimize the potential impacts of fuel or oil or other hazardous
materials spilled from construction equipment, Mountain Valley will follow the
211
Final EIS at 4-149.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 70 -
procedures outlined in its SPCC Plan and Equitrans will implement its SPCC Plan and/or
its Preparedness, Prevention, and Contingency and Emergency Action Plan depending
on the project location. These plans include both preventative and mitigation measures
such as personnel training, equipment inspection, refueling procedures, and spill cleanup
and containment.
187. In addition to the measures we require here, the Army Corps, the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), WVDEP, and Virginia Department
of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) have the opportunity to impose conditions to protect
water quality pursuant to sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act. The applicants
must obtain all necessary federal and state permits and authorizations, including the water
quality certifications, prior to receiving Commission authorization to commence
construction. We expect strict compliance by the applicants with any federal and state-
mandated conditions.
iii. Wetlands
188. The final EIS states that construction of the MVP and Equitrans Expansion
Projects will impact a total of 32.1 acres of wetlands, including 24.9 acres of emergent
wetlands, 2.5 acres of scrub-shrub wetlands, and 4.6 acres of forested wetlands. 212
Because all wetlands will be restored after pipeline installation, there will be no net loss
of wetlands. However, in some cases there will be conversions of wetland types and
functions.
189. Within the 10-foot-wide corridor centered on the pipeline that will be mowed on a
regular basis to comply with DOT’s pipeline safety regulations, there will be a permanent
conversion of forested and shrub wetlands to herbaceous wetlands. Impacts on emergent
and scrub-shrub wetlands within temporary workspaces will be short-term. After
construction, those areas are expected to be restored, and emergent and scrub-shrub
wetlands return within a few years to their original condition and function. Forested
wetlands within temporary workspaces will be subject to long-term impacts. While trees
could regenerate in those areas, it will take decades for them to mature and return the
forested wetlands to their original condition and function.
212
Final EIS 4-153.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 71 -
401 permits. 213 With implementation of the acceptable avoidance and minimization
measures, as well as the environmental conditions in this order, we agree with the final
EIS’s conclusion that impacts on wetland resources will be appropriately mitigated and
reduced to less than significant levels.
191. The MVP Project will cross about 235 miles of forest, 2.7 miles of shrublands, and
7.5 miles of grasslands. The Equitrans Expansion Project will cross about 4 miles of
forest and less than 0.1 mile of grasslands. Construction of the MVP Project will affect
a total of about 4,453 acres of forest, while operation of the project will affect about
1,597 acres of forest. Construction of the Equitrans Expansion Project will affect a total
of about 62 acres of forest and operation of the Equitrans Expansion Project will impact a
total of about 22 acres of forest.
192. The 50-foot-wide operational pipeline easement in uplands will be kept clear of
trees, resulting in the permanent conversion of forest to grasslands/shrub land use. The
remainder of the temporary construction workspace along the pipeline routes in forested
uplands will be allowed to regenerate, although it would take many years for trees to
mature. This long-term impact will affect about 3,164 acres of forest, but the forest is
expected to eventually recover. 214 About 174 acres of forest will be permanently
converted to industrial land use at the MVP Project’s aboveground facilities and
permanent access roads. Construction of the Equitrans Expansion Project’s aboveground
facilities will clear a total of about 5 acres of forest, and operation will permanently
remove 4 acres.
193. The removal of interior forest to create the necessary pipeline rights-of-way will
result in the conversion of forest area to a different vegetation type. This will contribute
to forest fragmentation and the creation of forest edges. The pipeline right-of-way
through forest will remove habitat for interior forest wildlife species. The MVP Project
will pass through 24 state-listed core forest areas in West Virginia, which will result in
temporary impacts from construction on about 2,428 acres of large core forest areas
(greater than 500 acres) and permanent impacts from operations on about 872 acres of
213
For unavoidable wetland impacts, the applicants commit to purchase wetland
and stream credits from approved mitigation banks in the respective states. In-lieu fee
state programs may also be considered. Proof of compensatory mitigation credit
purchase will be provided by the applicants to the Army Corps prior to construction.
214
This would include the temporary workspace along the pipeline right-of-way
outside of the 50-foot-wide permanent easement, additional temporary workspaces,
yards, and temporary access roads.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 72 -
large core forest areas. In Virginia, the MVP Project will pass through 17 state-listed
ecological core areas categorized as Outstanding, Very High, or High. Construction of
the MVP Project in Virginia will result in temporary impacts on about 547 acres of
ecological core areas categorized as Outstanding to High and permanent impacts on about
209 acres of ecological core areas categorized as Outstanding to High. Construction and
operation of the Equitrans Expansion Project’s H-318 pipeline in Pennsylvania will affect
one tract of interior forest of about 50 acres.
194. The MVP Project will cross five EPA Level III ecoregions: 215 the Western
Allegheny Plateau, Central Appalachians, Ridge and Valley, Blue Ridge Mountains, and
the Piedmont. All components for the Equitrans Expansion Project will be within the
Western Allegheny Plateau ecoregion. Combined, these ecoregions make up a total
area of more than 164 million acres, of which more than 100 million acres is forested.
However, in considering the total acres of forest affected, the quality and use of forest
for wildlife habitat, and the time required for full restoration in temporary workspaces,
the final EIS concludes that the MVP Project will have significant impacts on forested
land. 216
195. To minimize forest fragmentation and edge effects, Mountain Valley has
collocated about 30 percent of the pipeline route with existing linear corridors. Mountain
Valley will revegetate the right-of-way and workspaces with seeds for species
recommended by the Wildlife Habitat Council. Mountain Valley will reduce impacts
on vegetation with the implementation of the Commission’s Plan and Mountain Valley’s
project-specific Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Mountain Valley also developed an
Exotic and Invasive Species Control Plan to minimize impacts from invasive species.
Equitrans will reduce impacts on vegetation by implementing the measures of its Plan
and approved seeding mixes, rates, and dates obtained from the Pennsylvania Erosion
and Sediment Control Manuals, and invasive species control measures outlined in
Equitrans’ invasive species control strategies. Commission staff’s review of the
applicants’ proposed seed mixes revealed a limited number of non-native plant species
and recommended, in the final EIS, the development of revised erosion control plans.
Environmental Condition No. 13 of this order requires the applicants to revise their
erosion control plans to contain seed mixes for only native species.
196. The Roanoke Appalachian Trail Club argues that the final EIS underestimates the
impacts caused by the clearing of forest because of forest fragmentation. The final EIS
215
Ecoregions are areas where ecosystems are generally similar. They are
classified into four levels. See EPA, Ecoregions, https://www.epa.gov/eco-
research/ecoregions.
216
Final EIS at 4-191.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 73 -
197. The Virginia Department of Game expresses concerns about invasive species
management. Section 4.4 of the final EIS appropriately discusses Mountain Valley’s
Exotic and Invasive Species Control Plan and determines that the plan is adequate to
manage invasive species along the restored right-of-way. 217
198. Preserve Roanoke expresses concern regarding the use of herbicides along the
pipeline route. As stated in the final EIS, Mountain Valley would not use herbicides
anywhere on the right-of-way, except where requested by landowners. 218 We agree that
Preserve Roanoke’s concern is adequately addressed.
199. The Virginia Department of Game comments on the loss of forested habitat,
including core/interior forest habitat. The VADCR also expresses concerns about forest
fragmentation. The final EIS addresses forest habitat impacts and impact avoidance,
minimization, and mitigation in sections 4.4 and 4.5. It concludes that impacts on forest
resources would be significant, but have been minimized to the extent practicable. For
example, the final EIS states that impacts on forest will be reduced by collocating the
MVP Project adjacent to existing rights-of-way for about 30 percent of the project route.
Mountain Valley will also reseed construction areas with native vegetation during
restoration. 219
200. Dr. Carl Zipper contends that the final EIS does not adequately address
mitigation of adverse effects on forest, and requests a Supplemental EIS. Other
people filed comments supporting Dr. Zipper’s statements. Dr. Zipper offers his own
recommendations for forest mitigation in comments filed on the draft EIS. The final
EIS addresses Dr. Zipper’s proposed forest mitigation measures in Appendix AA of
the final EIS. 220
201. Further, the final EIS discloses the extent and level of impacts on forest, and
outlines measures Mountain Valley proposes to reduce or mitigate those impacts.
Dr. Zipper does not offer new information or a change of circumstance since the final
EIS was issued. Therefore, a Supplemental EIS is not necessary.
217
Final EIS at 4-189 to 4-191.
218
Final EIS at 4-187.
219
Final EIS at 4-183.
220
See response to comment IND244 in Appendix AA of the final EIS.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 74 -
202. The final EIS clarifies that during restoration, Mountain Valley will seed
temporary workspaces with species recommended by the Wildlife Habitat Council.
In forested areas, Mountain Valley will use a woody seed mix composed of native
overstory, understory, and shrub oak-hickory forest species. Environmental Condition
No. 13 of this order requires that Mountain Valley only use native species in its seed
mixes. Mountain Valley will also plant native shrubs and saplings (outside of the
30-foot-corriodor over the pipeline) within forested wetlands and at the crossings of
waterbodies known to contain special status species.
204. Dr. Zipper also criticizes Commission staff’s approval of Mountain Valley’s
Exotic and Invasive Species Control Plan and recommends handcutting of invasive
species. However, as stated in the final EIS, Mountain Valley will adhere to the
measures outlined in the Commission’s Plan, which provides that “[r]evegetation in non-
agricultural areas shall be considered successful if upon visual survey the density and
cover of non-nuisance vegetation are similar in density and cover to adjacent undisturbed
lands.” Based on our staff’s experience monitoring revegetation efforts where the spread
of invasive species was successfully limited, we conclude that Mountain Valley’s Exotic
and Invasive Species Control Plan would limit the spread of invasive species during
revegetation.
205. A variety of wildlife species occupy the ecoregions and habitats crossed by the
MVP and Equitrans Expansion Projects. Construction of both projects may result in
limited mortality for less mobile animals, such as small rodents, reptiles, amphibians, and
invertebrates, that are unable to escape equipment. More mobile animals will likely be
displaced to adjacent similar habitats during construction. Once the right-of-way is
revegetated, it will be reoccupied by displaced wildlife.
206. Additionally, constructing the projects could disrupt bird courting, breeding, or
nesting behaviors. Migratory birds, including Birds of Conservation Concern, are
associated with the habitats that will be affected by both projects. Two Important Bird
Areas will be crossed: 1) Bird Conservation Region 28 (Appalachian Mountains for both
projects) and 2) Bird Conservation Region 29 (Piedmont for the MVP Project). Both
Mountain Valley and Equitrans developed Migratory Bird Habitat Conservation Plans to
221
Final EIS at 4-180.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 75 -
minimize impacts on bird species. In addition, Equitrans has agreed to conduct tree
clearing outside of the migratory bird nesting season (generally between April 15 and
August). Mountain Valley will potentially conduct tree clearing in select areas during
the migratory bird nesting season (during April, May, and August). Environmental
Condition No. 27 of this order requires Mountain Valley to finalize its Migratory Bird
Habitat Conservation Plan and address the comments of resource agencies. As a result,
we agree with the final EIS’s conclusion that the projects would not result in population-
level impacts on migratory bird species.
207. The VADCR points out that Appendix N-15 (Recommended Seed Mixtures and
Fertilizer/Mulch for Revegetation Mountain Valley Project – Virginia) in the final EIS
lists different seed mixes than those listed in Mountain Valley’s Migratory Bird
Conservation Plan (Appendix D - Restoration and Rehabilitation Plan). We
acknowledge that the two seed mix lists are different. Environmental Condition No. 27
of this order requires Mountain Valley to revise its Migratory Bird Conservation Plan in
order to ensure that the seed mix in the plan matches the seed mix in the final EIS.
208. The Blue Ridge Land Conservancy expresses concerns about scenic views of
Brush Mountain, the MVP Project’s proximity to the Brush Mountain Wilderness,
alternations of wildlife patterns resulting from the MVP Project, and the potential for the
introduction of invasive species. Sections 4.4, 4.5, and 4.8 of the final EIS discuss these
topics and conclude that the implementation of the measures outlined in the final EIS
would minimize adverse effects. 222
209. In conclusion, the final EIS finds, and we agree, that construction and operation of
both projects would not significantly affect wildlife.
210. The final EIS identifies 23 federally-listed threatened or endangered species (or
federal candidate species or federal species of concern) that will be potentially present in
the vicinity of the projects. 223 The final EIS concludes that the MVP Project will have no
effect on two species; is not likely to adversely affect eight species; will have no adverse
222
See also responses to Comments CO-7 and CO-31 in Appendix AA of the
final EIS.
223
One species, the bog turtle, is not subject to section 7 consultation under the
Endangered Species Act.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 76 -
impacts anticipated for two species of concern; 224 is not likely to contribute to a trend
toward federal listing for three species; and is likely to adversely affect seven species
(Indiana bat, northern long-eared bat, Roanoke logperch, running buffalo clover, shale
barren rock cress, small whorled pogonia, and Virginia spiraea). The likely-to-adversely-
affect determination for four of the seven species – the running buffalo clover, shale
barren rock cress, small whorled pogonia, and Virginia spiraea – is based on Commission
staff’s conservative assumption that these species are present in portions of the MVP
Project corridor that Mountain Valley was not granted land access to survey. On July 10,
2017, Commission staff issued a Biological Assessment (BA), which was submitted to
West Virginia and Virginia Field Offices of the FWS, that included a detailed assessment
regarding the effects of the MVP Project on federally-listed species.
211. The final EIS concludes that the Equitrans Expansion Project is not likely to
adversely affect the two endangered bats assumed to be present in the vicinity of the
project. The conclusion was based in part upon Equitrans implementing avoidance and
minimization measures outlined in the FWS-approved Myotid Bat Conservation Plan.
212. In response to our BA, the FWS stated, in a letter to the Commission dated August
4, 2017, that based on new information provided by Mountain Valley, it determined that
the MVP Project is not likely to adversely affect shale barren rock cress and running
buffalo clover. Commission staff agrees with the findings of the FWS for these two
species.
213. However, because consultation with the FWS is not yet complete, Environmental
Condition No. 28 of this order prohibits construction of the MVP Project until
Commission staff completes the process of complying with the Endangered Species Act.
214. The projects could also affect 20 additional species that are state-listed as
threatened, endangered, or were noted by the applicable state agencies as being of special
concern. Based on implementation of the applicants’ proposed mitigation and the
environmental conditions in the appendix of the order, we agree with the final EIS’s
conclusion that impacts on special-status species will be adequately avoided or
minimized. 225
224
“Species of concern” is an informal term used by FWS to refer to species that
have been identified as important to monitor, but do not have endangered, threatened or
candidate status and thus receive no legal protection.
225
Final EIS at 4-250.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 77 -
i. Land Use
215. Construction of the MVP Project would impact forest land (76.6 percent),
agricultural land (14.6 percent), and open land, commercial, open water, and residential
(approximately 8.7 percent). Construction of the Equitrans Expansion Project would
primarily impact the following land use types: agricultural (46.3 percent), forest
(37.6 percent), and open land (12.5 percent). Both projects combined would affect about
1,023 acres of agricultural lands. Impacts on agricultural lands will be short-term, lasting
during the period of construction and restoration and a few years later.
216. The applicants will compensate farmers for loss of agricultural production during
the construction and restoration period. Following pipeline installation, the right-of-way
will be restored to near pre-construction conditions and use, and agricultural practices
could resume. Except for orchards, crops and pasture can be planted directly over the
entire right-of-way. Mitigation measures typically implemented in agricultural lands (as
specified in the Commission’s Plan) include topsoil segregation, rock removal, soil
decompaction, and repair/replacement of irrigation and drainage structures damaged by
construction. Mountain Valley developed an Organic Farm Protection Plan that outlined
measures that it will implement when crossing organic farms to reduce impacts.
217. Mountain Valley identified 118 residences within 50 feet of its proposed
construction right-of-way. Site-specific residential mitigation plans for all residences
within 50 feet of the construction right-of-way are included as Appendix H of the final
EIS, as required by our regulations. 226 Environmental Condition No. 30 of this order
requires Mountain Valley to file landowner concurrence with the plans for all residences
that will be within 10 feet of the construction work area. In addition, because the final
EIS identified an additional residence within 20 feet from MP 216.6 since the issuance of
the draft EIS, we also include as part of Environmental Condition No. 30 the requirement
that Mountain Valley file a site-specific residential plan within 50 feet of this newly-
identified residence.
218. The VADCR indicates that the final EIS incorrectly states that incorporation of the
Canoe Cave Variation into the proposed route would avoid the Canoe Cave Conservation
Site in Giles County, Virginia. We acknowledge the error and note that the proposed
pipeline route will only cross the edges of the Canoe Cave Conservation Site. Further, as
table 4.1.1-14 of the final EIS indicates, the pipeline centerline will be about 902 feet
away from Canoe Cave.
226
See 18 C.F.R. § 380.12(j)(10) (2017).
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 78 -
219. The Virginia Outdoors Foundation, which manages land on behalf of Virginia,
states that it initially identified the Wimmer Easement (tract MON-VOF-1871 at MP
234.2 in Montgomery County, Virginia) as land that it manages. 227 Virginia Outdoors
Foundation now clarifies that the MVP Project will not cross the Wimmer Easement.
Therefore, we clarify that the MVP Project will not affect the Wimmer Easement.
220. The final EIS included a recommended condition, which would have required
Mountain Valley provide documentation that WVDNR reviewed a crossing plan for the
Burnsville Lake Wildlife Management Area. In a communication with Mountain Valley
that was forwarded to Commission staff on August 22, 2017, a representative of the
WVDNR who reviewed the final EIS clarified that the MVP Project will not cross any
portion of the Burnsville Lake Wildlife Management Area that is owned or managed by
the state of West Virginia. Instead, the only lands within the boundaries of the Burnsville
Lake Wildlife Management Area that will be crossed by the pipeline are owned and
managed by the Army Corps (i.e., Weston and Gauley Bridge Turnpike Trail). The BLM
will cover Army Corps-owned lands in its future right-of-way grant to Mountain Valley.
Therefore, we do not adopt recommended Environmental Condition No. 30 from section
5.2 of the final EIS.
ii. Recreation
221. Federally owned or managed recreational and special use areas that will be crossed
by the MVP Project include the Weston and Gauley Bridge Turnpike Trail, the Blue
Ridge Parkway, and the Jefferson National Forest. The Weston and Gauley Bridge
Turnpike Trail is owned by the Army Corps, and will be crossed with a bore to avoid all
surface impacts on the trail. The Blue Ridge Parkway is managed by the NPS, and will
also be crossed with a bore. The MVP Project will cross the Appalachian National
Scenic Trail and the Brush Mountain Inventoried Roadless Area, both within the
Jefferson National Forest and managed by the Forest Service. Mountain Valley proposes
to bore under the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, to avoid all surface impacts on the
trail.
227
Citing Final EIS at 4-281.
228
Final EIS at 4-311 to 4-313.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 79 -
223. The MVP Project will pass through the Jefferson National Forest for a total of 3.5
miles in three segments between MPs 196.2 and 197.8, MPs 218.5 and 219.4, and
MPs 219.8 and 220.8 in Monroe County, West Virginia, and Giles and Montgomery
Counties, Virginia. As listed on table 1.3-1 of the final EIS, the MVP Project will affect
about 83 acres in the Jefferson National Forest during construction and 42 acres during
operation. 229 The Jefferson National Forest operates under a Land and Resource
Management Plan (LRMP). 230 The Forest Service analyzed the information provided by
Mountain Valley and is amending its LRMP to allow for the MVP Project to be sited
within the Jefferson National Forest. On June 23, 2017, the Forest Service issued a draft
record of decision for the use and occupancy of the Jefferson National Forest for the
MVP Project. The public objection period on the draft record of decision closed on
September 21, 2017. After resolving the objections, the Forest Service will issue a final
decision on the respective authorization before it. Mountain Valley will implement the
measures outlined in its Plan of Development, pending approval by the Forest Service,
and its Construction, Operation, and Maintenance Plan to minimize the impacts on
National Forest resources.
224. The Equitrans Expansion Project will not cross any federally designated Wild and
Scenic Rivers, National Parks, National Trails, National Landmarks, federal or state
designed Wilderness Areas, national or state forests, wildlife refuges, natural preserves or
game management areas, Indian reservations, or state or county parks or recreation areas.
However, because the Riverview Golf Course will be crossed as a result of the Cline
Variation that Equitrans incorporated into its proposal, we include Environmental
Condition No. 37 requiring Equitrans to file a crossing plan and documentation that the
landowners have reviewed it.
225. Mountain Valley conducted visual impact assessments for the Weston and Gauley
Bridge Turnpike Trail, Blue Ridge Parkway, Appalachian National Scenic Trail, and the
Jefferson National Forest.
226. Based on the visual impact assessments, the final EIS concludes that the MVP
Project will not have significant adverse visual impacts on the Weston and Gauley Bridge
Turnpike Trail, Blue Ridge Parkway, Appalachian National Scenic Trail, or the Jefferson
National Forest.
229
Final EIS at 1-14.
230
The LRMP was prepared pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 1604(e) (2012) and is
available at https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3834582.pdf.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 80 -
227. We agree with the final EIS’s conclusion that, with adherence to the applicants’
proposed impact avoidance, minimization, and mitigation plans, and implementation of
the environmental conditions in the appendix of this order, the overall impacts on land
use will be adequately minimized. 231
i. Socioeconomics
228. Commenters expressed concerns regarding the potential effect of the projects on
property values, mortgages, and homeowners insurance. Several commenters provided
anecdotes about property values and public surveys and opinion polls about perceived
reductions of property values. However, anecdotes, public surveys, or opinion polls do
not constitute substantial evidence that natural gas projects decrease property values.
Accordingly, we conclude here, as we have in other cases, that the proposed project is not
likely to significantly impact property values in the project areas. 232
229. A few landowners claim that prospective property buyers cannot obtain mortgages
when property is encumbered by a pipeline easement. However, the evidence they
provide is an article about natural gas drilling, not natural gas transmission; thus, it does
not support their contention. The final EIS also states that banks regularly issues
mortgages, including loans from the Veterans Administration and Federal Housing
Administration, for properties encumbered with pipeline easements. 233 The final EIS
found no evidence that banks or federal lenders refused to lend to prospective purchasers
of property encumbered with a pipeline easement. 234
230. With regard to concerns expressed by commenters regarding the ability to obtain
homeowner’s insurance, our staff has researched this extensively and has found little
evidence that owners of property encumbered with pipeline easements were unable to
obtain homeowner’s insurance. 235 The final EIS finds that insurance companies do not
231
Final EIS at 4-347.
232
See, e.g., Transco, 158 FERC ¶ 61,125, at P 106 (2017); Central New York Oil
& Gas Co., LLC, 116 FERC ¶ 61,277, at P 44 (2006).
233
Final EIS at 4-367 and 4-392.
234
Final EIS 4-368.
235
Final EIS at 4-367, 4-368, and 4-392. See also Transco, 158 FERC ¶ 61,125 at
PP 107-108.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 81 -
consider the presence of natural gas pipeline when underwriting homeowner’s insurance
policies. 236 Nonetheless, Mountain Valley and Equitrans have agreed to document, track,
investigate, and report to the Commission every quarter for a period of two years
following in-service, complaints from any affected landowners whose insurance policy
was cancelled or materially increased in price as a direct result of the projects. 237 The
applicants have committed to consider any potential mitigation on a case-by-case basis,
and address resolutions in quarterly reports to the Commission. 238
231. Based on the foregoing, we agree with the final EIS’s conclusion that the projects
would not have significant adverse impacts on property values, mortgages, or insurance.
232. Executive Order 12898 requires that specified federal agencies make achieving
environmental justice part of their missions by identifying and addressing, as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse human or environmental health effects of their
programs, policies, and activities on minorities and low income populations. 239
Executive Order 12898 applies to the agencies specified in section 1-102 of that
order. This Commission is not one of the specified agencies, and the provisions
of Executive Order 12898 are not binding on this Commission. Nonetheless, in
accordance with our usual practice, the final EIS addresses this issue and concludes that
the proposed projects will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority or low-income populations. 240
233. In its guidance to implement Executive Order 12,898, CEQ instructs that low-
income populations be identified with annual statistical poverty thresholds from the
236
Final EIS at 4-392.
237
Id. at 4-393.
238
Id.
239
Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations, Executive Order 12,898 (Feb. 11, 1994), reprinted at 59 Fed.
Reg. 7629.
240
See sections 4.9.1.8 and 4.9.2.8 of the final EIS.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 82 -
Bureau of the Census. 241 Minority groups compose of American Indian or Alaska
Native; Asian or Pacific Islander; Black, not of Hispanic origin; or Hispanic. 242 Further,
minority populations are identified where either the minority population of the affected
area exceeds 50 percent or the minority population percentage of the affected area is
meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general population or
other appropriate unit of geographic analysis. 243
234. Relying on census data, the final EIS finds no counties or census blocks in the
project areas that have minority populations exceeding 50 percent or have minority
populations meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the
respective states. 244 The final EIS identifies low-income populations within the MVP and
Equitrans Expansion Project areas. 245 However, the projects would not result in
disproportionate adverse health or environmental impacts on any low-income community
because, as discussed in the final EIS, water and air quality would not be significantly
affected. 246
235. As we have stated in prior cases, the siting of linear facilities between two fixed
end points is generally based on environmental and engineering factors. 247 Along the
way, Mountain Valley selected its pipeline route to take advantage of ridgetop
alignments, avoid sensitive natural resources (where possible), and avoid major
population centers. The pipeline route mostly crosses rural regions with relatively low
population densities. By avoiding metropolitan areas, the MVP Project should reduce
impacts on communities with high percentages of minorities, low-income populations,
241
CEQ, Environmental Justice Guidance Under the National Environmental
Policy Act, at 25 (Dec 1997) (CEQ Environmental Justice Guidance),
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/ 2015-
02/documents/ej_guidance_nepa_ceq1297.pdf. The final EIS relies on the poverty line
established by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: an individual income
of $11,880 and a family of five income of $28,440 in 2016. Final EIS at 4-374.
242
CEQ Environmental Justice Guidance at 25.
243
Id.
244
Final EIS at 4-399.
245
Final EIS at 4-373 to 4-378.
246
Final EIS at 4-400.
247
See, e.g., Florida Southeast Connection, LLC, 154 FERC ¶ 61,080 at P 262.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 83 -
(a) Tourism
237. While construction of the projects will overlap with the peak tourist season,
between May and October, the construction in most of the recreational use areas will take
only a few weeks. Therefore, the final EIS concludes, and we agree, that the MVP
Project would not have significant adverse impacts on specific federally-managed
recreational areas in the region, including the Weston and Gauley Bridge Turnpike Trail,
Blue Ridge Parkway, Appalachian National Scenic Trail, and the Jefferson National
Forest. 248 Likewise, the final EIS also concludes, and we agree, that the Equitrans
Expansion Project would not have a significant adverse impact on housing, tourism, or
recreation in the project area. 249
(b) Transportation
238. Commenters were also concerned about the MVP Project’s impacts on local roads.
The Virginia Department of Transportation submitted comments on the MVP Project on
July 19, 2017, recommending Mountain Valley to continue to coordinate with the
agency, conduct detours at times to minimize impacts, and provide signage to alert the
public to utility work and detours. The Lynchburg District of the Virginia Department of
Transportation also commented on the final EIS, stating that a Virginia Department of
Transportation project along U.S. Route 29 in Pittsylvania County, Virginia is planned
for the period from 2017 through 2018. In addition, road repaving is ongoing in the
Lynchburg District.
239. Transportation and traffic issues are discussed in sections 4.9.1.5 and 4.9.2.5 of the
final EIS. Mountain Valley prepared a Traffic and Transportation Management Plan that
was reviewed by Virginia Department of Transportation. Mountain Valley will obtain
permits from Virginia Department of Transportation prior to crossing roads in Virginia.
Equitrans also prepared a Traffic and Transportation Management Plan for West
Virginia and Pennsylvania and will obtain road crossing and encroachment permits from
248
Final EIS at 4-389 to 4-392.
249
Final EIS at 4-308, 4-321, and 4-389.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 84 -
the West Virginia Department of Transportation and highway occupancy permits from
the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. Mountain Valley and Equitrans will
restore all roads to their pre-construction condition and will coordinate with state and
local authorities to obtain the required permits to operate trucks on public roads. As a
result, the final EIS finds, and we agree, that the MVP Project would result in temporary
to short-term impacts on transportation infrastructure and that the Equitrans Expansion
Project would not have significant adverse impacts on transportation infrastructure. 250
241. Mountain Valley contends that access road MVP-RO-279.01 is needed to increase
project safety, because of topography in the area. Without use of the road, Mountain
Valley contends that it would only have two options. The first involves the use of
additional winching. Specifically, Mountain Valley identifies three steeply-sloped areas
along the right-of-way that would require up to 10 winch tractors daisy chained together
to move a single load of materials, equipment, fuel, or personnel up and down the slopes.
Without the use of access road MVP-RO-279.01. Mountain Valley contends that more
than 700 additional winch loads would be necessary to transport the required materials,
equipment, fuel, and workers along the right-of-way during construction using this chain
technique. Mountain Valley contends that the number and complexity of these winching
processes create safety concerns. In addition, the required winching is purportedly an
extremely slow process that increases the amount of time that Mountain Valley is
actively constructing in the area. This, in turn, could increase environmental impacts and
safety risks in the area.
242. Mountain Valley states its second alternative is to transport pipe and certain
materials to the right-of-way using helicopters. Mountain Valley contends that this could
double the number of loads and increase noise impacts on surrounding properties for a
much longer period of time. Similar to the winching processes, Mountain Valley
believes that using helicopters to bring pipe and equipment to the right-of-way is an
extremely slow process that increases the amount of time that Mountain Valley is
actively constructing in the area, which increases environmental impacts and safety risks
in the area.
250
Final EIS at 4-389 to 4-392.
251
Final EIS at 3-75 to 3-76.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 85 -
243. Finally, Mountain Valley points out that without the use of access road MVP-RO-
279.01, it could take up to two additional hours for emergency responders to reach an
injured worker on the right-of-way. Similarly, without use of the road, access to repair a
section of the pipeline during operation of the MVP Project would be slowed.
244. As stated in the final EIS, the impact of the access road would affect about 0.62
acre. Mountain Valley now proposes to reduce those impacts to 0.32 acre by limiting the
width of the road improvements. Mountain Valley now proposes to limit the width of the
road to 15 feet in straight sections and 20 feet on curved portions, and narrow additional
workspaces to 20 feet on straight sections and 30 feet on curved portions. Mountain
Valley will mitigate the impacts by acquiring about 10.25 acres of undisturbed high-
quality forest adjacent to the Poor Mountain Natural Area Preserve and providing it to the
VOF as compensatory mitigation.
(c) Housing
246. The projects may have temporary impacts on local housing. The influx of non-
local construction workers could affect local housing availability, as they compete with
visitors for limited accommodations in rural areas with few hotels. Peak non-local
employees working on the MVP Project would average between 536 and 671 people per
construction spread; with a total of 11 spreads. The total peak workforce for the
Equitrans Expansion Project, including pipelines and aboveground facilities, would be
about 400 people. Non-local construction workers would need to find housing in vacant
rental units, including houses, apartments, mobile home parks, hotels/motels, and
campgrounds and recreational vehicle parks. The final EIS estimates that the housing
stock in the affected counties of West Virginia would include 1,913 rental units, 5,202
hotel/motel rooms, and 2,704 recreational vehicle spaces; while the counties crossed in
Virginia have about 1,986 rental units, 6,548 hotel/motel rooms, and 321 recreational
vehicle spaces. In those counties where housing is limited, workers would likely find
accommodations at adjacent larger communities that are within commuting distance,
bring their own lodgings in the form of recreational vehicles, or share units. For the
MVP Project, construction workers would be spread out along 11 separate pipeline
spreads and 7 aboveground facilities across 17 counties. While it would take about
2.5 years to build the MVP Project, the average worker would only be on the job for
about 10 months for the pipeline and 8 months for aboveground facilities. The final EIS
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 86 -
concludes, and we agree, that the projects should not have significant long-term adverse
impacts on housing. 252
j. Cultural Resources
i. Historic Districts
247. The final EIS states that the MVP Project will cross seven Historic Districts: (1)
Big Stony Creek Historic District, (2) Greater Newport Rural Historic District, (3) North
Fork Valley Rural Historic District, (4) Bent Mountain Rural Historic District, (5) Blue
Ridge Parkway Historic District, (6) Coles-Terry Rural Historic District, and (7) the
Lynchburg and Danville Railroad Historic District. 253 The Virginia Department of
Historic Resources, representing the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), states
that the Lynchburg and Danville Railroad Historic District is not eligible for inclusion in
the National Register of Historic Properties (National Register) and therefore will not be
affected by the MVP Project; and Commission staff agrees. 254 The Virginia Department
of Historic Resources indicated that the MVP Project would have adverse effects on the
Big Stony Creek Historic District, Greater Newport Rural Historic District, North Fork
Valley Rural Historic District, Bent Mountain Rural Historic District, and Coles-Terry
Rural Historic District because visual impacts will diminish the feelings and settings of
these historic districts. 255 Commission staff agrees with the determination of the Virginia
Department of Historic Resources.
248. The Equitrans Expansion Project does not cross any Historic Districts.
249. In comments on the final EIS, Preserve Roanoke raises concerns about the Blue
Ridge Parkway Historic District and the Coles-Terry Rural Historic District. Preserve
Roanoke indicates that construction of the MVP Project could result in visual impacts on
the Blue Ridge Parkway Historic District that would impair its historic and cultural
values. The Blue Ridge Parkway Historic District is discussed in section 4.10.7 of the
final EIS, which states that the District is listed on the National Register. The final EIS
also states that Mountain Valley filed a visual impact assessment for the Blue Ridge
Parkway Historic District in February 2017. Based on that assessment, Mountain Valley
252
Final EIS at 4-447.
253
Final EIS 4-447.
254
See section 4.10.7.1 of the final EIS.
255
See July 5, 2017 Letter from the Virginia Department of Historic Resources to
Mountain Valley (filed July 20, 2017).
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 87 -
concluded that there would be no significant adverse impacts on the visual resources
associated with the Blue Ridge Parkway Historic District at the crossing of the MVP
Project. The Blue Ridge Parkway, however, is managed by the NPS which has not yet
concurred on the visual impact assessments. In accordance with Environmental
Condition No. 15 of this order, visual impacts related to the Blue Ridge Parkway Historic
District will be fully identified and appropriate mitigation will be developed, to the extent
necessary, once the NPS and the Virginia Department of Historic Resources file their
opinions. 256
250. Preserve Roanoke also contends that the Roanoke River contributes to the historic
integrity of the Coles-Terry Rural Historic District. However, the Roanoke River is a
geographic feature and not a cultural resource.
251. The Counties, in comments on the final EIS, also raise concerns about potential
project-related effects on the Greater Newport Rural Historic District, Newport Historic
District, Blue Ridge Parkway Historic District, Coles-Terry Rural Historic District, and
the Bent Mountain Rural Historic District. These Historic Districts are discussed in
section 4.10.7.1 of the final EIS. The Newport Historic District, Greater Newport
Historic District, and Blue Ridge Parkway Historic District are already listed on the
National Register. The final EIS states that the Coles-Terry Rural Historic District and
Bent Mountain Rural Historic District are eligible for the National Register. The MVP
Project will be outside the boundaries of the Newport Historic District and will not affect
that District.
252. On August 28, 2017, after the final EIS was issued, Mountain Valley filed
Treatment Plans with the Commission to resolve adverse effects on the Big Stony Creek
Historic District, Greater Newport Rural Historic District, North Fork Valley Rural
Historic District, Bent Mountain Rural Historic District, and Coles-Terry Rural Historic
District. Mountain Valley also submitted these plans to the Virginia Department of
Historic Resources. Environmental Condition No. 15 of this order will ensure future
consultations with the SHPOs and reviews of treatment plans.
253. The final EIS identifies two previously-recorded historic properties 257 in the direct
area of potential effect (150 feet from work areas) for the Equitrans Expansion Project’s
256
Final EIS at 4-442 to 4-443.
257
Historic properties include prehistoric or historic sites, districts, buildings,
structures, objects, or properties of traditional religious or cultural importance that are
listed or eligible for listing on the National Register, in accordance with 36 C.F.R.
§ 60.4 (2017). See final EIS at 1-41.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 88 -
H-318 pipeline: (1) the Monongahela River Navigation System and (2) the Pittsburgh
and Lake Erie Railroad. Equitrans will use an HDD to cross under the river and railroad
to avoid impacts on these two historic properties.
254. In Braxton County, West Virginia, Mountain Valley identified one previously-
recorded National Register-listed site (Weston and Gauley Bridge Turnpike Trail
[NR#98001430]) in the direct area of potential effect, and intends to bore under the site.
The West Virginia Department of Culture and History, representing the SHPO, states that
this would result in no adverse effects. Commission staff agrees with this determination.
255. Mountain Valley identified one previously recorded archaeological site (44MY54)
and three previously-recorded historic sites (Appalachian National Scenic Trail, Elijah
Henry House, and Flora Farm) in the direct area of potential effect in Virginia that are
eligible for the National Register. Commission staff and the Virginia Department of
Historic Resources agree that the MVP Project would have no adverse effects on those
sites.
256. James and Karen Scott (Scotts) state that supplemental materials filed by
Mountain Valley on June 30, 2017, after the EIS was issued, misrepresent historic sites
on their property, including the Elijah Henry House. Mountain Valley’s June 30, 2017
filing indicates that the proposed MVP Project would be 425 feet from the Elijah Henry
House, while the final EIS states that the pipeline would be about 139 feet away from the
site. In a filing on September 5, 2017, Mountain Valley clarifies that the Elijah Henry
House is located about 144 feet away from a proposed access road for the MVP Project.
The final EIS states that the Elijah Henry House is eligible for the National Register, and
may be considered a contributing resource to the Coles-Terry Rural Historic District.
The Virginia Department of Historic Resources found, and Commission staff agrees, that
the MVP Project will have no adverse effects on the Elijah Henry House. 258
257. The Scotts claim that Mountain Valley’s consultant misidentified the Elijah Henry
Spring House as a “shed,” and failed to record a root cellar at the site. As discussed in
the final EIS, the Virginia Department of Historic Resources accepted the cultural reports
that described the site, and made an assessment of eligibility and effects. In any case, the
distinction the Scotts draw does not change our analysis.
258. The Scotts state that the pipeline would cross the Elijah Henry Spring House water
line. The Spring House is outside the area of potential effect and will not be affected by
the MVP Project. As indicated in the final EIS, Mountain Valley will attempt to install
258
Final EIS at 4-446.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 89 -
its pipeline below existing foreign utilities. 259 Therefore, Mountain Valley is expected to
install its pipeline below the Spring House water line to avoid impacts.
259. The final EIS indicates that a total of 282 newly-recorded archaeological sites and
116 historic architectural sites have been identified in the direct area of potential effect
for the MVP Project, outside of Historic Districts. 260 Based on Mountain Valley’s
cultural resources investigations reports, the final EIS determines that 220 of the newly-
recorded archaeological sites and 107 of the newly-recorded historic architectural sites in
the direct area of potential effect are not eligible for the National Register, are not historic
properties, and require no additional evaluation. A total of 46 newly-recorded
archaeological sites are unevaluated and avoidance of these sites was recommended. The
final EIS concludes that, for the entire MVP Project, eleven newly-recorded
archaeological sites and seven newly recorded historic architectural sites have been
evaluated as eligible for nomination to the National Register.
260. Of the total of 18 National Register-eligible newly recorded resources in the direct
area of potential (outside of Historic Districts) for the entire MVP Project discussed in the
final EIS, eight archaeological sites and two historic architectural sites are located in
West Virginia. Mountain Valley’s cultural resources consultants recommended that the
MVP Project would have either no effect or no adverse effects on the eligible historic
architectural sites in West Virginia. Mountain Valley intends to avoid four of the eligible
archaeological sites in West Virginia. In the case of the four other eligible archaeological
sites in West Virginia, Mountain Valley indicated that significant data were already
recovered, and recommended a finding of no adverse effects. Three archaeological sites
and five historic architectural sites found to be eligible in the final EIS are located in
Virginia. Mountain Valley intends to avoid the three eligible archaeological sites in
Virginia. Mountain Valley’s cultural resources consultants recommended that the MVP
Project will have no adverse effects on the eligible historic architectural sites in
Virginia. Commission staff concludes that the MVP Project will have no effect on sites
that are avoided. No additional work will be required at historic properties where the
MVP Project will have no effect or no adverse effects.
261. After the issuance of the final EIS, the West Virginia Division of Culture and
History, made a finding that three National Register-listed or eligible historic
architectural sites in West Virginia (Underwood Farmstead [LE-150], St. Bernard’s
Church [NR#85001583], and Losch Farmstead [BX-351] will be adversely effected by
the MVP Project. On September 18, 2017, Mountain Valley filed Treatment Plans to
259
Final EIS at 2-48.
260
Final EIS at 4-479.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 90 -
mitigate adverse effects at these three historic architectural sites, and the plans are
being reviewed by the West Virginia SHPO. Also after the final EIS was issued, the
Virginia Department of Historic Resources found that the MVP Project will have
adverse effects on three archaeological sites in the Virginia (44GS241, 44RN400 and
44RN401). Mountain Valley filed Treatment Plans to mitigate adverse effects at those
three archaeological sites, to be reviewed by the Virginia SHPO.
262. The Scotts also comment on impacts of the MVP Project on the Henry-Waldron
Cemetery. The final EIS states that Mountain Valley will avoid the cemetery. Mountain
Valley’s historic architectural consultant recommended that the Henry-Waldron
Cemetery is not individually eligible for the National Register, but could be considered
a contributing element to the Coles-Terry Rural Historic District. 261 The Virginia
Department of Historic Resources agreed with the consultant’s recommendations for the
Henry-Waldron Cemetery in a June 27, 2017 letter accepting the consultant’s report. 262
Mountain Valley’s Treatment Plan for the Coles-Terry Rural Historic District indicates
that the Henry-Waldron Cemetery is about 20 feet away from the construction limits for
proposed Access Road MVP-EO-281. Mountain Valley will fence the cemetery to avoid
impacts.
263. A minor route variation for the Scotts parcel was evaluated in section 3.5 of the
final EIS. As stated in table 3.5.3-1 of the final EIS, desktop analysis showed a minor
route deviation to address the Scotts’ concerns is feasible, but would shift the route onto
the properties of adjacent landowners. The minor route deviation was part of a larger
route variation (the Poor Mountain Variation), which the final EIS concludes does not
offer a significant environmental advantage when compared to the corresponding
proposed route segment. 263
264. Preservation Virginia expresses concerns about potential project impacts on pre-
contact archaeological sites 44FR240, 372, 392, 398, 399, and 400, in Franklin County,
Virginia. Preservation Virginia recommends additional archaeological test excavations at
these sites.
261
Final EIS at 4-463.
262
Filed with the FERC by Mountain Valley on June 30, 2017, after the issuance
of the final EIS.
263
Final EIS at 3-80.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 91 -
and 400 were evaluated as not eligible for the National Register based on a December
2016 survey report, and a determination which the Virginia Department of Historic
Resources concurred with. Thus, no further investigations are necessary for those sites.
Finally, because archaeological sites 44FR372 and 392 are eligible for the National
Register, Mountain Valley proposes to avoid those sites. 264
266. The Counties claim that the Commission did not directly consult with them
regarding findings of eligibility and effects for cultural resources identified in the areas of
potential effect within those counties.
267. We disagree. The Counties were sent copies of both the draft EIS and the final
EIS. Those documents present the findings of the Commission staff regarding
identification of historic properties and assessment of effects. Commission staff
addresses the comments of the Counties on the draft EIS in Appendix AA of the final
EIS. 265
268. During surveys for the Equitrans Expansion Project, Equitrans’ consultant
identified six new archaeological sites within the direct area of potential effect and 115
historic architectural sites within the indirect area of potential effect (0.25-mile from the
pipeline), all of which were evaluated as not eligible for the National Register. We have,
however, included Environmental Condition No. 36 to this order to require Equitrans to
file the results of cultural resource surveys for the New Cline Variation, which Equitrans
incorporated into its proposal, prior to construction.
iv. Conclusion
269. The entire process of compliance with section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act has not yet been completed for the projects. The applicants will need to
conduct surveys and evaluation studies at areas where access was previously denied.
Commission staff has not yet finished consultations with the SHPOs. If the Commission
staff determines that any historic properties will be adversely affected, staff will notify
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and consult with appropriate consulting
parties regarding the production of an agreement document to resolve adverse effects, in
accordance with 36 C.F.R. § 800.6. Therefore, Environmental Condition No. 15 of this
order restricts construction until after all additional required surveys and evaluations are
completed, survey and evaluation reports and treatment plans have been reviewed by the
264
Final EIS at 4-463 to 4-465.
265
See responses to Comments LA4, LA7, LA2, and LA15 in Appendix AA of the
final EIS.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 92 -
appropriate consulting parties, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation has had an
opportunity to comment, and the Commission has provided written notification to
proceed.
i. Air Quality
270. Air quality impacts associated with construction of the proposed projects will
include emissions from construction equipment and fugitive dust. The final EIS
concludes that such air quality impacts will generally be temporary and localized, and are
not expected to cause or contribute to a violation of applicable air quality standards.
271. Operational emissions will be mainly generated by the four new compressor
stations proposed for the projects. Mountain Valley submitted applications for
construction and operation of the Bradshaw, Harris, and Stallworth Compressor Stations
to the WVDEP and received construction permits. Equitrans’ application for
construction and operation of the Redhook Compressor Station is pending at the PADEP.
All the compressor stations will be minor sources with respect to Prevention of
Significant Deterioration and New Source Review under the Clean Air Act.
272. The Clean Air Act Title V permit program, as described in 40 C.F.R. Part 70,
requires sources of air emissions to obtain federal operating permits if their criteria
pollutant emissions reach or exceed the Title V major source threshold. The new
Bradshaw Compressor Station will exceed the Title V major source threshold for nitrogen
oxide and carbon monoxide. Therefore, Mountain Valley is required to file a Title V
permit application with the WVDEP within 12 months of startup of operations of the
Bradshaw Compressor Station. The Harris, Stallworth, and Redhook Compressor
Stations will not exceed the major source emissions thresholds or be subject to a Title V
operating permit.
273. As stated in the final EIS, minimization of operational air pollutant emissions from
the projects’ compressor stations, including greenhouse gases (GHG), will be achieved
by operating the most efficient turbines available, installing best available technology,
adhering to good operating and maintenance practices on turbines and combustion
engines, and adhering to applicable federal and state regulations designed to reduce
emissions. The screening analyses conducted for Mountain Valley’s and Equitrans’
compressor stations show criteria air pollutant concentrations are below the applicable
National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
274. Mr. Workman asserts that the final EIS did not quantify GHGs. The EIS
does quantify GHG emissions in table 4.13.2-2, and GHGs are further discussed in
sections 4.11 and 4.13.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 93 -
275. Based on the foregoing reasons, the final EIS concludes, and we agree, that
emissions resulting from operation of the compressor stations will not result in significant
impacts on local or regional air quality. 266
276. Noise levels are quantified according to decibels (dB), which are units of sound
pressure. The A-weighted sound level, expressed as dBA, is used to quantify noise
impacts on people. Sound level increases during pipeline construction will be
intermittent and will generally occur during daylight hours, with the possible exception
of some HDD activities. Construction equipment noise levels will typically be around 85
dBA at a distance of 50 feet. Blasting may be necessary to trench through shallow
bedrock. Blasting noise levels have been documented at about 94 dBA at a distance of
50 feet. Noise impacts during construction will be transient as pipe installation
progresses from one location to the next. HDD operations at the entry and exit locations
will result in high noise levels at the source location. Typically, noise from HDD are
estimated to be about 90 dBA at 50 feet. Therefore, Environmental Condition No. 38 of
this order requires, prior to construction at HDD locations, Equitrans to file plans
outlining measures to be implemented to reduce the projected noise level increases
attributable to the proposed drilling operations at noise sensitive areas (NSA).
277. As stated in the final EIS, the applicants modeled noise levels at NSAs near each
compressor station during operation. Worst case modeled noise levels at each NSA due
to typical compressor station operation will be below the Commission’s noise limit of
55 dBA. Increases over existing ambient noise levels will be barely noticeable, ranging
from 0.1 dBA to 3 dBA. Environmental Condition Nos. 40 and 41 of this order requires
the applicants to file the results of noise surveys during operation of the compressor
stations, and if noise exceeds the day-night sound level of 55 dBA at any NSA, the
applicants must install additional noise controls and refile noise survey results within one
year.
l. Safety
278. Commenters questioned the safety of the projects. The final EIS states that the
project facilities must be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to meet or
exceed the DOT’s Minimum Federal Safety Standards 267 and other applicable federal and
state regulations. These regulations include specifications for material selection and
266
Final EIS at 4-515-516.
267
See 49 C.F.R. pt. 192 (2017).
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 94 -
qualification; minimum design requirements; and protection of the pipeline from internal,
external, and atmospheric corrosion.
279. The final EIS concludes that the projects provide a safe, reliable means of
transporting natural gas. The low number of incidents distributed over the more than
300,000 miles of natural gas transmission pipelines indicates that the risk is minimal for
an incident at any given location. The final EIS concludes, and we agree, that the
projects do not represent a significant safety risk to the public. 268
280. We also received comments expressing concern that the projects may become a
target for a future act of terrorism. The likelihood of future acts of terrorism or sabotage
occurring along the project or at any of the myriad natural gas pipeline or energy
facilities throughout the United States is unpredictable given the disparate motives and
abilities of terrorist groups. Further, the Commission, in cooperation with other federal
agencies, including the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, industry trade groups,
and interstate natural gas companies, is working to improve pipeline security practices,
strengthen communications within the industry, and extend public outreach in an ongoing
effort to secure pipeline infrastructure. In accordance with the DOT surveillance
requirements, the applicants will incorporate air and ground inspection of its proposed
facilities into its inspection and maintenance program. In addition, the applicants propose
security measures at the new aboveground facilities that will include secure fencing.
m. Cumulative Impacts
281. A number of commenters generally argue that the final EIS’s discussion of the
cumulative impacts of the projects is inadequate.
282. CEQ defines “cumulative impact” as “the impact on the environment which
results from the incremental impact of the action [being studied] when added to other
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions . . . .” 269 The requirement that an
impact must be “reasonably foreseeable” to be considered in a NEPA analysis applies to
both indirect and cumulative impacts.
283. The “determination of the extent and effect of [cumulative impacts], and
particularly identification of the geographic area within which they may occur, is a task
assigned to the special competency of the appropriate agencies.” 270 CEQ has explained
268
Final EIS at 4-573.
269
40 C.F.R. § 1508.7 (2017).
270
Kleppe, 427 U.S. at 413.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 95 -
that “it is not practical to analyze the cumulative effects of an action on the universe; the
list of environmental effects must focus on those that are truly meaningful.” 271 Further, a
cumulative impact analysis need only include “such information as appears to be
reasonably necessary under the circumstances for evaluation of the project rather than to
be so all-encompassing in scope that the task of preparing it would become either
fruitless or well-nigh impossible.” 272 An agency’s analysis should be proportional to the
magnitude of the environmental impacts of a proposed action; actions that will have no
significant direct and indirect impacts usually require only a limited cumulative impacts
analysis. 273
284. In considering cumulative impacts, CEQ advises that an agency first identify the
significant cumulative effects issues associated with the proposed action. 274 The agency
should then establish the geographic scope for analysis. Next, the agency should
establish the time frame for analysis. 275 Finally, the agency should identify other actions
that potentially affect the same resources, ecosystems, and human communities that are
affected by the proposed action. 276 As noted above, CEQ advises that an agency should
relate the scope of its analysis to the magnitude of the environmental impacts of the
proposed action. 277
285. Commission staff defined the geographic scope for its analysis of cumulative
impacts on specific environmental resources to include projects/actions within the
watersheds crossed by the projects for cumulative impacts on water resources and
wetlands, vegetation, land use, and wildlife; cumulative impacts on air quality were
evaluated within the Air Quality Control Regions (AQCR) where compressor stations are
located; cumulative noise impacts on NSAs within 1 mile of compressor stations;
271
CEQ, Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental
Policy Act at 8 (January1997) (1997 Cumulative Effects Guidance).
272
Id.
273
See CEQ, Memorandum on Guidance on Consideration of Past Actions in
Cumulative Effects Analysis at 2-3 (June 2005).
274
1997 Cumulative Effects Guidance at 11.
275
Id.
276
Id.
277
CEQ, Memorandum on Guidance on Consideration of Past Actions in
Cumulative Effects Analysis at 2 (June 2005).
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 96 -
cumulative impacts on visual resources within 0.25-mile of the pipelines; and cumulative
impacts on cultural resources at the county level.
286. The types of other projects, in addition to the MVP and Equitrans Expansion
Projects, considered by Commission staff that could potentially contribute to cumulative
impacts on a range of environmental resources include other Commission-jurisdictional
natural gas interstate transportation projects; non-jurisdictional pipelines and gathering
systems; oil and gas exploration and production activities; mining operations:
transportation or road projects; commercial/residential/industrial and other development
projects; and other energy projects, including power plants or electric transmission lines.
The MVP Project will cross 31 watersheds, and the Equitrans Expansion Project will
cross 3 watersheds. The 33 watersheds cover a combined total of 4,557,727 acres (about
7,121 square miles). 278 The projects will account for about 6,487 acres of impacts (0.1
percent) within these watersheds, while other projects located within the same watersheds
account for 83,722 acres (1.8 percent) of impact. 279 The final EIS concludes, and we
agree, that when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions,
the projects will not result in significant adverse cumulative impacts on environmental
resources. 280
287. Sierra Club 281 argues that because of the recent decision by the D.C. Circuit Court
of Appeals in Sierra Club v. FERC 282 the Commission should reopen the record in this
proceeding and issue a supplemental EIS to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
and impacts on climate change as a result of the end-use consumption of the natural gas
transported by the pipeline. Sierra Club asserts that, although the final EIS estimated
downstream GHG emissions from combustion of the transported natural gas, the final
278
The Fishing Creek watershed contains parts of both projects.
279
As indicated in the final EIS, the footprint of other projects is provided
where available. Footprint data for all projects considered was not available.
280
Final EIS at 4-622.
281
Sierra Club filed on behalf of Allegheny Defense Project, Appalachian Voices,
Dominion Pipeline Monitoring Coalition, Friends of Nelson, Natural Resources Defense
Council, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Protect Our Water Heritage Rights,
Sierra Club (including its West Virginia and Virginia Chapters), West Virginia Highland
Conservancy, West Virginia Rivers Coalition, and Wild Virginia.
282
Sabal Trail, 867 F.3d 1357.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 97 -
EIS does not analyze the scope, significance, cumulative impact, and potential
alternatives of the GHG emissions. 283
288. Sierra Club claims that the final EIS was not only required to quantify the
greenhouse gas emissions, but also must include a discussion of their significance and
any cumulative impacts associated with greenhouse gas emissions. Sierra Club argues
that the final EIS only provides a cursory analysis of the impact associated with
downstream combustion. Sierra Club also states that the final EIS relies on the assertion
that the projects would result in the displacement of some coal, but that this approach was
rejected by the court in Sabal Trail because the Commission failed to assess whether total
emissions would be reduced or increased, or what the degree of reduction or increase
would be. 284
289. Next, Sierra Club dismisses the final EIS’s assertions that the Commission is
unable to assess the significance of the projects’ impacts on climate because it contends
the social cost of carbon methodology was available when the Commission prepared the
final EIS. Sierra Club asserts that the court in Sabal Trail held that the Commission must
explain why it did not use the methodology to determine project-specific impacts. 285
290. Last, Sierra Club states that the final EIS’s statement that end-use “emissions
would increase the atmospheric concentration of GHGs, in combination with past and
future emissions from all other sources, and contribute incrementally to climate change
that produces the impacts previously described” does not adequately address the
cumulative impacts of the projects. Sierra Club avers that the final EIS incorrectly
downplays the cumulative climate impacts associated with the natural gas infrastructure
build out in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, and other surrounding states, and does
not quantify the project’s GHG emissions in combination with these past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable gas projects.
291. Sierra Club concludes that as a result of the final EIS’s failure to address these
concerns, the Commission did not conduct an informed public process and failed to
provide information necessary to assess potential alternatives and mitigation measures.
283
Sierra Club also requests that the Commission supplement or revise the final
EIS based on purported new information received after the close of the comment period
on the draft EIS. However, as discussed in PP 134-135 of this order, there is no new
information here that would necessitate a supplemental or revised EIS.
284
Sabal Trail, 867 F.3d at 1375.
285
Id.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 98 -
292. The court in Sabal Trail held that where it is known that the natural gas
transported by a project will be used for end-use combustion, the Commission should
“estimate[] the amount of power-plant carbon emissions that the pipelines will make
possible.” 286 As Sierra Club acknowledges, the final EIS did just that. 287 Thus, the
Commission and the public were fully informed of the potential impacts from the
projects.
293. The final EIS conservatively estimates that full combustion of the volume of
natural gas transported would produce GHG emissions of up to about 48 million metric
tons per year. 288 We note that this estimate represents an upper bound for the amount of
end-use combustion that could result from the gas transported by these projects. This is
because some of the gas may displace other fuels, which could actually lower total GHG
emissions. It may also displace gas that otherwise would be transported via different
means, resulting in no change in GHG emissions.
294. In an effort to put these emissions in to context, we examined both the regional 289
and national emissions of GHGs. If only the regions identified by the applicants as
prospective markets are considered, the volume of GHG emissions by the MVP and
Equitrans Expansion Projects will result in a two percent increase of GHG emissions
286
Id. at 1371. We note that the end users in Sabal Trail were known (i.e., FPL
and Duke Energy Florida power plants in Florida), see id. at 1364 and n.8, which is
dissimilar to the situation here. While Mountain Valley has entered into precedent
agreements with two end users (Roanoke Gas and ConEd) for approximately 13 percent
of the MVP project capacity, the ultimate destination for the remaining gas will be
determined by price differentials in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and Southeast markets
and, thus, is unknown.
287
Final EIS at 4-620 (providing table with Total Projected GHG Emissions from
End-Use Combustion).
288
Final EIS at 4-620. Our estimate here is based on GHG emissions caused by the
combustion of the full design capacity of the projects.
289
Commission staff looked at the Transco, Columbia, and Texas Eastern systems
to identify the states where those pipeline systems serve. Natural gas can move anywhere
on these systems. Thus, we used the combined inventory of: (1) states served by
Transco’s system; (2) states served by Transco and Columbia; and (3) states served by
Transco and Texas Eastern (the Columbia system overlapped the Texas Eastern system).
We compared the 2014 inventory of these states served by the three systems in
comparison to the downstream emissions to arrive at the potential increase in GHG
emissions.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 99 -
from fossil fuel combustion in these states. From a national perspective, combustion of
all the gas transported by the MVP and Equitrans Expansion Projects will, at most,result
in a one percent increase of national GHG emissions.
295. The final EIS acknowledged that the emissions would increase the atmospheric
concentration of GHGs, in combination with past and future emissions from all other
sources, and contribute incrementally to climate change. 290 However, as the final EIS
explained, because the project’s incremental physical impacts on the environment caused
by climate change cannot be determined, it also cannot be determined whether the
projects’ contribution to cumulative impacts on climate change would be significant. 291
296. We also disagree with Sierra Club’s assertion that the Commission should have
used the social cost of carbon methodology to determine how the proposed projects’
incremental contribution to GHGs would translate into physical effects on the global
environment. While we recognize the availability of the social cost of carbon
methodology, it is not appropriate for use in any project-level NEPA review for the
following reasons: (1) EPA states that “no consensus exists on the appropriate [discount]
rate to use for analyses spanning multiple generations” 292 and consequently, significant
variation in output can result; 293 (2) the tool does not measure the actual incremental
impacts of a project on the environment; and (3) there are no established criteria
identifying the monetized values that are to be considered significant for NEPA reviews.
The methodology may be useful for rulemakings or comparing regulatory alternatives
using cost-benefit analyses where the same discount rate is consistently applied; however,
it is not appropriate for estimating a specific project’s impacts or informing our analysis
under NEPA. Moreover, Executive Order 13783, Promoting Energy Independence and
Economic Growth, has disbanded the Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of
Greenhouse Gases and directed the withdrawal of all technical support documents and
instructions regarding the methodology, stating that the documents are “no longer
representative of governmental policy.” 294
290
Final EIS at 4-620.
291
Id.
292
See Fact Sheet: Social Cost of Carbon issued by EPA in November 2013,
https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climatechange/social-cost-carbon_.html.
293
Depending on the selected discount rate, the tool can project widely different
present day cost to avoid future climate change impacts.
294
Exec. Order No. 13,783, 82 Fed. Reg. 16093 (2017).
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 100 -
o. Alternatives
297. The final EIS analyzes alternatives, including the no-action alternative, system
alternatives, and route alternatives. If the no-action alternative is selected, the
environmental impacts outlined in the final EIS will not occur. However, if the projects
are not authorized, their stated objectives will not be realized, and natural gas will not be
transported from production areas in the Appalachian Basin to end-users in the Southeast
and Mid-Atlantic regions. In response to the no-action alternative, shippers may seek
other infrastructure to transport natural gas to customers, and construction of those other
projects may result in environmental impacts that will be similar to or greater than the
MVP and Equitrans Expansion Projects.
298. A number of commenters suggested that the contracted volumes of natural gas
could be transported via existing pipeline systems. The final EIS concludes, and we
agree, that no existing pipeline system in the vicinity of the projects can meet their stated
objectives without major expansions, which might result in environmental impacts
similar to or greater than the impacts of the proposed the MVP and Equitrans Expansion
Projects. 295
299. The final EIS also considers if the contracted volumes of the MVP and Equitrans
Expansion Projects could be transported through the Supply Header - Atlantic Coast
Pipeline (Atlantic Coast) proposed in Docket Nos. CP15-554-000 and CP15-555-000.
The final EIS examines two hypothetical scenarios 296 for this: (1) the “one-pipe”
alternative in which the MVP Project volumes would be transported together with the
Atlantic Coast volumes in a single pipeline along the proposed Atlantic Coast route; and
(2) the “two-pipe, one right-of-way” alternative, where the MVP Project would be
relocated adjacent to the Atlantic Coast Project. 297
295
Section 3.3.1 of the final EIS.
296
We note that no applicant has proposed to construct, and no shipper indicated
an interest in utilizing, either of the hypothetical alternative pipeline systems.
297
See sections 3.3.2.1 and 3.4.2.1 of the final EIS.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 101 -
298
Final EIS at 3-15 (noting that this amount of additional compression is greater
than the total compression of both the Atlantic Coast and MVP Projects combined).
299
Final EIS at 3-15 (installation of 48-inch-diameter pipeline would require 30
feet or more of additional construction right-of-way over the entire length of the pipeline
route and would displace about 30 percent more soil).
300
Final EIS at 3-16.
301
Final EIS at 3-14.
302
The Commission need not analyze “the environmental consequences of
alternatives it has in good faith rejected as too remote, speculative, or . . . impractical or
ineffective.” Fuel Safe Washington v. FERC, 389 F.3d 1313, 1323 (10th Cir. 2004)
(quoting All Indian Pueblo Council v. United States, 975 F.2d 1437, 1444 (10th Cir.1992)
(internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Nat'l Wildlife Fed’n v. F.E.R.C., 912 F.2d
1471, 1485 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (NEPA does not require detailed discussion of the
environmental effects of remote and speculative alternatives); Natural Resources Defense
Council, Inc. v. Morton, 458 F.2d 827, 837-38 (D.C.Cir.1972) (same).
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 102 -
302. Under a hypothetical “two-pipe, one right-of-way” scenario, the MVP Project
would be collocated with the Atlantic Coast Project for about 205 miles. 303 While the
final EIS identified environmental benefits that might be realized with such an
alternative, there are also disadvantages such as additional environmental impacts
associated with construction of multiple laterals necessary to reach the receipt and
delivery points required to fulfill Mountain Valley’s contractual obligations with its
shippers. 304 Additionally, as described in the final EIS, the narrow ridgelines along the
Atlantic Coast route are currently too narrow to accommodate two parallel 42-inch-
diameter pipelines. To be able to fit two parallel 42-inch-diameter pipelines, the project
sponsors would need to utilize extensive side-hill or two-tone construction techniques
and disturb additional acres to prepare workspaces to safely accommodate equipment and
personnel, as well as spoil storage. The final EIS concludes that collocating two pipes in
a single right-of-way with the Atlantic Coast Project has constructability issues that likely
render the “two-pipe” alternative technically infeasible. 305 Moreover, this alternative
does not provide a significant environmental advantage over the proposed MVP
Project. 306 We agree with the final EIS’s conclusion.
303. We are mindful, as the D.C. Circuit has acknowledged, that “given the choice,
almost no one would want natural gas infrastructure built on their block.” 307 But as the
court noted:
303
See Final EIS at 3-29 (detailing this alternative). A collocated route would not
be reach the receipt and delivery points for the MVP Project, which might adversely
affect Mountain Valley’s agreements with its shippers.
304
See Final EIS at 3-29 through 3-32 (including table comparing the
environmental impacts of the two-pipe, one-ROW alternative with the MVP project).
305
Final EIS at 3-32.
306
Final EIS at 3-32.
307
Minisink Residents for Environmental Preservation and Safety v. FERC, 762
F.3d 97, 100 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (affirming the Commission’s decision to approve project
where two dissenting commissioners preferred an alternative pipeline project).
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 103 -
304. While “the existence of a more desirable alternative is one of the factors which
enters into a determination of whether a particular proposal would serve the public
convenience and necessity,” 309 that is not at issue in this case. Here, neither the “one-
pipe” nor the “two-pipe, one right-of-way” alternative is a viable or desirable alternative.
The final EIS nonetheless took a hard look at these alternatives. 310 We agree with the
determination in the final EIS and need not consider either alternative any further. 311
305. James Workman claims that the final EIS excluded consideration of the no-action
alternative. However, the final EIS discusses the no-action alternative in section 3.1. 312
Mr. Workman suggests that an alternative route following the Rover Pipeline Project
(Rover) 313 should be studied. While Rover’s CGT Lateral is about five miles from the
MVP Project near about MP 20.0 in Doddridge County, West Virginia, Rover heads
northwest into Ohio. In order to reach Mountain Valley’s proposed terminus and
delivery point at Transco Station 165 in Pittsylvania County, Virginia, the MVP Project
would need to be routed southeast from Doddridge County, West Virginia, which is the
opposite direction from Rover. Therefore, collocating the MVP Project along Rover’s
CGT Lateral is not practical.
306. The final EIS also considers 3 other major route alternatives (Alternative 1,
Hybrid 1-A, and Hybrid 1-B) and 15 route variations along the MVP Project, and 5 route
308
Id.
309
City of Pittsburgh v. FPC, 237 F.2d 741, 751 n.28 (D.C. Cir. 1956).
310
Indeed, CEQ regulations implementing NEPA explicitly permit the
Commission, in rejecting alternatives, merely to “briefly discuss the reasons for their
having been eliminated.” City of Rockingham, N. Carolina v. FERC, No. 15-2535, 2017
WL 2875112, at *5 (4th Cir. July 6, 2017) (quoting 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a)).
311
The Commission’s NEPA obligation requires that it “‘identify the reasonable
alternatives to the contemplated action’ and ‘look hard at the environmental effects of
[its] decision[ ].’” Midcoast Interstate Transmission, Inc. v. FERC, 198 F.3d 960, 967
(D.C. Cir. 2000) (quoting Corridor H Alternatives, Inc. v. Slater, 166 F.3d 368, 374
(D.C.Cir.1999)) (alterations in original).
312
Final EIS at 3-4.
313
Rover Pipeline LLC, 158 FERC ¶ 61,109.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 104 -
variations along the Equitrans Expansion Project. 314 The final EIS finds, and we agree,
that these alternative routes generally did not provide a significant environmental
advantage over the proposed route segments to justify affecting additional landowners,
and were not recommended. However, the final EIS recommends that Mountain Valley
adopt Variation 250 into its proposed route between MPs 220.7 and 223.7, and we
include that recommendation in Environmental Condition No. 16 of this order.
307. We have reviewed the information and analysis contained in the final EIS
regarding the potential environmental effects of the MVP and Equitrans Expansion
Projects, as well as the other information in the record. We are accepting the
environmental recommendations in the final EIS, as modified herein, and are including
them as conditions in Appendix C to this order.
308. Based on our consideration of this information and the discussion above, we
agree with the conclusions presented in the final EIS and find that the projects, if
constructed and operated as described in the final EIS, are environmentally acceptable
actions. Further, for the reasons discuss throughout the order, as stated above, we find
that the projects are in the public convenience and necessity.
309. Any state or local permits issued with respect to the jurisdictional facilities
authorized herein must be consistent with the conditions of this certificate. We
encourage cooperation between interstate pipelines and local authorities. However, this
does not mean that state and local agencies, through application of state or local laws,
may prohibit or unreasonably delay the construction or operation of facilities approved by
this Commission. 315
310. The Commission on its own motion received and made part of the record in this
proceeding all evidence, including the application, as amended and supplemented, and
exhibits thereto, and all comments submitted, and upon consideration of the record,
314
See section 3.5 of the final EIS.
315
See 15 U.S.C. § 717r(d) (state or federal agency’s failure to act on a permit
considered to be inconsistent with Federal law); see also Schneidewind v. ANR Pipeline
Co., 485 U.S. 293, 310 (1988) (state regulation that interferes with FERC’s regulatory
authority over the transportation of natural gas is preempted) and Dominion
Transmission, Inc. v. Summers, 723 F.3d 238, 245 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (noting that state and
local regulation is preempted by the NGA to the extent it conflicts with federal
regulation, or would delay the construction and operation of facilities approved by the
Commission).
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 105 -
(C) The certificate authority issued in Ordering Paragraphs (A) and (B) is
conditioned on:
(D) Equitrans’ request to abandon facilities, as described in this order and in its
application, is granted, subject to the conditions described herein and in Appendix C of
this order.
(E) Equitrans shall notify the Commission within 10 days of the date(s) of its
abandonment(s) of facilities as authorized by this order. Equitrans shall complete
authorized abandonments within one year from the date of this order.
(H) Mountain Valley’s initial rates and tariff are approved, as conditioned and
modified above.
(I) Mountain Valley is required to file actual tariff records reflecting the initial
rates and tariff language that comply with the requirements contained in the body of this
order not less than 30 days and not more than 60 days prior to the commencement of
interstate service.
(J) Mountain Valley must file not less than 30 days and not more than
60 days before the in-service date of the proposed facilities an executed copy of the
non-conforming agreements reflecting the non-conforming language and a tariff
record identifying these agreements as non-conforming agreements consistent with
section 154.112 of the Commission’s regulations.
(K) Within three years after its in-service date, as discussed herein, Mountain
Valley must make a filing to justify its existing cost-based firm and interruptible recourse
rates. Mountain Valley’s cost and revenue study should be filed through the eTariff
portal using a Type of Filing Code 580. In addition, Mountain Valley is advised to
include as part of the eFiling description, a reference to Docket No. CP16-10-000 and
the cost and revenue study. 316
(L) Equitrans’ proposal to use its existing Mainline System rates as the initial
recourse rates for firm transportation service on the Equitrans Expansion Project is
granted.
(N) Equitrans shall file an executed copy of the negotiated rate agreement as
part of its tariff, disclosing and reflecting all non-conforming language not less than
30 days and not more than 60 days, prior to the commencement of service on the
Equitrans Expansion Project.
316
Electronic Tariff Filings, 130 FERC ¶ 61,047 at P 17.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 107 -
Equitrans shall file written confirmation of such notification with the Secretary of the
Commission (Secretary) within 24 hours
(P) The late, unopposed motions to intervene filed before issuance of this order
in each respective docket are granted pursuant to Rule 214(d) of the Commission’s Rules
of Practice and Procedure.
(Q) ICG Eastern, LLC’s late, opposed motion to intervene filed before issuance
of this order in Docket No. 16-10-000 is granted pursuant to Rule 214(d) of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.
(R) The requests for full evidentiary, trial-type hearing are denied.
(SEAL)
Protect Our Water, Heritage and Ronald Tobey and Elisabeth Tobey
Rights
Roseanna E. Sacco
Rachel L. Warnock
Roy S. Quesenberry
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 -6-
Samuel V. Gittelman
Susan A. Cornish
Sandra Schlaudecker
Susan B. Ryan
Save Monroe, Inc.
Susan G. Barrett
Serina Garst
Susan M. Crenshaw
Shenandoah Valley Battlefields
Foundation Tammy A. Capaldo
Robert M. Jones
Russell Chisholm
Shirley J. Hall
Suzie Henritz
Thomas W. Triplett
Tina Smusz
Tom Hoffman
Environmental Conditions
These measures would further mitigate the environmental impact associated with
construction and operation of the projects. We have included several conditions that
require the applicants to file additional information prior to construction. Other
conditions require actions during operations. Some are standard conditions typically
attached to Commission Orders. There are conditions that apply to both applicants, and
other conditions are specific to either Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC (Mountain Valley)
or Equitrans LP (Equitrans).
Conditions 1 through 11 are standard conditions that apply to both Mountain
Valley and Equitrans.
1. Mountain Valley and Equitrans shall each follow the construction procedures and
mitigation measures described in their application and supplements, including
responses to staff data requests and as identified in the final EIS, unless modified
by the order. The applicants must:
a. request any modification to these procedures, measures, or conditions in a
filing with the Secretary of the Commission (Secretary);
b. justify each modification relative to site-specific conditions;
c. explain how that modification provides an equal or greater level of
environmental protection than the original measure; and
d. receive approval in writing from the Director of Office of Energy Projects
(OEP) before using that modification.
3. Prior to any construction, Mountain Valley and Equitrans shall each file an
affirmative statement with the Secretary of the Commission (Secretary), certified
by a senior company official, that all company personnel, environmental
inspectors (EI), and contractor personnel will be informed of the EIs’ authority
and have been or will be trained on the implementation of the environmental
mitigation measures appropriate to their jobs before becoming involved with
construction and restoration activities.
5. Mountain Valley and Equitrans shall each file detailed alignment maps/sheets and
aerial photographs at a scale not smaller than 1:6,000 identifying all route
realignments or facility relocations, and staging areas, yards, new access roads,
and other areas that would be used or disturbed and have not been previously
identified in filings with the Secretary. Approval for each of these areas must be
explicitly requested in writing. For each area, the request must include a
description of the existing land use/cover type, documentation of landowner
approval, whether any cultural resources or federally listed threatened or
endangered species would be affected, and whether any other environmentally
sensitive areas are within or abutting the area. All areas shall be clearly identified
on the maps/sheets/aerial photographs. Each area must be approved in writing by
the Director of OEP before construction in or near that area.
This requirement does not apply to extra workspace allowed by the FERC Upland
Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan and/or minor field
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 -3-
realignments per landowner needs and requirements, which do not affect other
landowners or sensitive environmental areas such as wetlands.
7. Mountain Valley and Equitrans shall each employ a team of EIs for each
construction spread. The EIs shall be:
a. responsible for monitoring and ensuring compliance with all mitigation
measures required by the Order and other grants, permits, certificates, or
other authorizing documents;
b. responsible for evaluating the construction contractor’s implementation of
the environmental mitigation measures required in the contract (see
condition 6 above) and any other authorizing document;
c. empowered to order correction of acts that violate the environmental
conditions of the Order, and any other authorizing document;
d. a full-time position, separate from all other activity inspectors;
c. responsible for documenting compliance with the environmental conditions
of the Order, as well as any environmental conditions/permit requirements
imposed by other federal, state, or local agencies; and
d. responsible for maintaining status reports.
8. Beginning with the filing of its Implementation Plan, Mountain Valley and
Equitrans shall each file updated status reports with the Secretary on a weekly
basis until all construction and restoration activities are complete. On request,
these status reports will also be provided to other federal and state agencies with
permitting responsibilities. Status reports shall include:
a. an update on Mountain Valley and Equitrans efforts to obtain the necessary
federal authorizations;
b. the construction status of their respective project facilities, work planned
for the following reporting period, and any schedule changes for stream
crossings or work in other environmentally sensitive areas;
c. a listing of all problems encountered and each instance of noncompliance
observed by the EIs during the reporting period (both for the conditions
imposed by the Commission and any environmental conditions/permit
requirements imposed by other federal, state, or local agencies);
d. a description of corrective actions implemented in response to all instances
of noncompliance, and their cost;
e. the effectiveness of all corrective actions implemented;
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 -5-
9. Mountain Valley and Equitrans must receive written authorization from the
Director of OEP before commencing construction of any project facilities. To
obtain such authorization, Mountain Valley and Equitrans must file with the
Secretary documentation that it has received all applicable authorizations required
under federal law (or evidence of waiver thereof).
10. Mountain Valley and Equitrans must each receive separate written authorization
from the Director of OEP before placing their respective projects into service.
Such authorization will only be granted following a determination that
rehabilitation and restoration of areas affected by the projects are proceeding
satisfactorily.
11. Within 30 days of placing the authorized facilities in service, Mountain Valley
and Equitrans shall each file an affirmative statement with the Secretary, certified
by a senior company official:
a. that the facilities have been constructed in compliance with all applicable
conditions, and that continuing activities will be consistent with all
applicable conditions; or
b. identifying which of the Certificate conditions Mountain Valley and
Equitrans has complied or will comply with. This statement shall also
identify any areas affected by their respective projects where compliance
measures were not properly implemented, if not previously identified in
filed status reports, and the reason for noncompliance.
Conditions 12 to 15 apply to both Mountain Valley and Equitrans, and shall be
addressed before construction is allowed to commence.
12. Prior to construction, Mountain Valley and Equitrans shall each file with the
Secretary the location of all water wells, springs, and other drinking water sources
within 150 feet (500 feet in karst terrain) of construction work areas and
aboveground facilities. (section 4.3.1.2)
13. Prior to construction, Mountain Valley and Equitrans shall file with the
Secretary, for review and written approval by the Director of OEP, revised erosion
control plans that contain only native species. (section 4.4.2.7)
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 -6-
14. Prior to construction, Mountain Valley and Equitrans shall each file with the
Secretary copies of their environmental complaint resolution procedures. The
procedures shall provide landowners with clear directions for identifying and
resolving concerns resulting from construction and restoration of the
projects. Mountain Valley and Equitrans shall mail copies of their complaint
procedures to each landowner whose property would be crossed by the projects.
In their letters to affected landowners, Mountain Valley and Equitrans shall:
a. provide a local contact that the landowners shall call first with their
concerns; the letter shall indicate how soon a landowner shall expect a
response;
b. instruct the landowners that if they are not satisfied with the response, they
shall call the Mountain Valley or Equitrans Hotline, as appropriate. The
letter shall indicate how soon to expect a response from the company; and
c. instruct the landowners that if they are still not satisfied with the response
from the company Hotline, they shall contact the Commission’s Landowner
Helpline at 877-337-2237 or at LandownerHelp@ferc.gov.
In addition, Mountain Valley and Equitrans shall include in their weekly status
reports to the FERC a table that contains the following information for each
problem/concern:
a. the identity of the caller and date of the call;
b. the location by milepost and engineering station number from the
alignment sheet(s) of the affected property;
c. a description of the problem/concern; and
d. an explanation of how and when the problem was resolved, will be
resolved, or why it has not been resolved. (Section 4.8.2.2)
15. Mountain Valley and Equitrans shall not begin construction of facilities and/or
use staging, storage, or temporary work areas and new or to-be-improved access
roads until:
a. Mountain Valley and Equitrans each files with the Secretary:
b. remaining cultural resources survey reports;
c. site evaluation reports, avoidance plans, or treatment plans, as required; and
comments on the reports and plans from the appropriate State Historic
Preservation Offices, federal land managing agencies, interested Indian
tribes, and other consulting parties.
d. the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation has been afforded an
opportunity to comment if historic properties would be adversely affected;
and
e. the FERC staff reviews and the Director of OEP approves all cultural
resources reports and plans, and notifies Mountain Valley and/or Equitrans
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 -7-
16. Prior to construction, Mountain Valley shall adopt Variation 250 into its
proposed route. As part of its Implementation Plan, Mountain Valley shall file
with the Secretary the results of all environmental surveys, an updated 7.5-minute
USGS topographic quadrangle map, and a large-scale alignment sheet that
illustrates this route change. (section 3.5.1.11)
17. Prior to construction, Mountain Valley shall file with the Secretary, for review
and approval by the Director of OEP, a segment-specific construction and
operation access plan for the area between mileposts 237.6 and 240.3, that
includes access road MVP-RO-279.01. The plan shall incorporate the measures
proposed in Mountain Valley’s July 20, 2017 filing to minimize and mitigate
impacts resulting from use of the road. (section 3.5.1.12)
19. Prior to construction, Mountain Valley shall file with the Secretary, for review
and written approval by the Director of OEP, a revised Landslide Mitigation Plan
that includes the following best management practices and measures:
a. describe methods that will ensure backfill, compaction, and restoration
activities occur only during suitable soil moisture content conditions for
steep (greater than 15 percent) slopes perpendicular to the slope contour,
not just for steep (greater than 15 percent) side slopes;
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 -8-
b. as identified for steep side slopes, place backfill material in compacted lifts
no greater than 12 inches thick and compact using an excavator bucket,
sheep’s foot, roller, or similar for all steep slopes;
c. geotechnical personnel that will be employed and onsite to prescribe
additional mitigation measures for steep slopes shall have regional
experience for constructing in and mitigating steep slopes and associated
hazards; and
d. monitoring of all landslide hazard areas identified in the final EIS in
addition to any hazard areas identified during construction using the
methods prescribed for the Jefferson National Forest. (section 4.1.2.4)
20. Prior to construction, Mountain Valley shall file with the Secretary, for review
and written approval by the Director of OEP, a revised Karst Mitigation Plan that
includes monitoring of all potential karst areas for subsidence and collapse using
the same acquired Light Imaging Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) monitoring
methods and procedures currently proposed to monitor for earth movements at
landslide hazard areas within the Jefferson National Forest. LiDAR data shall be
provided in a form that is conducive to comparison of repeat surveys, such as a
Digital Elevation Model or Digital Terrain Model. (section 4.1.2.5)
21. Prior to construction, Mountain Valley shall file with the Secretary, for review
and written approval of the Director of OEP, a revised Water Resources
Identification and Testing Plan which includes:
a. water quality testing for oil and grease, volatile organic compounds, and
hydrocarbons; and
b. post-construction monitoring, with the landowner’s permission, of all water
wells, springs, and other drinking water supply sources within 150 feet of
construction workspaces or 500 feet of construction workspaces in karst
terrain. (section 4.3.1.2)
22. Prior to construction, Mountain Valley shall file with the Secretary, for review
and written approval of the Director of OEP, source, location, and quantities of
water which would be used for dust control. (section 4.3.2.1)
23. Prior to construction, Mountain Valley shall adopt into its proposed pipeline
route the alternative alignment for the crossing of the Pigg River and adopt a
horizontal directional drill (HDD) as the crossing method. As part of its
Implementation Plan, Mountain Valley shall file with the Secretary a revised
alignment sheet, a summary comparison of impacts between the HDD alignment
and the original alignment, and an HDD Contingency Plan, for the review and
approval of the Director of OEP. (section 4.3.2.2)
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 -9-
24. Prior to construction, Mountain Valley shall file with the Secretary, for review
and written approval of the Director of OEP, water supply contingency plans,
prepared in coordination with the Public Service/Supply Districts, outlining
measures to minimize and mitigate potential impacts on public surface water
supplies with intakes within 3 miles downstream of the workspace, and Zones of
Critical Concern within 0.5 mile of the workspace. The measures shall include,
but not be limited to, providing advance notification to water supply owners prior
to the commencement of pipeline construction. (section 4.3.2.2)
25. Prior to construction, Mountain Valley shall file with the Secretary, for review
and approval by the Director of OEP, either a plan to maintain a 15 foot buffer
from the tributary to Foul Ground Creek or proposed mitigation measures to
minimize impacts on the waterbody. (section 4.3.2.2)
26. Prior to construction, Mountain Valley shall file with the Secretary, for review
and written approval by the Director of OEP, site plans and maps that illustrate
how permanent impacts on wetlands W-EE6 and W-EE7 will be avoided at the
Stallworth Compressor Station. (section 4.3.3.2)
27. Prior to construction, Mountain Valley shall file with the Secretary its final
Migratory Bird Conservation Plan. The plan shall include impact avoidance,
minimization, restoration, and/or mitigation measures for the impacts on migratory
birds and it shall be prepared in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS), West Virginia Department of Natural Resources, and the Virginia
Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. Appendix D (Restoration and
Rehabilitation Plan) of the final Migratory Bird Conservation Plan shall be
modified to match the seed list in appendix N-14 and N-15 of the EIS; and shall
include only native species, as required in Environmental Condition 13 of this
order. (section 4.5.2.6)
28. Mountain Valley shall not begin construction of the proposed facilities until:
a. all outstanding and required biological surveys for federally listed species
are completed and filed with the Secretary;
b. the FERC staff completes any necessary Endangered Species Act Section 7
informal and formal consultation with the FWS; and
c. Mountain Valley has received written notification from the Director of OEP
that construction and/or use of mitigation (including implementation of
conservation measures) may begin. (section 4.7.1.3)
29. Prior to construction, Mountain Valley shall file with the Secretary the results of
all remaining environmental surveys (water resources, wetlands, cultural
resources, and threatened and endangered species) for all cathodic protection
groundbeds. (section 4.8.1.2)
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 10 -
30. Prior to construction, Mountain Valley shall file with the Secretary evidence of
landowner concurrence with the site-specific residential construction plans for all
locations where construction work areas will be within 10 feet of a residence.
Mountain Valley shall also file with the Secretary a site-specific residential
construction plan, including site-specific justification for locating project
components within 50 feet of structures located on parcel VA-GI-5673 at about
MP 216.6. (section 4.8.2.2)
31. Prior to construction, Mountain Valley shall file with the Secretary
documentation that the U.S. Highway 50 and North Bend Rail Trail Crossing Plan
was provided to the West Virginia Department of Transportation and WVDNR for
review and comment. (section 4.8.2.4)
32. Prior to construction, Mountain Valley shall file with the Secretary
documentation that The Nature Conservancy (TNC) Property Crossing Plan was
provided to the TNC for review and comment. (section 4.8.2.4)
33. Prior to construction of the Pig River Horizontal Directional Drill (HDD)
crossing, Mountain Valley shall file with the Secretary an HDD noise analysis
identifying the existing and projected noise levels at each noise sensitive area
(NSA) within 0.5 mile of the HDD entry and exit site. If noise attributable to the
HDD is projected to exceed a day-night sound level (Ldn) of 55 decibels on the A
weighted scale (dBA) at any NSA, Mountain Valley shall file with the noise
analysis a mitigation plan to reduce the projected noise levels for the review and
written approval by the Director of OEP. During drilling operations, Mountain
Valley shall implement the approved plan, monitor noise levels, and make all
reasonable efforts to restrict the noise attributable to the drilling operations to no
more than an Ldn of 55 dBA at the NSAs. (section 4.11.2.3)
Recommendations 35 through 39 are project-specific conditions that applies only to
Equitrans and shall be addressed before construction is allowed to commence.
34. Prior to construction, Equitrans shall offer to conduct, with the landowner’s
permission, post-construction monitoring of all water wells, springs, and other
drinking water supply sources within 150 feet of construction workspaces or 500
feet of construction workspaces in karst terrain. (section 4.3.1.2)
35. Prior to construction, Equitrans shall file with the Secretary, for review and
written approval by the Director of OEP, a plan to identify septic systems and
avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures. (section 4.3.1.2)
36. Prior to construction, Equitrans shall file with the Secretary the results of all
environmental surveys (water resources, wetlands, cultural resources, and
threatened and endangered species) for the New Cline Variation. (section 4.3.2.1)
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 11 -
37. Prior to construction, Equitrans shall file with the Secretary, for the review and
written approval of the Director of OEP, a crossing plan for the Riverview Golf
Course that includes mitigation measures and documentation that the plan was
reviewed by the landowners. (section 4.8.2.4)
38. Prior to construction of the South Fork Tenmile Creek and Monongahela
River HDD crossings, Equitrans shall file with the Secretary, for the review and
written approval by the Director of OEP, an HDD noise mitigation plan to reduce
the projected noise level increase attributable to the proposed drilling operations at
NSAs. During drilling operations, Equitrans shall implement the approved plan,
monitor noise levels, include noise levels in weekly reports to the FERC, and
make all reasonable efforts to restrict the noise attributable to the drilling
operations to no more than a 10 dBA increase over ambient noise levels at the
NSAs. (section 4.11.2.3)
Condition 40 is a project-specific condition that applies only to Mountain Valley and
shall be addressed during operation of facilities.
39. Mountain Valley shall file noise surveys with the Secretary no later than 60 days
after placing the equipment at the Bradshaw, Harris (including the WB
Interconnect), and Stallworth Compressor Stations into service. If full load
condition noise surveys are not possible, Mountain Valley shall provide interim
surveys at the maximum possible horsepower load within 60 days of placing the
equipment into service and provide the full load survey within 6 months. If the
noise attributable to the operation of all of the equipment at each station under
interim or full horsepower load exceeds an Ldn of 55 dBA at the nearest NSA,
Mountain Valley shall file a report on what changes are needed and shall install
the additional noise controls to meet the level within 1 year of the in-service date.
Mountain Valley shall confirm compliance with the above requirement by filing a
second noise survey with the Secretary for each station no later than 60 days
after it installs the additional noise controls. (section 4.11.2.3)
Condition 41 is a project-specific condition that applies only to Equitrans and shall
be addressed during operation of facilities.
40. Equitrans shall file a noise survey with the Secretary no later than 60 days after
placing the Redhook Compressor Station into service. If a full load condition
noise survey is not possible, Equitrans shall provide an interim survey at the
maximum possible horsepower load within 60 days of placing the Redhook
Compressor Station into service and provide the full load survey within 6 months.
If the noise attributable to operation of the equipment at the Redhook Compressor
Station exceeds an Ldn of 55 dBA at the nearest NSA, Equitrans shall file a report
on what changes are needed and shall install the additional noise controls to meet
the level within 1 year of the in-service date. Equitrans shall confirm compliance
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 - 12 -
with the above requirement by filing a second noise survey with the Secretary no
later than 60 days after it installs the additional noise controls. (section 4.11.2.3)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
With the increasing abundance of domestic natural gas, the Commission plays a
key role in considering applications for the construction of natural gas infrastructure to
support the delivery of this important fuel source. Under the Certificate Policy
Statement, which sets forth the Commission’s approach to evaluating proposed projects
under Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, the Commission evaluates in each case whether
the benefits of the project as proposed by the applicant outweigh adverse effects on
existing shippers, other pipelines and their captive customers, landowners, and
surrounding communities. 1 For each pipeline I have considered during my time at the
Commission, I have tried to carefully apply this standard, evaluating the facts in the
record to determine whether, on balance, each individual project is in the public interest. 2
Today, the Commission is issuing orders that authorize the development of the Mountain
Valley Pipeline Project/Equitrans Expansion Project (MVP) and the Atlantic Coast
Pipeline Project (ACP). For the reasons set forth herein, I cannot conclude that either of
these projects as proposed is in the public interest, and thus, I respectfully dissent.
1
Certification of New Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline Facilities, 88 FERC
¶ 61,227 (1999) (Certificate Policy Statement), order on clarification, 90 FERC ¶ 61,128,
order on clarification, 92 FERC ¶ 61,094 (2000); 15 U.S.C. 717h (Section 7(c) of the
Natural Gas Act provides that no natural gas company shall transport natural gas or
construct any facilities for such transportation without a certificate of public convenience
and necessity.).
2
See Millenium Pipeline Company, L.L.C., 140 FERC ¶ 61,045 (2012) (LaFleur,
Comm’r, dissenting).
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 2
same region with certain segments located in close geographic proximity. Collectively,
they represent approximately 900 miles of new gas pipeline infrastructure through West
Virginia, Virginia and North Carolina, and will deliver 3.44 Bcf/d of natural gas to the
Southeast. The record demonstrates that these two large projects will have similar, and
significant, environmental impacts on the region. Both the ACP and MVP cross
hundreds of miles of karst terrain, thousands of waterbodies, and many agricultural,
residential, and commercial areas. Furthermore, the projects traverse many important
cultural, historic, and natural resources, including the Appalachian National Scenic Trail
and the Blue Ridge Parkway. Both projects appear to be receiving gas from the same
location, and both deliver gas that can reach some common destination markets.
Moreover, these projects are being developed under similar development schedules, as
further evidenced by the Commission acting on them concurrently today. 3 Given these
similarities and overlapping issues, I believe it is appropriate to balance the collective
environmental impacts of these projects on the Appalachian region against the economic
need for the projects. In so doing, I am not persuaded that both of these projects as
proposed are in the public interest.
3
ACP and MVP filed their applications for approval pursuant to section7(c) of the
Natural Gas Act on September 18, 2015 and October 23, 2015, respectively.
4
ACP Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) at 3-6 – 3-9.
5
Id. at 3-9.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 3
I recognize that the two alternatives described above were eliminated from further
consideration because they were deemed not to meet each project’s specific stated goals.
However, I believe that these alternatives demonstrate that the regional needs that these
pipelines address may be met through alternative approaches that have significantly
fewer environmental impacts.
The Commission’s policy regarding evaluation of need, and the standard applied
in these cases, is that precedent agreements generally are the best evidence for
determining market need. When applying this precedent here, I believe there is an
important distinction between the needs determinations for ACP and MVP. Both projects
provide evidence of precedent agreements to demonstrate that these pipelines will be
fully subscribed. ACP also provides specific evidence regarding the end use of the gas to
be delivered on its pipeline. ACP estimates that 79.2 percent of the gas will be
transported to supply natural gas electric generation facilities, 9.1 percent will serve
residential purposes, 8.9 percent will serve industrial purposes, and 2.8 percent will serve
other purposes such as vehicle fuel. 9 In contrast, “[w]hile Mountain Valley has entered
into precedent agreements with two end users … for approximately 13% of the MVP
6
Staff also found that this alternative would likely limit the ability to provide
additional gas to the projects’ customers, another of the stated goals for the original
proposal. Id.
7
MVP FEIS at 3-14.
8
Id.
9
ACP FEIS at 1-3.
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 4
project capacity, the ultimate destination for the remaining gas will be determined by
price differentials in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and Southeast markets, and thus, is
unknown.” 10
I believe that careful consideration of a fuller record could help the Commission
better balance environmental issues, including downstream impacts, with the project need
and its benefits. 12 I fully realize that a broader consideration of need would be a change
in our existing practice, and I would support a generic proceeding to get input from the
regulated community, and those impacted by pipelines, on how the Commission
evaluates need. 13
10
Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC, Equitrans, L.P., 161 FERC ¶ 61,043 at FN 286
(October 13, 2017).
11
Certificate Policy Statement, 88 FERC ¶ 61,227 at 61,744.
12
I note that this approach would not necessarily lead to the rejection of more
pipeline applications. Rather, it would provide all parties, including certificate
applicants, the opportunity to more broadly debate and consider the need for a proposed
project. This could, for example, support development of new infrastructure in
constrained regions where there may be demand for new capacity, but barriers to the
execution of precedent agreements that are so critical under the Commission’s current
approach. In such situations, evidence of economic need other than precedent
agreements might be offered as justification for the pipeline.
13
See also, National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation, Empire Pipeline, Inc.,
158 FERC ¶ 61,145 (Bay, Comm’r, Separate Statement).
Docket Nos. CP16-10-000 and CP16-13-000 5
I recognize that the Commission’s actions today are the culmination of years of
work in the pre-filing, application, and review processes, and I take seriously my decision
to dissent. I acknowledge that if the applicants were to adopt an alternative solution, it
would require considerable additional work and time. However, the decision before the
Commission is simply whether to approve or reject these projects, which will be in place
for decades. Given the environmental impacts and possible superior alternatives,
approving these two pipeline projects on this record is not a decision I can support.
________________________
Cheryl A. LaFleur
Commissioner
Exhibit D – Mountain Valley Pipeline
Requests for Notice to Proceed
~ Mountain 625 Liberty Avenue, Suite 1700 | Pittsburgh, PA 15222
'!.~~,~~
844-MVP-TALK | mail@mountainvalleypipeline.info
www.mountainvalleypipeline.info
On October 13, 2017, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued an order granting a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC for the
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project in this docket. Mountain Valley submitted and supplemented
its Implementation Plan for the Project on various dates. In addition, Mountain Valley has
received all permits and authorizations required under federal law to construct the Project.
Mountain Valley requests that the Director of the Office of Energy Projects issue a Notice to
Proceed with all construction activities for the facilities listed in Attachment A, including all tie-
ins and appurtenant facilities associated with such activities. Attachment B includes information
relevant to new access road MVP-BR-105.04. Mountain Valley has received landowner
permission for all construction activities requested herein.
Mountain Valley respectfully requests that this Notice to Proceed be issued by January 18, 2018.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (412) 553-5786 or
meggerding@eqt.com. Thank you.
Respectfully submitted,
MOUNTAIN VALLEY PIPELINE, LLC
by and through its operator,
EQM Gathering Opco, LLC
By:
Matthew Eggerding
Counsel, Midstream
Attachments
cc: All Parties
Paul Friedman, FERC
Lavinia DiSanto, Cardno, Inc.
Doug Mooneyhan, Cardno, Inc.
ATTACHMENT A
Page 1 of 2
Cultural Cultural Date Report Date SHPO
SHPO Clearance
Name County State Location Survey Resources Report Title (Date) Filed with Letter Filed
Date
Status Identified Y/N FERC with FERC
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey,
Volume II, Braxton and Webster Counties, West Virginia
MVP-BR-105.04* Braxton West Virginia Harris CS Complete No 10/12/2015 11/16/2015 1/19/2016
(Espino et.al. October 2015)
46GB541 (Not
Eligible);
46GB542 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey,
MVP-LY-025 Greenbrier West Virginia Stallworth CS Complete (Avoided); Addendum 2 to Volume III, Nicholas and Greenbrier Counties 8/4/2017 9/26/2017 9/28/2017
46GB544 (Espino et.al., August 2017)
(Isolated Find,
Not Eligible)
* Access Road MVP-BR-105.04 has been added to the Project. See the additional information in Attachment B.
Page 2 of 2
Attachment B
Total Change (+/‐) in Clearing of Trees by Species Habitat Type
Added access road MVP‐
BR‐105.04, which is an
existing road within the
Developed
certificated LOD. Plan to Developed Open Additional impacts to No effect on mussels ‐
Yes (Mountain Open Space;
improve rock access Space; Decidious USACE Jurisdictional No Effect ‐ Outside RLP No Effect ‐ Outside variance does not occur
77.3 77.3 WV‐BR‐046.02 Valley owns No No Yes Decidious 0 0 None None None N/A PA‐BRWV‐H601‐01 No effect (see note 1) No effect (see note 2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
from public road and Forest; Cultivated Features will not Range candy darter range at instream Project
property) Forest;
widen road up to 25 Crops occur. crossing
Cultivated Crops
feet. Road is
approximately 375 feet
in length.
1 No individuals or populations are known to occur at the parcel New access road is within historic range and has potential habitat for RPBB; however any clearing and revegetation will increase habitat connectivity and quality of foraging habitat, thus benefitting RPBB.
2 Outside known ranges of running buffalo clover, shale barren rockcress, small whorled pogonia, Virginia spiraea, smooth coneflower.
~
WV-BR-046.03.001 WV-BR-046.02
01+20
12+00
ENGINEERING
120 LF 1080 LF
120 SLOPE 1095 SLOPE
www.hollandengineering.com
I DESIGN
PIPE / COATING 1
00+00
12+00
12+00
EXCLUSION SEE TREE CLEARING PLAN FOR FURTHER DETAILS
WETLAND / STREAM
DESCRIPTION
REVISIONS
I ISSUEDFORCONSTRUCTION
MVP-BR-105
PROTECT ENVIRONMENTALLY WV-BR-046.02.001
N
I REV. 4.1.13
MVP-BR-105.02
PROPOSED 42" H600
MOUNTAIN VALLEY PIPELINE
CO RTE 24/5 - WV-BR-046.02 COLUMBIA TAP
10-14-16
11-27-17
09-03-16
01-11-18
CAUTION! PIPELINE
DATE
MILROY ROAD MVP-BR-105.04 SEE PLOT PLAN
WV-BR-046.03.001 DWG# P-W-H600-1153-01
I
I
I
I
HEI
HEI
HEI
HEI
REV. I BY
0' 50' 100' 200'
I
I
I
PLAN VIEW MP
2
3
LEGEND 0.22
PROPOSED 42"PIPELINE
i II I I
I !111 I
NON-SURVEYED C/L
II 11
MATERIAL SUMMARY
TEMPORARY ACCESS RD W-AA4
ANCILLARY SITE
COUNTY LINE
• I
P OVERHEAD POWER
S-AA15
T OVERHEAD TELEPHONE
C/L ROAD
PROPOSED 24" H601
C/L RAILROAD
DELINEATED STREAM WB IC PIPELINE S-AA11
DELINEATED WETLAND
BARRICADE FENCE
PROPOSED 24" H604
C51
T
MVP-STR-160
L{ i (_,1'.'~>o
S
#
MVP PIPELINE(92')
LM
MAILBOX LINE MARKER - VENT PIPE
.
MB
PWR TEL POWER/TELE POLE
1215
MK. NO. I QTY.
,•.~'n
92
1
3
SIGN TWR TOWER LEG
,) rJ,'>
1.1
MVP-STR-162
__)1!::::!J .._, \-=''
,·I
'--/
,-,
1
WELL GW OW WW MNW
MONITORING
POST FP GP POST - GATE/FENCE PROPOSED HARRIS WV-BR-0457.01
JJ..---,"01
APPROVED FORI
ELEC/GAS/WTR METER
:lll•
CONSTRUCTION
ID
°"
11-27-17
fil
PEDESTAL - UTILITY
DATE
EP FOP TVP
MVP-STR-163 SEE PLOT PLAN
MH - SANITARY/WATER
0.00 PROPOSED TCO WB
SAMH WMH
1.,
I
ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY
~~ ;:.
•
REV. I BY
WORK SPACE(ATWS)
•
6 I JJS
MAIN LINE VALVE
.
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
:::a
Gl
"Tl
m
m
CJ
m
m
;u
(/)
iz
09-03-16
FOR BIDDING
ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION
DATE
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
APPROVED
DRAWING NO. DESCRIPTION
PA-WVBR-H600-13 ALIGNMENT SHEET
P-W-H600-1204-01 CATHODIC PROTECTION
RRR
REV. BY
9+00 PROPOSEDlYPE 8 TEST STATION
STANDARD DRAWING
0
P-W-H600-1100-10A MAIN LINE VALVE 09 &
HARRIS C.S. PLOT PLAN
10-14-16
11-27-17
BEGIN MVP H601 PIPELINE
DATE
P-W-H600-1153-01 COLUMBIA INTERCONNECT
APPROVED
FORFERC
PLOT PLAN
\/./l~F
\VHl
--:'C/',.Dtll-<T\:
I JJS I
RRR
=1f'J""".=1lU
REV. BY
~,\F~Frl
1
6
fl')Cl
COLUMBIA TAP
y~~t~
HORIZONTAL SEE PLOT PLAN
37
2+50
5+00
L!
STATIONING
PIPELINE ALIGNMENT
I
X
I
I
R/W
<O
MVP-BR-105.03 R/W
;::
WORK SPACE
~
CAUTION! PIPELINE
>
+
MVP-BR-105.02
[D
C)
N
C
'
0
0
r
R/
W
R/W
X
PROPOSED PIPELINE
~":::J,71 1
l
:::u
62.5' 62.5' MVP-BR-105.04
8 l:l
~ Mountain
IT1
X
::I
"ti
"ti
:-s~
~~
~
ACCESS ROAD
1/)
a,
"' z
II
0
0
0
!z!
TEMPORARY WORK SPACE
---<
X X
;;o
;;o
'Tl
77
'Tl
Cf)
X X X
O
0
0
"'
0
0
12.5'
12.5'
PERMANENT EASEMENT X
25.0' X
25.0'
HARRIS COMPRESSOR STATION
X X X X X X 25.0' X
25.0'
PROPOSED 24" H604
X
TEMPORARY
~I
X
WORK SPACE(TWS) WB INTERCONNECT MVP PIPELINE(92')
r\
MVP-MLV-09 X
ADD. TEMPORARY
X
P-AA1
~
X
WORK SPACE(ATWS) X
W-AA4
X
\
CONSTRUCTION METHOD 1.1
CONSTRUCTION METHOD KEY
u,
u,
u,
u,
1.1 - TYPICAL R/W WORKING SIDE LEFT
a,
0
0
0
0
--.J
u,
u,
u,
0
0
0
0
.,..
.,..
--.J
u,
u,
0
0
0
0
HORZ. SCALE: 1" = 100'
.,..
O>
b
u,
0
0
0
DRAWN BY: HEI(DRF) 05/09/15
+1-+--+---+---l--+--+----l--+-+----+--l
+1-+--+---+---l--+--l---t--+-+----+--l
DRAFTING CK:. .
ENGINEERING CK:. .
O>
u,
u,
(,J
(,J
0
0
0
0
CONSTRUCTION CK:. .
ENVIRONMENTAL CK:. .
~
u,
u,
(,J
(,J
0
0
0
0
AFE/P.O.NO.:
HEI PROJECT NO.: 14-10-052
PROFILE DRAWING NO.:
u,
u,
u,
N
N
0
0
0
0
PA-BRWV-H601-01
SHEET 1 OF 1 REV. 3
--.J
~
+
+
u,
u,
u,
N
DATE OF PLOT: 01/12/18 8:00 AM
0
0
0
0
0
~ Mountain 625 Liberty Avenue, Suite 1700 | Pittsburgh, PA 15222
'!.~~,~~
844-MVP-TALK | mail@mountainvalleypipeline.info
www.mountainvalleypipeline.info
On October 13, 2017, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued an order granting a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC for the
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project in this docket. Mountain Valley submitted and supplemented
its Implementation Plan for the Project on various dates. In addition, Mountain Valley has
received all permits and authorizations required under federal law to construct the Project.
Mountain Valley requests that the Director of the Office of Energy Projects issue a Notice to
Proceed with all construction activities for the facilities listed in Attachment A. Mountain
Valley has received landowner permission for all construction activities requested herein.
Mountain Valley respectfully requests that this Notice to Proceed be issued by January 19, 2018.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (412) 553-5786 or
meggerding@eqt.com. Thank you.
Respectfully submitted,
MOUNTAIN VALLEY PIPELINE, LLC
by and through its operator,
EQM Gathering Opco, LLC
By:
Matthew Eggerding
Counsel, Midstream
Attachment
cc: All Parties
Paul Friedman, FERC
Lavinia DiSanto, Cardno, Inc.
Doug Mooneyhan, Cardno, Inc.
ATTACHMENT A
Laydown Yards
Cultural Survey Cultural Resources Date Report Filed with Date SHPO Letter Filed
Name County State Report Title (Date) SHPO Clearance Date
Status Identified Y/N FERC with FERC
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey,
MVP-LY-003 Harrison West Virginia Complete No Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 12/22/2016 12/7/2016 12/22/2016
Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., November 2016)
Access Roads
Cultural Survey Cultural Resources Date Report Filed with Date SHPO Letter Filed
Access Road Name County State Report Title (Date) SHPO Clearance Date
Status Identified Y/N FERC with FERC
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey,
MVP-DO-048.01 Doddridge West Virginia Complete No Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 12/22/2016 12/7/2016 12/22/2016
Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., November 2016)
Page 1 of 8
Access Roads
Cultural Survey Cultural Resources Date Report Filed with Date SHPO Letter Filed
Access Road Name County State Report Title (Date) SHPO Clearance Date
Status Identified Y/N FERC with FERC
46WB410 (Not Eligible),
46WB420 (Isolated Find,
Not Eligible), 46WB421 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey,
MVP-MLV-AR-10 Webster West Virginia Complete (Isolated Find, Not Volume II, Braxton and Webster Counties, West Virginia 10/12/2015 11/16/2015 1/19/2016
Eligible), 46WB422 (Espino et.al. October 2015)
(Isolated Find, Not
Eligible),
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey,
MVP-MLV-AR-11 Webster West Virginia Complete 46WB439 (Not Eligible) Addendum 1 to Volume II, Braxton and Webster Counties 12/22/2016 12/08/2016 12/22/2016
(Freedman et.al. November 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey,
MVP-WB-107 Webster West Virginia Complete No Volume II, Braxton and Webster Counties, West Virginia 10/12/2015 11/16/2015 1/19/2016
(Espino et.al. October 2015)
Page 2 of 8
Access Roads
Cultural Survey Cultural Resources Date Report Filed with Date SHPO Letter Filed
Access Road Name County State Report Title (Date) SHPO Clearance Date
Status Identified Y/N FERC with FERC
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey,
MVP-WB-124 Webster West Virginia Complete No Volume II, Braxton and Webster Counties, West Virginia 10/12/2015 11/16/2015 1/19/2016
(Espino et.al. October 2015)
Page 3 of 8
Access Roads
Cultural Survey Cultural Resources Date Report Filed with Date SHPO Letter Filed
Access Road Name County State Report Title (Date) SHPO Clearance Date
Status Identified Y/N FERC with FERC
Page 4 of 8
Access Roads
Cultural Survey Cultural Resources Date Report Filed with Date SHPO Letter Filed
Access Road Name County State Report Title (Date) SHPO Clearance Date
Status Identified Y/N FERC with FERC
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey,
MVP-NI-159.01 Nicholas West Virginia Complete No Volume III, Nicholas, Greenbrier, and Fayette Counties, West 12/24/2015 1/27/2016 3/24/2016
Virginia (Espino et.al. December 2015)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey,
MVP-NI-160 Nicholas West Virginia Complete No Volume III, Nicholas, Greenbrier, and Fayette Counties, West 12/24/2015 1/27/2016 3/24/2016
Virginia (Espino et.al. December 2015)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey,
MVP-NI-160.01 Nicholas West Virginia Complete No Volume III, Nicholas, Greenbrier, and Fayette Counties, West 12/24/2015 1/27/2016 3/24/2016
Virginia (Espino et.al. December 2015)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey,
MVP-NI-161 Nicholas West Virginia Complete No Volume III, Nicholas, Greenbrier, and Fayette Counties, West 12/24/2015 1/27/2016 3/24/2016
Virginia (Espino et.al. December 2015)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey,
MVP-NI-163 Nicholas West Virginia Complete No Volume III, Nicholas, Greenbrier, and Fayette Counties, West 12/24/2015 1/27/2016 3/24/2016
Virginia (Espino et.al. December 2015)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey,
MVP-NI-164 Nicholas West Virginia Complete No Volume III, Nicholas, Greenbrier, and Fayette Counties, West 12/24/2015 1/27/2016 3/24/2016
Virginia (Espino et.al. December 2015)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey,
MVP-NI-166 Nicholas West Virginia Complete No Volume III, Nicholas, Greenbrier, and Fayette Counties, West 12/24/2015 1/27/2016 3/24/2016
Virginia (Espino et.al. December 2015)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey,
MVP-NI-167 Nicholas West Virginia Complete No Volume III, Nicholas, Greenbrier, and Fayette Counties, West 12/24/2015 1/27/2016 3/24/2016
Virginia (Espino et.al. December 2015)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey,
MVP-NI-168 Nicholas West Virginia Complete No Volume III, Nicholas, Greenbrier, and Fayette Counties, West 12/24/2015 1/27/2016 3/24/2016
Virginia (Espino et.al. December 2015)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey,
Volume III, Nicholas, Greenbrier, and Fayette Counties, West
Virginia (Espino et.al. December 2015); Mountain Valley
Pipeline Project, Avoidance Plans for Unevaluated
MVP-NI-170 Nicholas West Virginia Complete 46NI842-CEM (Avoided) Archaeological Sites, Potentially Eligible Archaeological Sites, 12/24/2015; 7/18/2016 1/27/2016; 8/22/2016 3/24/2016; 3/30/2017
and Cemeteries Identified in Volumes I through IV, Braxton,
Greenbrier, Harrison, Lewis, Monroe, Nicholas, Summers,
Webster, and Wetzel Counties, West Virginia (Espino and
Marine July 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey,
Volume III, Nicholas, Greenbrier, and Fayette Counties, West
Virginia (Espino et.al. December 2015); Mountain Valley
Pipeline Project, Avoidance Plans for Unevaluated
Archaeological Sites, Potentially Eligible Archaeological Sites,
MVP-NI-171 Nicholas West Virginia Complete 46NI821 (Avoided) 12/24/2015; 7/18/2016 1/27/2016; 8/22/2016 3/24/2016; 3/30/2017
and Cemeteries Identified in Volumes I through IV, Braxton,
Greenbrier, Harrison, Lewis, Monroe, Nicholas, Summers,
Webster, and Wetzel Counties, West Virginia (Espino and
Marine July 2016)
Page 5 of 8
Access Roads
Cultural Survey Cultural Resources Date Report Filed with Date SHPO Letter Filed
Access Road Name County State Report Title (Date) SHPO Clearance Date
Status Identified Y/N FERC with FERC
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey,
MVP-GB-174.03 Greenbrier West Virginia Complete No Addendum 1 to Volume III, Nicholas, Greenbrier, and Fayette 1/22/2017 2/8/2017 2/17/2017
Counties, West Virginia (Espino et.al. January 2017)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey,
MVP-GB-176 Greenbrier West Virginia Complete No Volume III, Nicholas, Greenbrier, and Fayette Counties, West 12/24/2015 1/27/2016 3/24/2016
Virginia (Espino et.al. December 2015)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey,
Volume III, Nicholas, Greenbrier, and Fayette Counties, West
Virginia (Espino et.al. December 2015); Mountain Valley
46GB494 (Not Eligible), Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey, Addendum 2 to 12/24/2015; 8/4/2017; 1/27/2016; 9/26/2017; 3/24/2016; 9/28/2017;
MVP-GB-177 Greenbrier West Virginia Complete
46GB540 (Avoided) Volume III, Nicholas, Greenbrier, and Fayette Counties (Espino 11/1/2017 10/17/2017 12/20/2017
et al. August 2017); Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase II
Archaeological Investigations, Site 46GB540, Greenbrier
County, West Virginia (Barse et.al. September 2017)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey,
MVP-GB-179 Greenbrier West Virginia Complete No Volume III, Nicholas, Greenbrier, and Fayette Counties, West 12/24/2015 1/27/2016 3/24/2016
Virginia (Espino et.al. December 2015)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey,
MVP-GB-182 Greenbrier West Virginia Complete No Volume III, Nicholas, Greenbrier, and Fayette Counties, West 12/24/2015 1/27/2016 3/24/2016
Virginia (Espino et.al. December 2015)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey,
MVP-GB-184 Greenbrier West Virginia Complete No Volume III, Nicholas, Greenbrier, and Fayette Counties, West 12/24/2015 1/27/2016 3/24/2016
Virginia (Espino et.al. December 2015)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey,
MVP-GB-184.01 Greenbrier West Virginia Complete No Addendum 1 to Volume III, Nicholas, Greenbrier, and Fayette 1/22/2017 2/8/2017 2/17/2017
Counties, West Virginia (Espino et.al. January 2017)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey,
MVP-GB-185 Greenbrier West Virginia Complete No Volume III, Nicholas, Greenbrier, and Fayette Counties, West 12/24/2015 1/27/2016 3/24/2016
Virginia (Espino et.al. December 2015)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey,
MVP-GB-186 Greenbrier West Virginia Complete No Volume III, Nicholas, Greenbrier, and Fayette Counties, West 12/24/2015 1/27/2016 3/24/2016
Virginia (Espino et.al. December 2015)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey,
MVP-GB-187.01 Greenbrier West Virginia Complete 46GB497 (Not Eligible) Volume III, Nicholas, Greenbrier, and Fayette Counties, West 12/24/2015 1/27/2016 3/24/2016
Virginia (Espino et.al. December 2015)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey,
MVP-GB-187.02 Greenbrier West Virginia Complete No Volume III, Nicholas, Greenbrier, and Fayette Counties, West 12/24/2015 1/27/2016 3/24/2016
Virginia (Espino et.al. December 2015)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey,
MVP-GB-187.03 Greenbrier West Virginia Complete No Volume III, Nicholas, Greenbrier, and Fayette Counties, West 12/24/2015 1/27/2016 3/24/2016
Virginia (Espino et.al. December 2015)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey,
MVP-GB-188 Greenbrier West Virginia Complete No Volume III, Nicholas, Greenbrier, and Fayette Counties, West 12/24/2015 1/27/2016 3/24/2016
Virginia (Espino et.al. December 2015)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey,
MVP-GB-189 Greenbrier West Virginia Complete No Volume III, Nicholas, Greenbrier, and Fayette Counties, West 12/24/2015 1/27/2016 3/24/2016
Virginia (Espino et.al. December 2015)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey,
MVP-GB-190 Greenbrier West Virginia Complete No Volume III, Nicholas, Greenbrier, and Fayette Counties, West 12/24/2015 1/27/2016 3/24/2016
Virginia (Espino et.al. December 2015)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey,
Addendum 1 to Volume III, Nicholas, Greenbrier, and Fayette
Counties, West Virginia (Espino et.al. January 2017); Mountain
46GB533 (Not Eligible in Valley Pipeline Project, Phase II Archaeological Investigations,
MVP-GB-193 Greenbrier West Virginia Complete 1/22/2017; 2/17/2017 2/8/2017; 3/31/2017 2/17/2017; 4/18/2017
LOD) Sites 46NI846, 46NI847, 46GB493, 46GB498, 46GB499,
46GB500, 46GB503, 46GB504, 46GB505, 46GB533, and
46NI827, Nicholas and Greenbrier Counties, West Virginia
(Barse et.al. February 2017)
Page 6 of 8
Access Roads
Cultural Survey Cultural Resources Date Report Filed with Date SHPO Letter Filed
Access Road Name County State Report Title (Date) SHPO Clearance Date
Status Identified Y/N FERC with FERC
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey,
MVP-GB-193.01 Greenbrier West Virginia Complete No Addendum 1 to Volume III, Nicholas, Greenbrier, and Fayette 1/22/2017 2/8/2017 2/17/2017
Counties, West Virginia (Espino et.al. January 2017)
Page 7 of 8
Access Roads
Cultural Survey Cultural Resources Date Report Filed with Date SHPO Letter Filed
Access Road Name County State Report Title (Date) SHPO Clearance Date
Status Identified Y/N FERC with FERC
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey,
Volume IV, Summers and Monroe Counties, West Virginia
(Clement et.al. February 2016); Mountain Valley Pipeline
MVP-MO-215 Monroe West Virginia Complete No 2/26/2016; 12/22/2016 4/4/2016; 1/17/2017 4/21/2016; 2/17/2017
Project, Cultural Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume IV,
Summers and Monroe Counties, West Virginia (Freedman et.al.
December 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey,
Addendum 4 to Volume IV, Summers and Monroe Counties,
West Virginia (Espino et.al. September 2017); Mountain Valley
MVP-MO-215.01 Monroe West Virginia Complete 46ME311 (Avoided) 11/1/2017; 7/7/2017 10/23/2017; 8/15/2017 12/20/2017; 8/25/2017
Pipeline Project, Site 46ME311 Phase II Archaeological
Investigation, Site Avoidance Plan, and Contingency Treatment
Plan, Monroe County, West Virginia (Barse et.al. July 2017)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey,
MVP-MO-217 Monroe West Virginia Complete No Addendum 1 to Volume IV, Summers and Monroe Counties, 12/22/2016 1/17/2017 2/17/2017
West Virginia (Freedman et.al. December 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey,
Addendum 1 to Volume IV, Summers and Monroe Counties,
West Virginia (Freedman et.al. December 2016); Mountain
MVP-MO-225 Monroe West Virginia Complete No 12/22/2016; 11/1/2017 1/17/2017; 10/23/2017 2/17/2017; 12/20/2017
Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey, Addendum
4 to Volume IV, Summers and Monroe Counties, West Virginia
(Espino et.al. September 2017)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey,
MVP-MO-227.01 Monroe West Virginia Complete No Addendum 1 to Volume IV, Summers and Monroe Counties, 12/22/2016 1/17/2017 2/17/2017
West Virginia (Freedman et.al. December 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey,
MVP-MO-227.02 Monroe West Virginia Complete No Addendum 1 to Volume IV, Summers and Monroe Counties, 12/22/2016 1/17/2017 2/17/2017
West Virginia (Freedman et.al. December 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey,
MVP-MO-230 Monroe West Virginia Complete No Volume IV, Summers and Monroe Counties, West Virginia 2/26/2016 4/4/2016 4/21/2016
(Clement et.al. February 2016)
Page 8 of 8
~ Mountain 625 Liberty Avenue, Suite 1700 | Pittsburgh, PA 15222
'!.~~,~~
844-MVP-TALK | mail@mountainvalleypipeline.info
www.mountainvalleypipeline.info
On October 13, 2017, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued an order granting a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC for the
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project in this docket. Mountain Valley submitted and supplemented
its Implementation Plan for the Project on various dates.
Mountain Valley requests that the Director of the Office of Energy Projects issue a Notice to
Proceed with all construction activities for the facilities listed in Attachment A. Mountain
Valley has received all permits and authorizations required under federal law to construct the
Project.
Mountain Valley respectfully requests that this Notice to Proceed be issued by January 31, 2018.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (412) 553-5786 or
meggerding@eqt.com. Thank you.
Respectfully submitted,
MOUNTAIN VALLEY PIPELINE, LLC
by and through its operator,
EQM Gathering Opco, LLC
By:
Matthew Eggerding
Counsel, Midstream
Attachment
cc: All Parties
Paul Friedman, FERC
Lavinia DiSanto, Cardno, Inc.
Doug Mooneyhan, Cardno, Inc.
Ms. Kimberly D. Bose
January 26, 2018
Page 2 of 2
Attachment A
Access Roads
Cultural Date SHPO
Wetland Survey Cultural Survey RTE Survey Date Report SHPO Nationwide 12
Facility Name County State Resources Letter Filed with Report Title (Date) RTE Status
Status Status Status Filed with FERC Clearance Date Permit Status
Identified Y/N FERC
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
Resources Survey, Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP-WE-001 Wetzel West Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Doddridge and Lewis Counties, West Virginia identified RTE Included in NWP
(Espino et.al. September 2015) impacts
Page 1 of 11
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
Resources Survey, Volume III, Nicholas, CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP-MLV-AR-14 Nicholas West Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 12/24/2015 1/27/2016 3/24/2016 Greenbrier, and Fayette Counties, West Virginia identified RTE Included in NWP
(Espino et.al. December 2015) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume III,
MVP-NI-139 Nicholas West Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 1/22/2017 2/8/2017 2/17/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
Nicholas, Greenbrier, and Fayette Counties, West
impacts
Virginia (Espino et.al. January 2017)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume III,
MVP-NI-140 Nicholas West Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 1/22/2017 2/8/2017 2/17/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
Nicholas, Greenbrier, and Fayette Counties, West
impacts
Virginia (Espino et.al. January 2017)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume III,
MVP-NI-146 Nicholas West Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 1/22/2017 2/8/2017 2/17/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
Nicholas, Greenbrier, and Fayette Counties, West
impacts
Virginia (Espino et.al. January 2017)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume III,
MVP-NI-146 Nicholas West Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 1/22/2017 2/8/2017 2/17/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
Nicholas, Greenbrier, and Fayette Counties, West
impacts
Virginia (Espino et.al. January 2017)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume III,
MVP-NI-146 Nicholas West Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 1/22/2017 2/8/2017 2/17/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
Nicholas, Greenbrier, and Fayette Counties, West
impacts
Virginia (Espino et.al. January 2017)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
46NI851 Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume III,
MVP-NI-147 Nicholas West Virginia Complete Complete Complete 1/22/2017 2/8/2017 2/17/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
(Avoided) Nicholas, Greenbrier, and Fayette Counties, West
impacts
Virginia (Espino et.al. January 2017)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume III,
MVP-NI-148.01 Nicholas West Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 1/22/2017 2/8/2017 2/17/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
Nicholas, Greenbrier, and Fayette Counties, West
impacts
Virginia (Espino et.al. January 2017)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
Resources Survey, Volume III, Nicholas, CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP-NI-149 Nicholas West Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 12/24/2015 1/27/2016 3/24/2016 Greenbrier, and Fayette Counties, West Virginia identified RTE Included in NWP
(Espino et.al. December 2015) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
Resources Survey, Volume III, Nicholas, CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP-NI-156 Nicholas West Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 12/24/2015 1/27/2016 3/24/2016 Greenbrier, and Fayette Counties, West Virginia identified RTE Included in NWP
(Espino et.al. December 2015) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
Resources Survey, Volume III, Nicholas, CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP-GB-178 Greenbrier West Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 12/24/2015 1/27/2016 3/24/2016 Greenbrier, and Fayette Counties, West Virginia identified RTE Included in NWP
(Espino et.al. December 2015) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume III,
MVP-GB-178.01 Greenbrier West Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 1/22/2017 2/8/2017 2/17/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
Nicholas, Greenbrier, and Fayette Counties, West
impacts
Virginia (Espino et.al. January 2017)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
Resources Survey, Volume III, Nicholas,
Greenbrier, and Fayette Counties, West Virginia
(Espino et.al. December 2015); Mountain Valley CLEARED ‐ NO
12/24/2015; 1/27/2016; 3/24/2016;
MVP-GB-187 Greenbrier West Virginia Complete Complete Complete No Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey, identified RTE Included in NWP
1/22/2017 2/8/2017 2/17/2017 Addendum 1 to Volume III, Nicholas, Greenbrier, impacts
and Fayette Counties, West Virginia (Espino et.al.
January 2017)
Page 2 of 11
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
Resources Survey, Volume III, Nicholas, CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP-MLV-AR-16 Greenbrier West Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 12/24/2015 1/27/2016 3/24/2016 Greenbrier, and Fayette Counties, West Virginia identified RTE Included in NWP
(Espino et.al. December 2015) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
Resources Survey, Volume IV, Summers and CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP-MO-212 Monroe West Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 2/26/2016 4/4/2016 4/21/2016 Monroe Counties, West Virginia (Clement et.al. identified RTE Included in NWP
February 2016) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
46ME277 Resources Survey, Volume IV, Summers and CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP-MO-218 Monroe West Virginia Complete Complete Complete (Isolated Find, 2/26/2016 4/4/2016 4/21/2016 Monroe Counties, West Virginia (Clement et.al. identified RTE Included in NWP
Not Eligible) February 2016) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
Resources Survey, Volume IV, Summers and CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP-MO-221 Monroe West Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 2/26/2016 4/4/2016 4/21/2016 Monroe Counties, West Virginia (Clement et.al. identified RTE Included in NWP
February 2016) impacts
Page 3 of 11
Pipeline
MP Start (based MP End (based
Cultural Date Report Date SHPO
on IFC Route on IFC Route Wetland Survey Cultural Survey RTE Survey SHPO Nationwide 12
Facility Name County State Parcel Number Resources Report Title (Date) Filed with Letter Filed RTE Status
filed with FERC filed with FERC Status Status Status Clearance Date Permit Status
Identified Y/N FERC with FERC
on 12-20-2017) on 12-20-2017)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 0 0.2 WV‐WE‐001.01 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 0 0.4 WV‐WE‐001 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 0.3 0.4 WV‐WE‐003 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 0.2 0.5 WV‐WE‐001.02 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 0.4 0.6 WV‐WE‐002 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
46WZ78/79 (Not Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Eligible); Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 0.6 0.8 WV‐WE‐0006 Complete Complete Complete 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
46WZ128 (Not Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
Eligible) (Espino et.al 2105)
46WZ125 (Not
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
Eligible); CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 0.7 1.2 WV‐WE‐005 Complete Complete Complete 46WZ129 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
(Isolated Find, impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Not Eligible)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 1.0 1.1 WV‐WE‐005.01 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 1.1 1.2 WV‐WE‐006 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 1.3 1.4 WV‐WE‐007.01 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 1.4 1.7 WV‐WE‐009 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 1.1 1.4 WV‐WE‐007 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 1.4 1.9 WV‐WE‐008 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 1.7 1.8 WV‐WE‐010 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 1.8 1.9 WV‐WE‐011 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Page 4 of 11
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel,
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV
(Espino et.al 2105); Mountain Valley Pipeline
Project, Avoidance Plans for Unevaluated
46WZ127 (Not
Archaeological Sites, Potentially Eligible CLEARED ‐ NO
Eligible); 9/12/2015; 10/06/2015; 10/23/2015; Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 1.8 2.1 WV‐WE‐012 Complete Complete Complete Archaeological Sites, and Cemeteries Identified in identified RTE
46WZ136‐CEM 7/8/2016 8/22/2016 3/30/2017 NWP
Volumes I‐IV (Espino and Marine 2016); impacts
(Avoided)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Avoidance
Plans for Unevaluated Archaeological Sites,
Potentially Eligible Archaeological Sites, and
Cemeteries Identified in Volumes I‐IV (Espino and
Marine 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
46WZ127 (Not Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 1.8 2.1 WV‐WE‐014 Complete Complete Complete 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Eligible) Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
46WZ135 CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 1.9 2.1 WV‐WE‐013 Complete Complete Complete (Isolated Find, 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
Not Eligible) impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 2.1 2.3 WV‐WE‐015 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
46WZ123 (Not Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 2.6 2.9 WV‐WE‐018 Complete Complete Complete 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Eligible) Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
46WZ132 (Not Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 2.3 2.5 WV‐WE‐016 Complete Complete Complete 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Eligible) Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 2.3 2.4 WV‐WE‐016.01 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 2.4 2.7 WV‐WE‐017 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 2.9 3.3 WV‐WE‐018.02.1 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
46WZ133 (Not Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 2.9 3.2 WV‐WE‐018.01 Complete Complete Complete 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Eligible) Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 3.3 3.4 WV‐WE‐018.03.1 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
46WZ134 (Not Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 3.2 3.5 WV‐WE‐018.03 Complete Complete Complete 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Eligible) Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 3.5 3.8 WV‐WE‐018.06 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 3.5 3.6 BW‐WE‐2 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 3.7 3.8 BW‐WE‐3 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
46WZ137 (Not Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 3.7 4.2 WV‐WE‐018.08 Complete Complete Complete 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Eligible) Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Page 5 of 11
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 4.0 4.2 WV‐WE‐018.10 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 4.2 4.5 WV‐WE‐018.11 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
46WZ126 (Not Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 4.5 5.0 WV‐WE‐027 Complete Complete Complete 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Eligible) Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 4.9 5.0 WV‐WE‐5831 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 identified RTE
Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al., November 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 5.4 5.7 WV‐WE‐037 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 5.0 5.5 WV‐WE‐027.01 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 5.6 6.6 WV‐WE‐027.02 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 6.1 6.3 WV‐WE‐037.01 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 identified RTE
Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al., November 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 6.6 6.9 WV‐WE‐037.02 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 6.8 6.9 WV‐WE‐044 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 6.8 7.2 WV‐WE‐045.01 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 6.9 7.8 WV‐WE‐037.03 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 7.2 7.7 WV‐WE‐045.02 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 7.7 7.8 WV‐WE‐045.02.1 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 identified RTE
Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al., November 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 7.9 8.0 BWE‐R5 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2017 12/07/2017 12/22/2017 identified RTE
Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al., November 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
46WZ150 (Not Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 7.8 7.9 WV‐WE‐5833 Complete Complete Complete 12/22/2017 12/07/2017 12/22/2017 identified RTE
Eligible) Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al., November 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel,
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV CLEARED ‐ NO
9/12/2015; 10/06/2015; 10/23/2015; Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 7.9 8.9 WV‐WE‐047.01 Complete Complete Complete No (Espino et.al 2105); Mountain Valley Pipeline identified RTE
12/22/2017 12/07/2017 12/22/2017 NWP
Project, Cultural Resources Survey, Addendum 1 impacts
to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and
Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., November 2016)
Page 6 of 11
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 8.8 8.9 WV‐WE‐047.02 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2017 12/07/2017 12/22/2017 identified RTE
Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al., November 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 8.9 9.5 WV‐WE‐047.03 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2017 12/07/2017 12/22/2017 identified RTE
Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al., November 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 9.2 9.6 WV‐HA‐002 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2017 12/07/2017 12/22/2017 identified RTE
Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al., November 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 9.5 9.6 WV‐HA‐004 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Page 7 of 11
ATWS
MP Start (based MP End (based
Cultural Date Report Date SHPO
on IFC Route on IFC Route Wetland Survey Cultural Survey RTE Survey SHPO Nationwide 12
Facility Name County State Parcel Number Resources Report Title (Date) Filed with Letter Filed RTE Status
filed with FERC filed with FERC Status Status Status Clearance Date Permit Status
Identified Y/N FERC with FERC
on 12-20-2017) on 12-20-2017)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐732A Wetzel West Virginia 0.1 ‐ WV‐WE‐3877 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐732 Wetzel West Virginia 0.2 ‐ WV‐WE‐3877 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐732 Wetzel West Virginia 0.2 ‐ WV‐WE‐004 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐410 Wetzel West Virginia 0.2 ‐ WV‐WE‐001.02 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐733 Wetzel West Virginia 0.2 ‐ WV‐WE‐001.02 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐733A Wetzel West Virginia 0.2 ‐ WV‐WE‐001.02 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐002 Wetzel West Virginia 0.6 ‐ WV‐WE‐002 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
46WZ78/79 (Not Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐003A Wetzel West Virginia 0.7 ‐ WV‐WE‐0006 Complete Complete Complete 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Eligible) Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
46WZ78/79 (Not Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐735 Wetzel West Virginia 0.7 ‐ WV‐WE‐0006 Complete Complete Complete 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Eligible) Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
46WZ78/79 (Not Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐735A Wetzel West Virginia 0.7 ‐ WV‐WE‐0006 Complete Complete Complete 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Eligible) Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐736A Wetzel West Virginia 1.1 ‐ WV‐WE‐005 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐412 Wetzel West Virginia 1.1 ‐ WV‐WE‐007 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐736 Wetzel West Virginia 1.1 ‐ WV‐WE‐007 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐736A Wetzel West Virginia 1.1 ‐ WV‐WE‐007 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐738 Wetzel West Virginia 1.3 ‐ WV‐WE‐007 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐738B Wetzel West Virginia 1.3 ‐ WV‐WE‐007 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐739 Wetzel West Virginia 1.4 ‐ WV‐WE‐007 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐743 Wetzel West Virginia 1.9 ‐ WV‐WE‐3882 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Page 8 of 11
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐743A Wetzel West Virginia 1.9 ‐ WV‐WE‐5679 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
46WZ132 (Not Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐005 Wetzel West Virginia 2.3 ‐ WV‐WE‐015 Complete Complete Complete 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Eligible) Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
46WZ132 (Not Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐005 Wetzel West Virginia 2.3 ‐ WV‐WE‐016 Complete Complete Complete 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Eligible) Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐005B Wetzel West Virginia 2.3 ‐ WV‐WE‐016 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
46WZ132 (Not Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐005 Wetzel West Virginia 2.3 ‐ WV‐WE‐016.01 Complete Complete Complete 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Eligible) Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐744 Wetzel West Virginia 4.4 ‐ WV‐WE‐018.11 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐745A Wetzel West Virginia 4.5 ‐ WV‐WE‐027 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 identified RTE
Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al., November 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐745 Wetzel West Virginia 4.5 ‐ WV‐WE‐4328 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 identified RTE
Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al., November 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐745A Wetzel West Virginia 4.5 ‐ WV‐WE‐4328 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 identified RTE
Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al., November 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐745 Wetzel West Virginia 4.5 ‐ WV‐WE‐4329 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 identified RTE
Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al., November 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐746 Wetzel West Virginia 4.8 ‐ WV‐WE‐027 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 identified RTE
Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al., November 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐747 Wetzel West Virginia 4.8 ‐ WV‐WE‐027 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐746 Wetzel West Virginia 4.8 ‐ WV‐WE‐5831 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐747 Wetzel West Virginia 4.8 ‐ WV‐WE‐5831 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 identified RTE
Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al., November 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
46WZ126 (Not Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐006 Wetzel West Virginia 4.9 ‐ WV‐WE‐027 Complete Complete Complete 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Eligible) Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
46WZ126 (Not Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐006A Wetzel West Virginia 4.9 ‐ WV‐WE‐027 Complete Complete Complete 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Eligible) Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐783 Wetzel West Virginia 5 ‐ WV‐WE‐3895 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 identified RTE
Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al., November 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐783A Wetzel West Virginia 5 ‐ WV‐WE‐3895 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 identified RTE
Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al., November 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐783A Wetzel West Virginia 5 ‐ WV‐WE‐3894 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 identified RTE
Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al., November 2016)
Page 9 of 11
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐784 Wetzel West Virginia 5 ‐ WV‐WE‐3894 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 identified RTE
Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al., November 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐007 Wetzel West Virginia 5.2 ‐ WV‐WE‐027.01 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐008 Wetzel West Virginia 5.3 ‐ WV‐WE‐027.01 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐1496 Wetzel West Virginia 5.4 ‐ WV‐WE‐037.002 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 identified RTE
Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al., November 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐009 Wetzel West Virginia 5.6 ‐ WV‐WE‐037 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐010 Wetzel West Virginia 6.5 ‐ WV‐WE‐027.02 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐010A Wetzel West Virginia 6.5 ‐ WV‐WE‐027.02 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐010 Wetzel West Virginia 6.5 ‐ WV‐WE‐037.02 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐010A Wetzel West Virginia 6.5 ‐ WV‐WE‐037.02 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐785 Wetzel West Virginia 6.5 ‐ WV‐WE‐3892 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 identified RTE
Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al., November 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
46WZ154 (Not CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐786 Wetzel West Virginia 6.6 ‐ WV‐WE‐3887 Complete Complete Complete Eligible, Isolated 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 identified RTE
Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties NWP
Find) impacts
(Espino et.al., November 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐786A Wetzel West Virginia 6.6 ‐ WV‐WE‐3887 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 identified RTE
Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al., November 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐011 Wetzel West Virginia 6.8 ‐ WV‐WE‐037.02 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐011A Wetzel West Virginia 6.8 ‐ WV‐WE‐037.02 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐749 Wetzel West Virginia 7.3 ‐ WV‐WE‐045.02 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐748 Wetzel West Virginia 7.3 ‐ BWE‐R3 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 identified RTE
Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al., November 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
46WZ150 (Not Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐012 Wetzel West Virginia 7.9 ‐ WV‐WE‐5833 Complete Complete Complete 12/22/2017 12/07/2017 12/22/2017 identified RTE
Eligible) Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al., November 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
46WZ150 (Not Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐012A Wetzel West Virginia 7.9 ‐ WV‐WE‐5833 Complete Complete Complete 12/22/2017 12/07/2017 12/22/2017 identified RTE
Eligible) Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al., November 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐1420 Wetzel West Virginia 8.7 ‐ WV‐WE‐3904 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2017 12/07/2017 12/22/2017 identified RTE
Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al., November 2016)
Page 10 of 11
46WZ151 (Not Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Eligible); Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐013 Wetzel West Virginia 8.8 ‐ WV‐WE‐047.01 Complete Complete Complete 12/22/2017 12/07/2017 12/22/2017 identified RTE
46WZ152 (Not Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties NWP
impacts
Eligible) (Espino et.al., November 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐690 Wetzel West Virginia 9.2 ‐ WV‐HA‐002 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2017 12/07/2017 12/22/2017 identified RTE
Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al., November 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐690 Wetzel West Virginia 9.2 ‐ WV‐WE‐047.03 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2017 12/07/2017 12/22/2017 identified RTE
Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al., November 2016)
Page 11 of 11
~ Mountain 625 Liberty Avenue, Suite 1700 | Pittsburgh, PA 15222
'!.~~,~~
844-MVP-TALK | mail@mountainvalleypipeline.info
www.mountainvalleypipeline.info
On October 13, 2017, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued an order granting a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC for the
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project in this docket. Mountain Valley submitted and supplemented
its Implementation Plan for the Project on various dates.
Mountain Valley requests that the Director of the Office of Energy Projects issue a Notice to
Proceed with all construction activities for the facilities listed in Attachment A. Mountain
Valley has received all permits and authorizations required under federal law to construct the
Project. Following issuance of the Notice to Proceed, the timing of the actual construction may
vary depending upon state permits.
Mountain Valley respectfully requests that this Notice to Proceed be issued by February 1, 2018.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (412) 553-5786 or
meggerding@eqt.com. Thank you.
Respectfully submitted,
MOUNTAIN VALLEY PIPELINE, LLC
by and through its operator,
EQM Gathering Opco, LLC
By:
Matthew Eggerding
Counsel, Midstream
Attachment
cc: All Parties
Paul Friedman, FERC
Lavinia DiSanto, Cardno, Inc.
Doug Mooneyhan, Cardno, Inc.
Ms. Kimberly D. Bose
January 26, 2018
Page 2 of 2
Attachment A
Access Roads
Cultural Date Report SHPO Date SHPO
Wetland Cultural RTE Survey Nationwide 12 Permit
Facility Name County State Resources Filed with Clearance Letter Filed Report Title (Date) RTE Status
Survey Status Survey Status Status Status
Identified Y/N FERC Date with FERC
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-GI-234 Giles Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-GI-234 Giles Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-GI-234 Giles Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-GI-235 Giles Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-GI-235 Giles Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-GI-236 Giles Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-GI-237 Giles Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-GI-237 Giles Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
44GS0236 (Not CLEARED - NO
MVP-MLV-AR-24 Giles Virginia Complete Complete Complete 2/17/2017 10/25/2017 11/1/2017 Addendum I Archaeological Survey and Phase II Included in NWP
Eligible) idenitified RTE impacts
Evaluations of Sites 44GS0227, 44GS0229,
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-MLV-AR-24 Giles Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
44GS0236 (Not CLEARED - NO
MVP-MLV-AR-24 Giles Virginia Complete Complete Complete 2/17/2017 10/25/2017 11/1/2017 Addendum I Archaeological Survey and Phase II Included in NWP
Eligible) idenitified RTE impacts
Evaluations of Sites 44GS0227, 44GS0229,
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-GI-240 Giles Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-GI-241 Giles Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-GI-241.01 Giles Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-GI-241.04 Giles Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-GI-241.01 Giles Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-GI-241.04 Giles Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-GI-241.04 Giles Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-GI-241.04 Giles Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-GI-241.04 Giles Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-GI-241.04 Giles Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-GI-241.02 Giles Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-GI-241.02 Giles Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 2/17/2017 10/25/2017 11/1/2017 Addendum I Archaeological Survey and Phase II Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Evaluations of Sites 44GS0227, 44GS0229,
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-GI-241.03 Giles Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 2/17/2017 10/25/2017 11/1/2017 Addendum I Archaeological Survey and Phase II Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Evaluations of Sites 44GS0227, 44GS0229,
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-GI-242 Giles Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-GI-242 Giles Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-GI-244 Giles Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-GI-245.01 Giles Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 2/17/2017 10/25/2017 11/1/2017 Addendum I Archaeological Survey and Phase II Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Evaluations of Sites 44GS0227, 44GS0229,
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-GI-245.01 Giles Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 2/17/2017 10/25/2017 11/1/2017 Addendum I Archaeological Survey and Phase II Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Evaluations of Sites 44GS0227, 44GS0229,
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-GI-245.01 Giles Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 2/17/2017 10/25/2017 11/1/2017 Addendum I Archaeological Survey and Phase II Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Evaluations of Sites 44GS0227, 44GS0229,
Page 1 of 7
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-GI-245.02 Giles Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-GI-245.02A Giles Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-GI-245.02 Giles Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Page 2 of 7
Pipeline
MP Start MP End
(based on IFC (based on IFC Cultural Date SHPO
Parcel Wetland Cultural RTE Survey Date Report Filed with Nationwide 12 Permit
Facility Name County State Route filed Route filed Resources Report Title (Date) SHPO Clearance Date Letter Filed RTE Status
Number Survey Status Survey Status Status FERC Status
with FERC on with FERC on Identified Y/N with FERC
12-20-2017) 12-20-2017)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 198.5 198.6 VA-GI-005 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 198.5 198.6 VA-GI-5445 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 198.6 198.7 VA-GI-006 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 198.7 199.0 VA-GI-008 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 198.9 199.0 VA-GI-008.01 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 198.9 199.0 VA-GI-008.02 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 199.0 199.5 VA-GI-008.03 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 199.5 199.6 BGI-0 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 199.5 200.0 VA-GI-008.05 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 199.5 199.9 VA-GI-008.05.5 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 201.2 201.4 VA-GI-015.01 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Addendum I Archaeological Survey and Phase II
44GS0236 (Not CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 201.2 201.6 VA-GI-015 Complete Complete Complete Evaluations of Sites 44GS0227, 44GS0229, 2/17/2017 10/25/2017 11/1/2017 Included in NWP
Eligible) idenitified RTE impacts
44GS0230, 44GS0231, and 44GS0236, Giles
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Addendum I Archaeological Survey and Phase II
44GS0236 (Not CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 201.5 202.0 VA-GI-017 Complete Complete Complete Evaluations of Sites 44GS0227, 44GS0229, 2/17/2017 10/25/2017 11/1/2017 Included in NWP
Eligible) idenitified RTE impacts
44GS0230, 44GS0231, and 44GS0236, Giles
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 202.0 202.4 VA-GI-018 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 202.4 202.5 VA-GI-019 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 202.5 202.6 VA-GI-5308 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 202.6 202.7 VA-GI-020 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 202.7 203.2 VA-GI-021 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 203.1 203.4 VA-GI-022 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 203.3 203.4 VA-GI-022.01 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 203.4 203.6 VA-GI-023 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 203.6 203.7 BVGI-3 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 203.5 203.6 VA-GI-024 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Addendum I Archaeological Survey and Phase II
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 203.6 203.7 VA-GI-025 Complete Complete Complete No Evaluations of Sites 44GS0227, 44GS0229, 2/17/2017 10/25/2017 11/1/2017 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
44GS0230, 44GS0231, and 44GS0236, Giles
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 203.7 203.8 BVGI-4 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 203.6 203.8 VA-GI-026 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Page 3 of 7
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 203.8 203.9 VA-GI-027 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 203.9 204.1 VA-GI-027.01 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 204.1 204.2 VA-GI-030 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 204.1 204.2 VA-GI-4415 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 204.1 204.2 VA-GI-031 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 204.1 204.3 VA-GI-032 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 204.3 204.4 BVGI-7 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Addendum I Archaeological Survey and Phase II
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 204.3 204.4 VA-GI-033 Complete Complete Complete No Evaluations of Sites 44GS0227, 44GS0229, 2/17/2017 10/25/2017 11/1/2017 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
44GS0230, 44GS0231, and 44GS0236, Giles
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Addendum I Archaeological Survey and Phase II
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 204.4 204.5 VA-GI-035.01 Complete Complete Complete No Evaluations of Sites 44GS0227, 44GS0229, 2/17/2017 10/25/2017 11/1/2017 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
44GS0230, 44GS0231, and 44GS0236, Giles
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 205.4 205.5 VA-GI-038 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 205.5 205.9 VA-GI-039 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Addendum I Archaeological Survey and Phase II
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 205.9 206.1 VA-GI-040 Complete Complete Complete No Evaluations of Sites 44GS0227, 44GS0229, 2/17/2017 10/25/2017 11/1/2017 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
44GS0230, 44GS0231, and 44GS0236, Giles
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 206.1 206.2 VA-GI-041 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 206.2 206.7 VA-GI-043 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
44GS0234 (Not CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 206.7 206.8 VA-GI-048 Complete Complete Complete Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
Eligible) idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
44GS0228 (Not CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 206.8 207.5 VA-GI-049 Complete Complete Complete Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
Eligible) idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 206.9 207.0 VA-GI-5310 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 207.2 207.3 BVGI-10 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Addendum I Archaeological Survey and Phase II
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 207.5 207.9 VA-GI-050 Complete Complete Complete No Evaluations of Sites 44GS0227, 44GS0229, 2/17/2017 10/25/2017 11/1/2017 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
44GS0230, 44GS0231, and 44GS0236, Giles
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 207.9 208.0 VA-GI-051 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 207.9 208.1 VA-GI-052 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 208.1 208.2 VA-GI-053 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 208.1 208.3 VA-GI-054 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 208.2 208.3 VA-GI-055 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 208.3 208.4 VA-GI-056 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 208.4 208.5 VA-GI-057 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 208.5 209.0 VA-GI-058 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 209.0 209.1 VA-GI-059 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Page 4 of 7
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Addendum I Archaeological Survey and Phase II
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 209.1 209.4 VA-GI-200.002 Complete Complete Complete No Evaluations of Sites 44GS0227, 44GS0229, 2/17/2017 10/25/2017 11/1/2017 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
44GS0230, 44GS0231, and 44GS0236, Giles
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Addendum I Archaeological Survey and Phase II
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 209.4 209.5 VA-GI-5447 Complete Complete Complete No Evaluations of Sites 44GS0227, 44GS0229, 2/17/2017 10/25/2017 11/1/2017 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
44GS0230, 44GS0231, and 44GS0236, Giles
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Addendum I Archaeological Survey and Phase II
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 209.5 209.7 VA-GI-061 Complete Complete Complete No Evaluations of Sites 44GS0227, 44GS0229, 2/17/2017 10/25/2017 11/1/2017 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
44GS0230, 44GS0231, and 44GS0236, Giles
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Addendum I Archaeological Survey and Phase II
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 209.6 209.8 VA-GI-062 Complete Complete Complete No Evaluations of Sites 44GS0227, 44GS0229, 2/17/2017 10/25/2017 11/1/2017 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
44GS0230, 44GS0231, and 44GS0236, Giles
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
44GS0233 (Not CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 209.7 210.1 VA-GI-200.003 Complete Complete Complete Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
Eligible) idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 210.1 210.6 VA-GI-066 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Addendum I Archaeological Survey and Phase II
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 210.2 210.3 VA-GI-063 Complete Complete Complete No Evaluations of Sites 44GS0227, 44GS0229, 2/17/2017 10/25/2017 11/1/2017 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
44GS0230, 44GS0231, and 44GS0236, Giles
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Addendum I Archaeological Survey and Phase II
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 210.3 210.4 VA-GI-064 Complete Complete Complete No Evaluations of Sites 44GS0227, 44GS0229, 2/17/2017 10/25/2017 11/1/2017 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
44GS0230, 44GS0231, and 44GS0236, Giles
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Addendum I Archaeological Survey and Phase II
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 210.4 210.6 VA-GI-065 Complete Complete Complete No Evaluations of Sites 44GS0227, 44GS0229, 2/17/2017 10/25/2017 11/1/2017 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
44GS0230, 44GS0231, and 44GS0236, Giles
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Addendum I Archaeological Survey and Phase II
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 210.6 210.8 VA-GI-067 Complete Complete Complete No Evaluations of Sites 44GS0227, 44GS0229, 2/17/2017 10/25/2017 11/1/2017 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
44GS0230, 44GS0231, and 44GS0236, Giles
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Addendum I Archaeological Survey and Phase II
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 210.5 210.6 VA-GI-4248 Complete Complete Complete No Evaluations of Sites 44GS0227, 44GS0229, 2/17/2017 10/25/2017 11/1/2017 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
44GS0230, 44GS0231, and 44GS0236, Giles
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Addendum I Archaeological Survey and Phase II
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 210.8 210.9 VA-GI-068 Complete Complete Complete No Evaluations of Sites 44GS0227, 44GS0229, 2/17/2017 10/25/2017 11/1/2017 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
44GS0230, 44GS0231, and 44GS0236, Giles
County, Virginia
Page 5 of 7
ATWS
MP Start MP End
(based on IFC (based on IFC Cultural Date SHPO
Parcel Wetland Cultural RTE Survey Date Report Filed with Nationwide 12 Permit
Facility Name County State Route filed Route filed Resources Report Title (Date) SHPO Clearance Date Letter Filed RTE Status
Number Survey Status Survey Status Status FERC Status
with FERC on with FERC on Identified Y/N with FERC
12-20-2017) 12-20-2017)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-610B Giles Virginia 198.8 - VA-GI-008 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-610 Giles Virginia 198.9 - VA-GI-008 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-610A Giles Virginia 198.9 - VA-GI-008 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-610 Giles Virginia 198.9 - VA-GI-008.01 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-610A Giles Virginia 198.9 - VA-GI-008.01 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-610 Giles Virginia 198.9 - VA-GI-009 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-1129 Giles Virginia 199.0 - VA-GI-008.03 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-1124 Giles Virginia 199.2 - VA-GI-008.03 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-1125 Giles Virginia 199.2 - VA-GI-008.03 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-814 Giles Virginia 199.2 - VA-GI-008.03 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-1129 Giles Virginia 199.2 - VA-GI-4412 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-1126 Giles Virginia 199.3 - VA-GI-008.03 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-1127 Giles Virginia 199.3 - VA-GI-008.03 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-1128 Giles Virginia 199.3 - VA-GI-008.03 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-815 Giles Virginia 199.3 - VA-GI-008.03 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-1130 Giles Virginia 199.4 - VA-GI-008.03 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-1131 Giles Virginia 199.4 - VA-GI-008.05 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-1132 Giles Virginia 199.8 - VA-GI-008.05 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-340 Giles Virginia 200.7 - VA-GI-013 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-1133 Giles Virginia 201.5 - VA-GI-013 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-1135 Giles Virginia 201.5 - VA-GI-015 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-1134 Giles Virginia 201.6 - VA-GI-013 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-1136 Giles Virginia 201.6 - VA-GI-017 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-1335 Giles Virginia 202.0 - VA-GI-018 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-816 Giles Virginia 202.3 - VA-GI-018 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-1390 Giles Virginia 202.6 - VA-GI-020 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-1390 Giles Virginia 202.6 - VA-GI-5308 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-1391 Giles Virginia 202.6 - VA-GI-5308 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Page 6 of 7
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-1391 Giles Virginia 202.7 - VA-GI-020 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-341 Giles Virginia 202.9 - VA-GI-021 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-1056 Giles Virginia 203.6 - VA-GI-026 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-469 Giles Virginia 204.3 - VA-GI-032 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Addendum I Archaeological Survey and Phase II
CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-1334 Giles Virginia 204.3 - VA-GI-033 Complete Complete Complete No Evaluations of Sites 44GS0227, 44GS0229, 2/17/2017 10/25/2017 11/1/2017 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
44GS0230, 44GS0231, and 44GS0236, Giles
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Addendum I Archaeological Survey and Phase II
CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-469 Giles Virginia 204.3 - VA-GI-033 Complete Complete Complete No Evaluations of Sites 44GS0227, 44GS0229, 2/17/2017 10/25/2017 11/1/2017 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
44GS0230, 44GS0231, and 44GS0236, Giles
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-466 Giles Virginia 205.5 - VA-GI-039 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-1332 Giles Virginia 205.9 - VA-GI-039 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-1360 Giles Virginia 205.9 - VA-GI-039 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-1333 Giles Virginia 206.0 - VA-GI-039.01 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Addendum I Archaeological Survey and Phase II
CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-1333 Giles Virginia 206.0 - VA-GI-040 Complete Complete Complete No Evaluations of Sites 44GS0227, 44GS0229, 2/17/2017 10/25/2017 11/1/2017 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
44GS0230, 44GS0231, and 44GS0236, Giles
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-470 Giles Virginia 206.5 - VA-GI-043 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
44GS0234 (Not CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-471 Giles Virginia 206.8 - VA-GI-048 Complete Complete Complete Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
Eligible) idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-1331 Giles Virginia 206.8 - VA-GI-049 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
44GS0228 (Not CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-467 Giles Virginia 207.2 - VA-GI-049 Complete Complete Complete Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
Eligible) idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-1137 Giles Virginia 207.9 - VA-GI-051 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-1138 Giles Virginia 207.9 - VA-GI-051 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-1138 Giles Virginia 208.0 - VA-GI-052 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-974 Giles Virginia 208.4 - VA-GI-056 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-974A Giles Virginia 208.4 - VA-GI-056 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-1145 Giles Virginia 208.6 - VA-GI-058 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-1146 Giles Virginia 208.6 - VA-GI-058 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-1143 Giles Virginia 209.0 - VA-GI-058 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-1144 Giles Virginia 209.0 - VA-GI-058 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Addendum I Archaeological Survey and Phase II
CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-1465 Giles Virginia 209.5 - VA-GI-5447 Complete Complete Complete No Evaluations of Sites 44GS0227, 44GS0229, 2/17/2017 10/25/2017 11/1/2017 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
44GS0230, 44GS0231, and 44GS0236, Giles
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-1366 Giles Virginia 210.0 - VA-GI-200.003 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Giles County, 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia
Page 7 of 7
~ Mountain 625 Liberty Avenue, Suite 1700 | Pittsburgh, PA 15222
'!.~~,~~
844-MVP-TALK | mail@mountainvalleypipeline.info
www.mountainvalleypipeline.info
On January 26, 2018, Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC filed its Request for Notice to Proceed
No. 4. Mountain Valley herein updates Attachment A to that request to clarify the facilities and
information provided.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (412) 553-5786 or
meggerding@eqt.com. Thank you.
Respectfully submitted,
MOUNTAIN VALLEY PIPELINE, LLC
by and through its operator,
EQM Gathering Opco, LLC
By:
Matthew Eggerding
Counsel, Midstream
Attachment
cc: All Parties
Paul Friedman, FERC
Lavinia DiSanto, Cardno, Inc.
Doug Mooneyhan, Cardno, Inc.
Ms. Kimberly D. Bose
January 30, 2018
Page 2 of 2
Attachment A
Page 1 of 9
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume II,
MVP-WB-131.03 Webster West Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/08/2016 12/22/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Braxton and Webster Counties (Freedman et.al.
November 2016) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
Resources Survey, Volume III, Nicholas, CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP-MLV-AR-14 Nicholas West Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 12/24/2015 1/27/2016 3/24/2016 Greenbrier, and Fayette Counties, West Virginia identified RTE Included in NWP
(Espino et.al. December 2015) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume III,
MVP-NI-139 Nicholas West Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 1/22/2017 2/8/2017 2/17/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
Nicholas, Greenbrier, and Fayette Counties, West
impacts
Virginia (Espino et.al. January 2017)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume III,
MVP-NI-140 Nicholas West Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 1/22/2017 2/8/2017 2/17/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
Nicholas, Greenbrier, and Fayette Counties, West
impacts
Virginia (Espino et.al. January 2017)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume III,
MVP-NI-146 Nicholas West Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 1/22/2017 2/8/2017 2/17/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
Nicholas, Greenbrier, and Fayette Counties, West
impacts
Virginia (Espino et.al. January 2017)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
46NI851 Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume III,
MVP-NI-147 Nicholas West Virginia Complete Complete Complete 1/22/2017 2/8/2017 2/17/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
(Avoided) Nicholas, Greenbrier, and Fayette Counties, West
impacts
Virginia (Espino et.al. January 2017)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume III,
MVP-NI-148.01 Nicholas West Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 1/22/2017 2/8/2017 2/17/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
Nicholas, Greenbrier, and Fayette Counties, West
impacts
Virginia (Espino et.al. January 2017)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
Resources Survey, Volume III, Nicholas, CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP-NI-149 Nicholas West Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 12/24/2015 1/27/2016 3/24/2016 Greenbrier, and Fayette Counties, West Virginia identified RTE Included in NWP
(Espino et.al. December 2015) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
Resources Survey, Volume III, Nicholas, CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP-NI-156 Nicholas West Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 12/24/2015 1/27/2016 3/24/2016 Greenbrier, and Fayette Counties, West Virginia identified RTE Included in NWP
(Espino et.al. December 2015) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
Resources Survey, Volume III, Nicholas, CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP-GB-178 Greenbrier West Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 12/24/2015 1/27/2016 3/24/2016 Greenbrier, and Fayette Counties, West Virginia identified RTE Included in NWP
(Espino et.al. December 2015) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume III,
MVP-GB-178.01 Greenbrier West Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 1/22/2017 2/8/2017 2/17/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
Nicholas, Greenbrier, and Fayette Counties, West
impacts
Virginia (Espino et.al. January 2017)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
Resources Survey, Volume III, Nicholas,
Greenbrier, and Fayette Counties, West Virginia
(Espino et.al. December 2015); Mountain Valley CLEARED ‐ NO
12/24/2015; 1/27/2016; 3/24/2016;
MVP-GB-187 Greenbrier West Virginia Complete Complete Complete No Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey, identified RTE Included in NWP
1/22/2017 2/8/2017 2/17/2017 Addendum 1 to Volume III, Nicholas, Greenbrier, impacts
and Fayette Counties, West Virginia (Espino et.al.
January 2017)
Page 2 of 9
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
Resources Survey, Volume IV, Summers and CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP-MO-221 Monroe West Virginia Complete Complete Complete No 2/26/2016 4/4/2016 4/21/2016 Monroe Counties, West Virginia (Clement et.al. identified RTE Included in NWP
February 2016) impacts
Page 3 of 9
Pipeline
MP Start (based MP End (based
Cultural Date Report Date SHPO
on IFC Route filed on IFC Route Wetland Survey Cultural Survey RTE Survey SHPO Nationwide 12
Facility Name County State Parcel Number Resources Report Title (Date) Filed with Letter Filed RTE Status
with FERC on 12- filed with FERC Status Status Status Clearance Date Permit Status
Identified Y/N FERC with FERC
20-2017) on 12-20-2017)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 0 0.2 WV‐WE‐001.01 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 0 0.4 WV‐WE‐001 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 0.3 0.4 WV‐WE‐003 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 0.2 0.5 WV‐WE‐001.02 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 0.4 0.6 WV‐WE‐002 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
46WZ78/79 (Not Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Eligible); Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 0.6 0.8 WV‐WE‐0006 Complete Complete Complete 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
46WZ128 (Not Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
Eligible) (Espino et.al 2105)
46WZ125 (Not
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
Eligible); CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 0.7 1.2 WV‐WE‐005 Complete Complete Complete 46WZ129 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
(Isolated Find, impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Not Eligible)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 1.0 1.1 WV‐WE‐005.01 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 1.1 1.2 WV‐WE‐006 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 1.3 1.4 WV‐WE‐007.01 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 1.4 1.7 WV‐WE‐009 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 1.1 1.4 WV‐WE‐007 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 1.4 1.9 WV‐WE‐008 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 1.7 1.8 WV‐WE‐010 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 1.8 1.9 WV‐WE‐011 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Page 4 of 9
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel,
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV
(Espino et.al 2105); Mountain Valley Pipeline
Project, Avoidance Plans for Unevaluated
46WZ127 (Not
Archaeological Sites, Potentially Eligible CLEARED ‐ NO
Eligible); 9/12/2015; 10/06/2015; 10/23/2015; Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 1.8 2.1 WV‐WE‐012 Complete Complete Complete Archaeological Sites, and Cemeteries Identified in identified RTE
46WZ136‐CEM 7/8/2016 8/22/2016 3/30/2017 NWP
Volumes I‐IV (Espino and Marine 2016); Mountain impacts
(Avoided)
Valley Pipeline Project, Avoidance Plans for
Unevaluated Archaeological Sites, Potentially
Eligible Archaeological Sites, and Cemeteries
Identified in Volumes I‐IV (Espino and Marine
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
46WZ127 (Not Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 1.8 2.1 WV‐WE‐014 Complete Complete Complete 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Eligible) Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
46WZ135 CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 1.9 2.1 WV‐WE‐013 Complete Complete Complete (Isolated Find, 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
Not Eligible) impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 2.1 2.3 WV‐WE‐015 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
46WZ123 (Not Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 2.6 2.9 WV‐WE‐018 Complete Complete Complete 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Eligible) Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
46WZ132 (Not Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 2.3 2.5 WV‐WE‐016 Complete Complete Complete 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Eligible) Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 2.3 2.4 WV‐WE‐016.01 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 2.4 2.7 WV‐WE‐017 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 2.9 3.3 WV‐WE‐018.02.1 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
46WZ133 (Not Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 2.9 3.2 WV‐WE‐018.01 Complete Complete Complete 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Eligible) Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 3.3 3.4 WV‐WE‐018.03.1 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
46WZ134 (Not Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 3.2 3.5 WV‐WE‐018.03 Complete Complete Complete 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Eligible) Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 3.5 3.8 WV‐WE‐018.06 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 3.5 3.6 BW‐WE‐2 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 3.7 3.8 BW‐WE‐3 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
46WZ137 (Not Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 3.7 4.2 WV‐WE‐018.08 Complete Complete Complete 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Eligible) Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Page 5 of 9
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 4.0 4.2 WV‐WE‐018.10 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 4.2 4.5 WV‐WE‐018.11 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
46WZ126 (Not Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 4.5 5.0 WV‐WE‐027 Complete Complete Complete 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Eligible) Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 4.9 5.0 WV‐WE‐5831 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 identified RTE
Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al., November 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 5.4 5.7 WV‐WE‐037 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 5.0 5.5 WV‐WE‐027.01 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 5.6 6.6 WV‐WE‐027.02 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 6.1 6.3 WV‐WE‐037.01 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 identified RTE
Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al., November 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 6.6 6.9 WV‐WE‐037.02 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 6.8 6.9 WV‐WE‐044 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 6.8 7.2 WV‐WE‐045.01 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 6.9 7.8 WV‐WE‐037.03 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 7.2 7.7 WV‐WE‐045.02 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 7.7 7.8 WV‐WE‐045.02.1 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 identified RTE
Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al., November 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 7.9 8.0 BWE‐R5 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2017 12/07/2017 12/22/2017 identified RTE
Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al., November 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
46WZ150 (Not Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 7.8 7.9 WV‐WE‐5833 Complete Complete Complete 12/22/2017 12/07/2017 12/22/2017 identified RTE
Eligible) Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al., November 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel,
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV CLEARED ‐ NO
9/12/2015; 10/06/2015; 10/23/2015; Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 7.9 8.9 WV‐WE‐047.01 Complete Complete Complete No (Espino et.al 2105); Mountain Valley Pipeline identified RTE
12/22/2017 12/07/2017 12/22/2017 NWP
Project, Cultural Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to impacts
Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis
Counties (Espino et.al., November 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 8.8 8.9 WV‐WE‐047.02 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2017 12/07/2017 12/22/2017 identified RTE
Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al., November 2016)
Page 6 of 9
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 8.9 9.5 WV‐WE‐047.03 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2017 12/07/2017 12/22/2017 identified RTE
Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al., November 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 9.2 9.6 WV‐HA‐002 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2017 12/07/2017 12/22/2017 identified RTE
Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al., November 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
Pipeline Wetzel West Virginia 9.5 9.6 WV‐HA‐004 Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Page 7 of 9
ATWS
MP Start (based MP End (based
Cultural SHPO Date SHPO
on IFC Route filed on IFC Route Wetland Survey Cultural Survey RTE Survey Date Report Nationwide 12
Facility Name County State Resources Report Title (Date) Clearance Letter Filed with RTE Status
with FERC on 12- filed with FERC Status Status Status Filed with FERC Permit Status
Identified Y/N Date FERC
20-2017) on 12-20-2017)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐732A Wetzel West Virginia 0.1 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐410 Wetzel West Virginia 0.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐732 Wetzel West Virginia 0.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐733 Wetzel West Virginia 0.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐733A Wetzel West Virginia 0.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐002 Wetzel West Virginia 0.6 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
46WZ78/79 (Not Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐003A Wetzel West Virginia 0.7 ‐ Complete Complete Complete 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Eligible) Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
46WZ78/79 (Not Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐735 Wetzel West Virginia 0.7 ‐ Complete Complete Complete 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Eligible) Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
46WZ78/79 (Not Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐735A Wetzel West Virginia 0.7 ‐ Complete Complete Complete 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Eligible) Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐412 Wetzel West Virginia 1.1 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐736 Wetzel West Virginia 1.1 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐736A Wetzel West Virginia 1.1 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐738 Wetzel West Virginia 1.3 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐738B Wetzel West Virginia 1.3 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐739 Wetzel West Virginia 1.4 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐743 Wetzel West Virginia 1.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐743A Wetzel West Virginia 1.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Page 8 of 9
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
46WZ132 (Not Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐005 Wetzel West Virginia 2.3 ‐ Complete Complete Complete 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Eligible) Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐005B Wetzel West Virginia 2.3 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐744 Wetzel West Virginia 4.4 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐745 Wetzel West Virginia 4.5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 identified RTE
Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al., November 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐783 Wetzel West Virginia 5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 identified RTE
Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al., November 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐783A Wetzel West Virginia 5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 identified RTE
Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al., November 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐784 Wetzel West Virginia 5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 identified RTE
Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al., November 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐007 Wetzel West Virginia 5.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐008 Wetzel West Virginia 5.3 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐1496 Wetzel West Virginia 5.4 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 identified RTE
Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al., November 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐009 Wetzel West Virginia 5.6 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐785 Wetzel West Virginia 6.5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 identified RTE
Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al., November 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
46WZ154 (Not CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐786 Wetzel West Virginia 6.6 ‐ Complete Complete Complete Eligible, Isolated 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 identified RTE
Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties NWP
Find) impacts
(Espino et.al., November 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐786A Wetzel West Virginia 6.6 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 identified RTE
Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al., November 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐748 Wetzel West Virginia 7.3 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 identified RTE
Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al., November 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐749 Wetzel West Virginia 7.3 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 identified RTE
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
46WZ150 (Not Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐012 Wetzel West Virginia 7.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete 12/22/2017 12/07/2017 12/22/2017 identified RTE
Eligible) Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al., November 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
46WZ150 (Not Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐012A Wetzel West Virginia 7.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete 12/22/2017 12/07/2017 12/22/2017 identified RTE
Eligible) Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al., November 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
CLEARED ‐ NO
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Included in
MVP‐ATWS‐690 Wetzel West Virginia 9.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2017 12/07/2017 12/22/2017 identified RTE
Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties NWP
impacts
(Espino et.al., November 2016)
Page 9 of 9
~ Mountain 625 Liberty Avenue, Suite 1700 | Pittsburgh, PA 15222
'!.~~,~~
844-MVP-TALK | mail@mountainvalleypipeline.info
www.mountainvalleypipeline.info
On January 26, 2018, Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC filed its Request for Notice to Proceed
No. 5. Mountain Valley herein updates Attachment A to that request to clarify the facilities and
information provided.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (412) 553-5786 or
meggerding@eqt.com. Thank you.
Respectfully submitted,
MOUNTAIN VALLEY PIPELINE, LLC
by and through its operator,
EQM Gathering Opco, LLC
By:
Matthew Eggerding
Counsel, Midstream
Attachment
cc: All Parties
Paul Friedman, FERC
Lavinia DiSanto, Cardno, Inc.
Doug Mooneyhan, Cardno, Inc.
Ms. Kimberly D. Bose
January 30, 2018
Page 2 of 2
Attachment A
Page 1 of 5
Pipeline
MP Start MP End (based
(based on IFC on IFC Route Cultural Date SHPO
Wetland Cultural RTE Survey Date Report Filed with Nationwide 12 Permit
Facility Name County State Route filed filed with Parcel Number Resources Report Title (Date) SHPO Clearance Date Letter Filed RTE Status
Survey Status Survey Status Status FERC Status
with FERC on FERC on 12-20- Identified Y/N with FERC
12-20-2017) 2017)
Page 2 of 5
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeologica CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 206.2 206.7 VA-GI-043 Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia idenitified RTE impacts
44GS0234 (Not Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeologica CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 206.7 206.8 VA-GI-048 Complete Complete Complete 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
Eligible) Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia idenitified RTE impacts
44GS0228 (Not Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeologica CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 206.8 207.5 VA-GI-049 Complete Complete Complete 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
Eligible) Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia idenitified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeologica CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 206.9 207.0 VA-GI-5310 Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia idenitified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeologica CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 207.2 207.3 BVGI-10 Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia idenitified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Addendum I
Archaeological Survey and Phase II Evaluations of Sites CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 207.5 207.9 VA-GI-050 Complete Complete Complete No 2/17/2017 10/25/2017 11/1/2017 Included in NWP
44GS0227, 44GS0229, 44GS0230, 44GS0231, and idenitified RTE impacts
44GS0236, Giles County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeologica CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 207.9 208.0 VA-GI-051 Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia idenitified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeologica CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 207.9 208.1 VA-GI-052 Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia idenitified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeologica CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 208.1 208.2 VA-GI-053 Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia idenitified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeologica CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 208.1 208.3 VA-GI-054 Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia idenitified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeologica CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 208.2 208.3 VA-GI-055 Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia idenitified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeologica CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 208.3 208.4 VA-GI-056 Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia idenitified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeologica CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 208.4 208.5 VA-GI-057 Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia idenitified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeologica CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 208.5 209.0 VA-GI-058 Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia idenitified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeologica CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 209.0 209.1 VA-GI-059 Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia idenitified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Addendum I
Archaeological Survey and Phase II Evaluations of Sites CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 209.1 209.4 VA-GI-200.002 Complete Complete Complete No 2/17/2017 10/25/2017 11/1/2017 Included in NWP
44GS0227, 44GS0229, 44GS0230, 44GS0231, and idenitified RTE impacts
44GS0236, Giles County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Addendum I
Archaeological Survey and Phase II Evaluations of Sites CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 209.4 209.5 VA-GI-5447 Complete Complete Complete No 2/17/2017 10/25/2017 11/1/2017 Included in NWP
44GS0227, 44GS0229, 44GS0230, 44GS0231, and idenitified RTE impacts
44GS0236, Giles County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Addendum I
Archaeological Survey and Phase II Evaluations of Sites CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 209.5 209.7 VA-GI-061 Complete Complete Complete No 2/17/2017 10/25/2017 11/1/2017 Included in NWP
44GS0227, 44GS0229, 44GS0230, 44GS0231, and idenitified RTE impacts
44GS0236, Giles County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Addendum I
Archaeological Survey and Phase II Evaluations of Sites CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 209.6 209.8 VA-GI-062 Complete Complete Complete No 2/17/2017 10/25/2017 11/1/2017 Included in NWP
44GS0227, 44GS0229, 44GS0230, 44GS0231, and idenitified RTE impacts
44GS0236, Giles County, Virginia
44GS0233 (Not Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeologica CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 209.7 210.1 VA-GI-200.003 Complete Complete Complete 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
Eligible) Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia idenitified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeologica CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 210.1 210.6 VA-GI-066 Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 Included in NWP
Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia idenitified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Addendum I
Archaeological Survey and Phase II Evaluations of Sites CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 210.2 210.3 VA-GI-063 Complete Complete Complete No 2/17/2017 10/25/2017 11/1/2017 Included in NWP
44GS0227, 44GS0229, 44GS0230, 44GS0231, and idenitified RTE impacts
44GS0236, Giles County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Addendum I
Archaeological Survey and Phase II Evaluations of Sites CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 210.3 210.4 VA-GI-064 Complete Complete Complete No 2/17/2017 10/25/2017 11/1/2017 Included in NWP
44GS0227, 44GS0229, 44GS0230, 44GS0231, and idenitified RTE impacts
44GS0236, Giles County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Addendum I
Archaeological Survey and Phase II Evaluations of Sites CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 210.4 210.6 VA-GI-065 Complete Complete Complete No 2/17/2017 10/25/2017 11/1/2017 Included in NWP
44GS0227, 44GS0229, 44GS0230, 44GS0231, and idenitified RTE impacts
44GS0236, Giles County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Addendum I
Archaeological Survey and Phase II Evaluations of Sites CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 210.6 210.8 VA-GI-067 Complete Complete Complete No 2/17/2017 10/25/2017 11/1/2017 Included in NWP
44GS0227, 44GS0229, 44GS0230, 44GS0231, and idenitified RTE impacts
44GS0236, Giles County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Addendum I
Archaeological Survey and Phase II Evaluations of Sites CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 210.5 210.6 VA-GI-4248 Complete Complete Complete No 2/17/2017 10/25/2017 11/1/2017 Included in NWP
44GS0227, 44GS0229, 44GS0230, 44GS0231, and idenitified RTE impacts
44GS0236, Giles County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Addendum I
Archaeological Survey and Phase II Evaluations of Sites CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Giles Virginia 210.8 210.9 VA-GI-068 Complete Complete Complete No 2/17/2017 10/25/2017 11/1/2017 Included in NWP
44GS0227, 44GS0229, 44GS0230, 44GS0231, and idenitified RTE impacts
44GS0236, Giles County, Virginia
Page 3 of 5
ATWS
MP Start MP End (based
(based on IFC on IFC Route Cultural Date Report
Wetland Cultural RTE Survey Date SHPO Letter Filed Nationwide 12 Permit
Facility Name County State Route filed filed with Resources Filed with Report Title (Date) SHPO Clearance Date RTE Status
Survey Status Survey Status Status with FERC Status
with FERC on FERC on 12-20- Identified Y/N FERC
12-20-2017) 2017)
CLEARED -
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-610B Giles Virginia 198.8 - Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 NO idenitified Included in NWP
Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia
RTE impacts
CLEARED -
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-610 Giles Virginia 198.9 - Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 NO idenitified Included in NWP
Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia
RTE impacts
CLEARED -
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-610A Giles Virginia 198.9 - Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 NO idenitified Included in NWP
Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia
RTE impacts
CLEARED -
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-1129 Giles Virginia 199.0 - Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 NO idenitified Included in NWP
Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia
RTE impacts
CLEARED -
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-1124 Giles Virginia 199.2 - Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 NO idenitified Included in NWP
Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia
RTE impacts
CLEARED -
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-1125 Giles Virginia 199.2 - Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 NO idenitified Included in NWP
Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia
RTE impacts
CLEARED -
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-814 Giles Virginia 199.2 - Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 NO idenitified Included in NWP
Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia
RTE impacts
CLEARED -
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-1126 Giles Virginia 199.3 - Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 NO idenitified Included in NWP
Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia
RTE impacts
CLEARED -
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-1127 Giles Virginia 199.3 - Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 NO idenitified Included in NWP
Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia
RTE impacts
CLEARED -
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-1128 Giles Virginia 199.3 - Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 NO idenitified Included in NWP
Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia
RTE impacts
CLEARED -
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-815 Giles Virginia 199.3 - Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 NO idenitified Included in NWP
Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia
RTE impacts
CLEARED -
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-1130 Giles Virginia 199.4 - Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 NO idenitified Included in NWP
Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia
RTE impacts
CLEARED -
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-1131 Giles Virginia 199.4 - Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 NO idenitified Included in NWP
Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia
RTE impacts
CLEARED -
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-1132 Giles Virginia 199.8 - Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 NO idenitified Included in NWP
Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia
RTE impacts
CLEARED -
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-340 Giles Virginia 200.7 - Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 NO idenitified Included in NWP
Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia
RTE impacts
CLEARED -
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-1133 Giles Virginia 201.5 - Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 NO idenitified Included in NWP
Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia
RTE impacts
CLEARED -
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-1135 Giles Virginia 201.5 - Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 NO idenitified Included in NWP
Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia
RTE impacts
CLEARED -
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-1134 Giles Virginia 201.6 - Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 NO idenitified Included in NWP
Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia
RTE impacts
CLEARED -
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-1136 Giles Virginia 201.6 - Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 NO idenitified Included in NWP
Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia
RTE impacts
CLEARED -
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-1335 Giles Virginia 202.0 - Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 NO idenitified Included in NWP
Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia
RTE impacts
CLEARED -
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-816 Giles Virginia 202.3 - Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 NO idenitified Included in NWP
Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia
RTE impacts
CLEARED -
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-1390 Giles Virginia 202.6 - Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 NO idenitified Included in NWP
Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia
RTE impacts
CLEARED -
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-1391 Giles Virginia 202.6 - Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 NO idenitified Included in NWP
Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia
RTE impacts
CLEARED -
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-341 Giles Virginia 202.9 - Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 NO idenitified Included in NWP
Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia
RTE impacts
CLEARED -
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-1056 Giles Virginia 203.6 - Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 NO idenitified Included in NWP
Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia
RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Addendum I
CLEARED -
Archaeological Survey and Phase II Evaluations of Sites
MVP-ATWS-1334 Giles Virginia 204.3 - Complete Complete Complete No 2/17/2017 10/25/2017 11/1/2017 NO idenitified Included in NWP
44GS0227, 44GS0229, 44GS0230, 44GS0231, and
RTE impacts
44GS0236, Giles County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeologica
Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia
CLEARED -
12/7/2015;
MVP-ATWS-469 Giles Virginia 204.3 - Complete Complete Complete No Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Addendum I 12/31/2015; 10/25/2017 01/15/2016; 11/1/2017 NO idenitified Included in NWP
2/17/2017
Archaeological Survey and Phase II Evaluations of Sites RTE impacts
44GS0227, 44GS0229, 44GS0230, 44GS0231, and
44GS0236, Giles County, Virginia
CLEARED -
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-466 Giles Virginia 205.5 - Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 NO idenitified Included in NWP
Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia
RTE impacts
Page 4 of 5
CLEARED -
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-1332 Giles Virginia 205.9 - Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 NO idenitified Included in NWP
Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia
RTE impacts
CLEARED -
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-1360 Giles Virginia 205.9 - Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 NO idenitified Included in NWP
Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia
RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeologica
Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia
CLEARED -
12/7/2015;
MVP-ATWS-1333 Giles Virginia 206.0 - Complete Complete Complete No Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Addendum I 12/31/2015; 10/25/2017 01/15/2016; 11/1/2017 NO idenitified Included in NWP
2/17/2017
Archaeological Survey and Phase II Evaluations of Sites RTE impacts
44GS0227, 44GS0229, 44GS0230, 44GS0231, and
44GS0236, Giles County, Virginia
CLEARED -
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-470 Giles Virginia 206.5 - Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 NO idenitified Included in NWP
Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia
RTE impacts
CLEARED -
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-1331 Giles Virginia 206.8 - Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 NO idenitified Included in NWP
Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia
RTE impacts
CLEARED -
44GS0234 (Not Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-471 Giles Virginia 206.8 - Complete Complete Complete 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 NO idenitified Included in NWP
Eligible) Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia
RTE impacts
CLEARED -
44GS0228 (Not Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-467 Giles Virginia 207.2 - Complete Complete Complete 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 NO idenitified Included in NWP
Eligible) Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia
RTE impacts
CLEARED -
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-1137 Giles Virginia 207.9 - Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 NO idenitified Included in NWP
Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia
RTE impacts
CLEARED -
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-1138 Giles Virginia 207.9 - Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 NO idenitified Included in NWP
Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia
RTE impacts
CLEARED -
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-974 Giles Virginia 208.4 - Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 NO idenitified Included in NWP
Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia
RTE impacts
CLEARED -
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-974A Giles Virginia 208.4 - Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 NO idenitified Included in NWP
Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia
RTE impacts
CLEARED -
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-1145 Giles Virginia 208.6 - Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 NO idenitified Included in NWP
Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia
RTE impacts
CLEARED -
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-1146 Giles Virginia 208.6 - Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 NO idenitified Included in NWP
Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia
RTE impacts
CLEARED -
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-1143 Giles Virginia 209.0 - Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 NO idenitified Included in NWP
Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia
RTE impacts
CLEARED -
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-1144 Giles Virginia 209.0 - Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 NO idenitified Included in NWP
Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia
RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Addendum I
CLEARED -
Archaeological Survey and Phase II Evaluations of Sites
MVP-ATWS-1465 Giles Virginia 209.5 - Complete Complete Complete No 2/17/2017 10/25/2017 11/1/2017 NO idenitified Included in NWP
44GS0227, 44GS0229, 44GS0230, 44GS0231, and
RTE impacts
44GS0236, Giles County, Virginia
CLEARED -
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-1366 Giles Virginia 210.0 - Complete Complete Complete No 12/7/2015 12/31/2015 01/15/2016 NO idenitified Included in NWP
Survey Report, Giles County, Virginia
RTE impacts
Page 5 of 5
~ Mountain 625 Liberty Avenue, Suite 1700 | Pittsburgh, PA 15222
'!.~~,~~
844-MVP-TALK | mail@mountainvalleypipeline.info
www.mountainvalleypipeline.info
On October 13, 2017, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued an order granting a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC for the
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project in this docket. Mountain Valley submitted and supplemented
its Implementation Plan for the Project on various dates.
Mountain Valley requests that the Director of the Office of Energy Projects issue a Notice to
Proceed with all construction activities for the facilities listed in Attachment A. Mountain
Valley has received all permits and authorizations required under federal law to construct the
Project.
Mountain Valley respectfully requests that this Notice to Proceed be issued by February 5, 2018.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (412) 553-5786 or
meggerding@eqt.com. Thank you.
Respectfully submitted,
MOUNTAIN VALLEY PIPELINE, LLC
by and through its operator,
EQM Gathering Opco, LLC
By:
Matthew Eggerding
Counsel, Midstream
Attachment
cc: All Parties
Paul Friedman, FERC
Lavinia DiSanto, Cardno, Inc.
Doug Mooneyhan, Cardno, Inc.
Ms. Kimberly D. Bose
January 31, 2018
Page 2 of 2
Attachment A
Pipeline
MP Start MP End
(based on IFC (based on IFC Cultural Date SHPO
Wetland Cultural RTE Survey Date Report Filed with Nationwide 12 Permit
Facility Name County State Route filed Route filed Parcel Number Resources Report Title (Date) SHPO Clearance Date Letter Filed with RTE Status
Survey Status Survey Status Status FERC Status
with FERC on with FERC on Identified Y/N FERC
12-20-2017) 12-20-2017)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Monroe West Virginia 177 177.4 WV-MO-012.020 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Volume IV, Summers and Monroe Counties, West 2/26/2016 4/4/2016 4/21/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia (Clement et.al. February 2016
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Monroe West Virginia 177.4 177.6 WV-MO-012.025 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Volume IV, Summers and Monroe Counties, West 2/26/2016 4/4/2016 4/21/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia (Clement et.al. February 2016
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
46ME290 (Not CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Monroe West Virginia 177.6 178.2 WV-MO-012.030 Complete Complete Complete Survey Volume IV, Summers and Monroe Counties, West 2/26/2016 4/4/2016 4/21/2016 Included in NWP
Eligible) idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia (Clement et.al. February 2016
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Monroe West Virginia 177.6 178.2 WV-MO-012.035 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Volume IV, Summers and Monroe Counties, West 2/26/2016 4/4/2016 4/21/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia (Clement et.al. February 2016
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Monroe West Virginia 178.2 178.7 WV-MO-012.037 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Volume IV, Summers and Monroe Counties, West 2/26/2016 4/4/2016 4/21/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia (Clement et.al. February 2016
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Monroe West Virginia 178.2 178.5 WV-MO-012.045 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Volume IV, Summers and Monroe Counties, West 2/26/2016 4/4/2016 4/21/2016 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia (Clement et.al. February 2016
Site 46ME311, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase II
46ME311 CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Monroe West Virginia 178.7 179.1 WV-MO-012.040 Complete Complete Complete Archaeological Investigation , Site Avoidnace and 7/17/2017 8/15/2017 8/25/2017 Included in NWP
(Eligible, Avoided) idenitified RTE impacts
Contingency Treatment Plan (Barse et. al. July 2017)
Page 1 of 4
46ME294 (Not
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Eligible); CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Monroe West Virginia 185.3 185.6 WV-MO-012.160 Complete Complete Complete Survey Volume IV, Summers and Monroe Counties, West 2/26/2016 4/4/2016 4/21/2016 Included in NWP
46ME295 (Not idenitified RTE impacts
Virginia (Clement et.al. February 2016)
Eligible)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Monroe West Virginia 185.6 185.7 WV-MO-012.165 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Addendum 1 to Volume IV, Summers and Monroe 12/22/2016 1/17/2017 2/17/2017 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Counties, West Virginia (Freedman et.al. December 2016)
Page 2 of 4
ATWS
MP Start MP End
(based on IFC (based on IFC Cultural
Wetland Survey Cultural RTE Survey Date Report Date SHPO Letter Filed Nationwide 12 Permit
Facility Name County State Route filed Route filed Resources Report Title (Date) SHPO Clearance Date RTE Status
Status Survey Status Status Filed with FERC with FERC Status
with FERC on with FERC on Identified Y/N
12-20-2017) 12-20-2017)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-1075 Monroe West Virginia 177.1 - Complete Complete Complete No 2/26/2016 Survey Volume IV, Summers and Monroe Counties, West 4/4/2016 4/21/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Virginia (Clement et.al. February 2016 impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-1081 Monroe West Virginia 177.1 - Complete Complete Complete No 2/26/2016 Survey Volume IV, Summers and Monroe Counties, West 4/4/2016 4/21/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Virginia (Clement et.al. February 2016 impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-1082 Monroe West Virginia 177.1 - Complete Complete Complete No 2/26/2016 Survey Volume IV, Summers and Monroe Counties, West 4/4/2016 4/21/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Virginia (Clement et.al. February 2016 impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED - NO
46ME289 (Not
MVP-ATWS-326 Monroe West Virginia 177.3 - Complete Complete Complete 2/26/2016 Survey Volume IV, Summers and Monroe Counties, West 4/4/2016 4/21/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Eligible)
Virginia (Clement et.al. February 2016 impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-1088 Monroe West Virginia 177.4 - Complete Complete Complete No 2/26/2016 Survey Volume IV, Summers and Monroe Counties, West 4/4/2016 4/21/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Virginia (Clement et.al. February 2016 impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-327 Monroe West Virginia 177.4 - Complete Complete Complete No 2/26/2016 Survey, Volume IV, Summers and Monroe Counties, West 4/4/2016 4/21/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Virginia (Clement et.al. February 2016 impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-327A Monroe West Virginia 177.4 - Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Survey Addendum 1 to Volume IV, Summers and Monroe 1/17/2017 2/17/2017 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Counties, West Virginia (Freedman et.al. December 2016) impacts
Page 3 of 4
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-1100 Monroe West Virginia 184.0 - Complete Complete Complete No 2/26/2016 Survey Volume IV, Summers and Monroe Counties, West 4/4/2016 4/21/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Virginia (Clement et.al. February 2016 impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-1315 Monroe West Virginia 184.0 - Complete Complete Complete No 2/26/2016 Survey Volume IV, Summers and Monroe Counties, West 4/4/2016 4/21/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Virginia (Clement et.al. February 2016 impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-1101 Monroe West Virginia 184.1 - Complete Complete Complete No 2/26/2016 Survey Volume IV, Summers and Monroe Counties, West 4/4/2016 4/21/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Virginia (Clement et.al. February 2016 impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey Volume IV, Summers and Monroe Counties, West
CLEARED - NO
2/26/2016, Virginia (Clement et.al. February 2016), Mountain Valley
MVP-ATWS-334 Monroe West Virginia 184.6 - Complete Complete Complete No, No 4/4/2016, 4/4/2016 4/21/2016, 4/21/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
2/26/2016 Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey Volume IV,
impacts
Summers and Monroe Counties, West Virginia (Clement
et.al. February 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-1104 Monroe West Virginia 185.1 - Complete Complete Complete No 2/26/2016 Survey Volume IV, Summers and Monroe Counties, West 4/4/2016 4/21/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Virginia (Clement et.al. February 2016 impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-1102 Monroe West Virginia 185.2 - Complete Complete Complete No 2/26/2016 Survey Volume IV, Summers and Monroe Counties, West 4/4/2016 4/21/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Virginia (Clement et.al. February 2016 impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-1103 Monroe West Virginia 185.2 - Complete Complete Complete No 2/26/2016 Survey Volume IV, Summers and Monroe Counties, West 4/4/2016 4/21/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Virginia (Clement et.al. February 2016 impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED - NO
46ME294 (Not
MVP-ATWS-336 Monroe West Virginia 185.3 - Complete Complete Complete 2/26/2016 Survey Volume IV, Summers and Monroe Counties, West 4/4/2016 4/21/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Eligible)
Virginia (Clement et.al. February 2016 impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-1105 Monroe West Virginia 185.5 - Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Survey Addendum 1 to Volume IV, Summers and Monroe 1/17/2017 2/17/2017 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Counties, West Virginia (Freedman et.al. December 2016) impacts
Page 4 of 4
~ Mountain 625 Liberty Avenue, Suite 1700 | Pittsburgh, PA 15222
'!.~~,~~
844-MVP-TALK | mail@mountainvalleypipeline.info
www.mountainvalleypipeline.info
February 2, 2018
On October 13, 2017, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued an order granting a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC for the
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project in this docket. Mountain Valley submitted and supplemented
its Implementation Plan for the Project on various dates.
Mountain Valley requests that the Director of the Office of Energy Projects issue a Notice to
Proceed with all construction activities for the facilities listed in Attachment A. Mountain
Valley has received all permits and authorizations required under federal law to construct the
Project. Following issuance of the Notice to Proceed, the timing of the actual construction may
vary depending upon state permits.
Mountain Valley respectfully requests that this Notice to Proceed be issued by February 8, 2018.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (412) 553-5786 or
meggerding@eqt.com. Thank you.
Respectfully submitted,
MOUNTAIN VALLEY PIPELINE, LLC
by and through its operator,
EQM Gathering Opco, LLC
By:
Matthew Eggerding
Counsel, Midstream
Attachment
cc: All Parties
Paul Friedman, FERC
Lavinia DiSanto, Cardno, Inc.
Doug Mooneyhan, Cardno, Inc.
Ms. Kimberly D. Bose
February 2, 2018
Page 2 of 2
Attachment A
Pipeline
MP Start MP End
(based on IFC (based on IFC Cultural Date SHPO
Wetland Cultural RTE Survey Date Report Filed with Nationwide 12 Permit
Facility Name County State Route filed Route filed Parcel Number Resources Report Title (Date) SHPO Clearance Date Letter Filed with RTE Status
Survey Status Survey Status Status FERC Status
with FERC on with FERC on Identified Y/N FERC
12-20-2017) 12-20-2017)
Page 1 of 9
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Pittsylvania Virginia 290.0 290.7 VA-PI-029.02 Complete Complete Complete No 3/16/2016 2/18/2016 3/24/2016 Included in NWP
Survey Report, Pittsylvania County, Virginia idenitified RTE impacts
Page 2 of 9
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Pittsylvania Virginia 297.3 297.5 VA-PI-072.01 Complete Complete Complete No 10/27/2016 2/7/2017 3/30/2017 Included in NWP
Survey Report Addendum I, Pittsylvania County, Virginia idenitified RTE impacts
Page 3 of 9
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Pittsylvania Virginia 302.9 303.2 VA-PI-111 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Addendum 2, and Phase II Archaeological 12/22/2016 9/22/2017 9/25/2017 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Evaluation Site 44PY0442, Pittsylvania County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeologica
Survey Report Addendum 2, and Phase II Archaeological
44PY0442 (Not CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Pittsylvania Virginia 303.2 303.7 VA-PI-112 Complete Complete Complete Evaluation Site 44PY0442, Pittsylvania County, Virginia, 12/22/2016 9/22/2017 9/25/2017 Included in NWP
Eligible) idenitified RTE impacts
Letter to VDHR transmitting Avoidance Plan for Transco
Cemetery
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Pittsylvania Virginia 303.1 303.2 VA-PI-112.01 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Addendum 2, and Phase II Archaeological 12/22/2016 9/22/2017 9/25/2017 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Evaluation Site 44PY0442, Pittsylvania County, Virginia
Page 4 of 9
Facilities
MP Start MP End
(based on IFC (based on IFC Cultural
Wetland Survey Cultural RTE Survey Date Report Date SHPO Letter Filed Nationwide 12 Permit
Facility Name County State Route filed Route filed Resources Report Title (Date) SHPO Clearance Date RTE Status
Status Survey Status Status Filed with FERC with FERC Status
with FERC on with FERC on Identified Y/N
12-20-2017) 12-20-2017)
Page 5 of 9
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Combined
CLEARED - NO
County Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum II, Giles,
MVP-LY-035 Pittsylvania Virginia 286.2 - Complete Complete Complete No 8/4/2017 08/30/2017 9/5/2017 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Montgomery, Roanoke, Franklin, and Pittsylvania Counties,
impacts
Virginia
CLEARED - NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-546 Pittsylvania Virginia 286.6 - Complete Complete Complete No 3/16/2016 2/18/2016 3/24/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Survey Report, Pittsylvania County, Virginia
impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-651 Pittsylvania Virginia 286.7 - Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Survey Report Addendum 2, and Phase II Archaeological 9/22/2017 9/25/2017 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Evaluation Site 44PY0442, Pittsylvania County, Virginia impacts
Page 6 of 9
CLEARED - NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-548 Pittsylvania Virginia 291.8 - Complete Complete Complete No 3/16/2016 2/18/2016 3/24/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Survey Report, Pittsylvania County, Virginia
impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
CLEARED - NO
3/16/2016, Survey Report, Pittsylvania County, Virginia, Mountain
MVP-ATWS-549 Pittsylvania Virginia 291.9 - Complete Complete Complete No 2/18/2016, 2/18/2016 3/24/2016, 3/24/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
3/16/2016 Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological Survey
impacts
Report, Pittsylvania County, Virginia
CLEARED - NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-494 Pittsylvania Virginia 292.2 - Complete Complete Complete No 3/16/2016 2/18/2016 3/24/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Survey Report, Pittsylvania County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED - NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-PI-332.01 Pittsylvania Virginia 292.8 - Complete Complete Complete No 10/27/2016 2/7/2017 3/30/2017 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Survey Report Addendum I, Pittsylvania County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED - NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-819 Pittsylvania Virginia 293.3 - Complete Complete Complete No 10/27/2016 2/7/2017 3/30/2017 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Survey Report Addendum I, Pittsylvania County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED - NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-820 Pittsylvania Virginia 293.3 - Complete Complete Complete No 10/27/2016 2/7/2017 3/30/2017 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Survey Report Addendum I, Pittsylvania County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED - NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-813 Pittsylvania Virginia 295.0 - Complete Complete Complete No 10/27/2016 2/7/2017 3/30/2017 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Survey Report Addendum I, Pittsylvania County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED - NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-1445 Pittsylvania Virginia 295.6 - Complete Complete Complete No 10/27/2016 2/7/2017 3/30/2017 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Survey Report Addendum I, Pittsylvania County, Virginia
impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
CLEARED - NO
3/16/2016, Survey Report, Pittsylvania County, Virginia, Mountain
MVP-CPGB-30 Pittsylvania Virginia 296.2 - Complete Complete Complete No 2/18/2016, 2/18/2016 3/24/2016, 3/24/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
3/16/2016 Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological Survey
impacts
Report, Pittsylvania County, Virginia
Page 7 of 9
CLEARED - NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-794 Pittsylvania Virginia 298.3 - Complete Complete Complete No 10/27/2016 2/7/2017 3/30/2017 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Survey Report Addendum I, Pittsylvania County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED - NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-504 Pittsylvania Virginia 298.5 - Complete Complete Complete No 10/27/2016 2/7/2017 3/30/2017 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Survey Report Addendum I, Pittsylvania County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED - NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-504B Pittsylvania Virginia 298.5 - Complete Complete Complete No 10/27/2016 2/7/2017 3/30/2017 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Survey Report Addendum I, Pittsylvania County, Virginia
impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
CLEARED - NO
3/16/2016, Survey Report, Pittsylvania County, Virginia, Mountain
MVP-ATWS-504A Pittsylvania Virginia 298.6 - Complete Complete Complete No 2/18/2016, 2/7/2017 3/24/2016, 3/30/2017 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
10/27/2016 Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological Survey
impacts
Report Addendum I, Pittsylvania County, Virginia
CLEARED - NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-399 Pittsylvania Virginia 299.4 - Complete Complete Complete No 3/16/2016 2/18/2016 3/24/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Survey Report, Pittsylvania County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED - NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-399A Pittsylvania Virginia 299.5 - Complete Complete Complete No 3/16/2016 2/18/2016 3/24/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Survey Report, Pittsylvania County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED - NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-MLV-AR-35 Pittsylvania Virginia 299.5 - Complete Complete Complete No 3/16/2016 2/18/2016 3/24/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Survey Report, Pittsylvania County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED - NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-1312 Pittsylvania Virginia 299.6 - Complete Complete Complete No 3/16/2016 2/18/2016 3/24/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Survey Report, Pittsylvania County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED - NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-1313 Pittsylvania Virginia 299.6 - Complete Complete Complete No 3/16/2016 2/18/2016 3/24/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Survey Report, Pittsylvania County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED - NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-400 Pittsylvania Virginia 299.6 - Complete Complete Complete No 10/27/2016 2/7/2017 3/30/2017 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Survey Report Addendum I, Pittsylvania County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED - NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-400A Pittsylvania Virginia 299.6 - Complete Complete Complete No 10/27/2016 2/7/2017 3/30/2017 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Survey Report Addendum I, Pittsylvania County, Virginia
impacts
44PY0430 (Not Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
CLEARED - NO
Eligible), 3/16/2016, Survey Report, Pittsylvania County, Virginia, Mountain
MVP-PI-339 Pittsylvania Virginia 299.7 - Complete Complete Complete 2/18/2016, 2/18/2016 3/24/2016, 3/24/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
44PY0430 (Not 3/16/2016 Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological Survey
impacts
Eligible) Report, Pittsylvania County, Virginia
CLEARED - NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-505A Pittsylvania Virginia 299.7 - Complete Complete Complete No 3/16/2016 2/18/2016 3/24/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Survey Report, Pittsylvania County, Virginia
impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
Survey Report Addendum I, Pittsylvania County, Virginia,
10/27/2016, CLEARED - NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological 2/7/2017, 2/18/2016, 3/30/2017, 3/24/2016,
MVP-ATWS-505 Pittsylvania Virginia 299.7 - Complete Complete Complete No 3/16/2016, idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Survey Report, Pittsylvania County, Virginia, Mountain 2/18/2016 3/24/2016
3/16/2016 impacts
Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological Survey
Report, Pittsylvania County, Virginia
Page 8 of 9
CLEARED - NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-401A Pittsylvania Virginia 301.9 - Complete Complete Complete No 3/16/2016 2/18/2016 3/24/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Survey Report, Pittsylvania County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED - NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-1324 Pittsylvania Virginia 302.4 - Complete Complete Complete No 10/27/2016 2/7/2017 3/30/2017 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Survey Report Addendum I, Pittsylvania County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED - NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-1325 Pittsylvania Virginia 302.4 - Complete Complete Complete No 10/27/2016 2/7/2017 3/30/2017 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Survey Report Addendum I, Pittsylvania County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED - NO
44PY0441 (Not Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological
MVP-ATWS-1397 Pittsylvania Virginia 302.9 - Complete Complete Complete 3/16/2016 2/18/2016 3/24/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Eligible) Survey Report, Pittsylvania County, Virginia
impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological CLEARED - NO
MVP-ATWS-1463 Pittsylvania Virginia 303.2 - Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Survey Report Addendum 2, and Phase II Archaeological 9/22/2017 9/25/2017 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Evaluation Site 44PY0442, Pittsylvania County, Virginia impacts
Page 9 of 9
~ Mountain 625 Liberty Avenue, Suite 1700 | Pittsburgh, PA 15222
'!.~~,~~
844-MVP-TALK | mail@mountainvalleypipeline.info
www.mountainvalleypipeline.info
February 5, 2018
On October 13, 2017, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued an order granting a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC for the
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project in this docket. Mountain Valley submitted and supplemented
its Implementation Plan for the Project on various dates.
Mountain Valley requests that the Director of the Office of Energy Projects issue a Notice to
Proceed with all construction activities for the facilities listed in Attachment A. Mountain
Valley has received all permits and authorizations required under federal law to construct the
Project.
Mountain Valley respectfully requests that this Notice to Proceed be issued by February 9, 2018.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (412) 553-5786 or
meggerding@eqt.com. Thank you.
Respectfully submitted,
MOUNTAIN VALLEY PIPELINE, LLC
by and through its operator,
EQM Gathering Opco, LLC
By:
Matthew Eggerding
Counsel, Midstream
Attachment
cc: All Parties
Paul Friedman, FERC
Lavinia DiSanto, Cardno, Inc.
Doug Mooneyhan, Cardno, Inc.
Ms. Kimberly D. Bose
February 5, 2018
Page 2 of 2
Attachment A
Pipeline
MP Start MP End
(based on IFC (based on IFC Cultural Date SHPO
Wetland Cultural RTE Survey Date Report Filed with Nationwide 12 Permit
Facility Name County State Route filed Route filed Parcel Number Resources Report Title (Date) SHPO Clearance Date Letter Filed with RTE Status
Survey Status Survey Status Status FERC Status
with FERC on with FERC on Identified Y/N FERC
12-20-2017) 12-20-2017)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 9.3 9.5 WV-HA-002 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber idenitified RTE impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 9.5 9.9 WV-HA-004 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 9.8 9.9 WV-HA-003 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 9.9 10 WV-HA-005 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 9.9 10 WV-HA-006 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 10.0 10.4 WV-HA-007 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 10.0 10.4 WV-HA-008 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 10.4 10.5 WV-HA-008.01 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 10.4 10.6 WV-HA-009 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 10.5 10.6 WV-HA-009.02 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 10.5 10.7 WV-HA-010 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 10.6 10.9 WV-HA-011 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 10.9 11.2 WV-HA-013 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 11.0 11.6 WV-HA-015 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
46HS115 (Not CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 11.2 11.4 WV-HA-014 Complete Complete Complete Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
Eligible) idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 11.3 11.5 WV-HA-014.01 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 11.5 11.7 WV-HA-016 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 11.6 11.7 WV-HA-017 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 11.7 12.1 WV-HA-018 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 12.1 12.4 WV-HA-019 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 12.3 12.8 WV-HA-020 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 12.4 12.8 WV-HA-021 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 12.8 13.1 WV-HA-022 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 13.0 13.2 WV-HA-023 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 13.1 13.2 WV-HA-024 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 13.2 13.3 WV-HA-025 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 13.2 13.4 WV-HA-026 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 13.3 13.7 WV-HA-027 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 13.4 13.7 WV-HA-028 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 13.7 13.8 WV-HA-029 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber idenitified RTE impacts
2016)
Page 1 of 28
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
46HS122 (Not Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 13.7 14.2 WV-HA-030 Complete Complete Complete 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 Included in NWP
Eligible) Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber idenitified RTE impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 13.8 13.9 WV-HA-031 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber idenitified RTE impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 13.9 14.1 WV-HA-032 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber idenitified RTE impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 14.1 14.2 WV-HA-033 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber idenitified RTE impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 14.2 14.4 WV-HA-034 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 14.3 14.5 WV-HA-035 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 14.4 14.5 WV-HA-036 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 14.5 14.7 WV-HA-037 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 14.5 14.9 WV-HA-038 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 14.7 14.9 WV-HA-039 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 14.9 15 WV-HA-040 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 14.9 15.3 WV-HA-041 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 15.3 15.4 WV-HA-042 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 15.4 16 WV-HA-043 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 15.7 15.8 WV-HA-044 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 15.7 16.1 WV-HA-045 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 16.0 16.7 WV-HA-047 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 16.1 16.3 WV-HA-046 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 16.3 16.8 WV-HA-048 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 16.7 16.9 WV-HA-050 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 16.8 17 WV-HA-049 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 17.0 17.3 WV-HA-051 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 17.0 17.1 WV-HA-051.01 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 17.1 17.2 WV-HA-051.02 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 17.2 17.3 WV-HA-053 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 17.3 17.5 WV-HA-052 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 17.4 17.5 WV-HA-054 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 17.5 17.8 WV-HA-055 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 17.6 17.7 WV-HA-056 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 17.7 17.8 WV-HA-057 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase II Investigations
46HS125 (Not Sites 46DO094, 46HS100, 46HS101. 46HS104, 46HS109,
7/18/2016; CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 17.8 18.2 WV-HA-058 Complete Complete Complete Eligible); 46HS134 46HS125 and 46LE077, Doddgirge, Harrison and Lewis 6/24/2016; 12/22/2016 7/14/2016; 12/07/2016 Included in NWP
12/22/2016 idenitified RTE impacts
(Not Eligible) Counties West Virginia (Espino et.al 2016);
Mountain Valley Pipeline Projecۋ鸄乍햠ۋº
Page 2 of 28
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 18.1 18.7 WV-HA-059 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber idenitified RTE impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
46HS098 (Not CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 18.7 19.2 WV-HA-060 Complete Complete Complete Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
Eligible) idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 19.2 19.5 WV-HA-061 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 19.4 20 WV-HA-062 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 19.5 19.6 WV-HA-063 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 19.6 19.7 WV-HA-064 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase II Investigations
46HS100 (Not Sites 46DO094, 46HS100, 46HS101. 46HS104, 46HS109, CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 19.7 20.3 WV-HA-065 Complete Complete Complete 6/24/2016 7/14/2016 7/18/2016 Included in NWP
Eligible) 46HS125 and 46LE077, Doddgirge, Harrison and Lewis idenitified RTE impacts
Counties West Virginia (Espino et.al 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 20.1 20.2 WV-HA-066 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 20.3 20.9 WV-HA-065.01 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 20.5 20.6 WV-HA-065.02 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber idenitified RTE impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 20.6 20.7 WV-HA-065.03 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 20.7 21 WV-HA-065.04 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 20.9 21.1 WV-HA-065.05 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 20.9 21.1 WV-HA-065.06 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 21.1 21.3 WV-HA-072 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 21.2 21.3 WV-HA-074 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber idenitified RTE impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 21.2 21.4 WV-HA-075 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber idenitified RTE impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase II Investigations
46HS109 (Not Sites 46DO094, 46HS100, 46HS101. 46HS104, 46HS109, CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 21.5 21.9 WV-HA-077 Complete Complete Complete 6/24/2016 7/14/2016 7/18/2016 Included in NWP
Eligible) 46HS125 and 46LE077, Doddgirge, Harrison and Lewis idenitified RTE impacts
Counties West Virginia (Espino et.al 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 21.7 21.8 WV-HA-077.01 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
46HS105 (Not CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 21.8 22.2 WV-HA-078 Complete Complete Complete Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
Eligible) idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 21.9 22.1 WV-HA-079 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 22.1 22.4 WV-HA-080 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 22.2 22.8 WV-HA-081 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 22.6 22.8 WV-HA-082 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
46HS106 (Not CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 22.8 23 WV-HA-083 Complete Complete Complete Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
Eligible) idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
46HS135 (Not
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 23.0 23.2 WV-HA-085 Complete Complete Complete Eligible); 46HS138 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber idenitified RTE impacts
(Not Eligible)
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 23.2 23.4 WV-HA-086 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
46HS107 (Not Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 23.3 24.2 WV-HA-088 Complete Complete Complete Eligible); 46HS114 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
(Not Eligible) Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 23.4 23.6 WV-HA-087 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 23.6 23.7 WV-HA-5757 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Page 3 of 28
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
46HS114 (Not CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 23.7 24 WV-HA-089 Complete Complete Complete Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
Eligible) idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 24.1 24.3 WV-HA-090 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 24.2 24.5 WV-HA-091 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 24.3 24.8 WV-HA-092 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 24.8 25.1 WV-HA-093 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 24.8 24.9 WV-HA-094 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 24.9 25.8 WV-HA-095 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 25.2 25.3 WV-HA-096 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 25.3 25.5 WV-HA-097 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 25.5 25.6 WV-HA-097.01 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 25.5 25.6 WV-HA-098 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 25.6 25.7 WV-HA-099 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 25.6 25.7 WV-HA-099.01 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 25.7 25.8 WV-HA-100 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 25.7 25.9 WV-HA-101 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 25.8 25.9 WV-HA-102 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 25.8 25.9 WV-HA-102.01 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 25.8 25.9 WV-HA-103 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 25.9 26 WV-HA-104 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 25.9 26.2 WV-HA-108 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 26.0 26.1 WV-HA-106 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 26.1 26.2 WV-HA-107 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 26.2 26.4 WV-HA-109 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 26.2 26.5 WV-HA-110 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber idenitified RTE impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 26.4 26.6 WV-HA-111 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
46HS108 (Not CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 26.5 27.5 WV-HA-114 Complete Complete Complete Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
Eligible) idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 26.6 26.7 WV-HA-112 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 26.7 26.8 WV-HA-113 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 26.8 26.9 WV-HA-115 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 26.9 27.2 WV-HA-116 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
46HS108 (Not CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 27.2 27.6 WV-HA-117 Complete Complete Complete Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
Eligible) idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
46HS108 (Not CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 27.3 28 WV-HA-118 Complete Complete Complete Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
Eligible) idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 27.5 27.7 WV-HA-119 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Page 4 of 28
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 27.7 27.8 WV-HA-120 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 27.8 28 WV-HA-121 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 27.9 28 WV-HA-122 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 28.0 28.4 WV-HA-123 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 28.4 28.5 WV-HA-125 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 28.4 28.5 WV-HA-5674 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 28.6 28.8 WV-HA-124 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 28.8 28.9 WV-HA-127 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 28.9 29.1 WV-HA-128 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 29.0 29.2 WV-HA-129 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 29.2 29.3 WV-HA-130 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 29.8 29.9 WV-HA-132 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 29.8 30 WV-HA-4222 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber idenitified RTE impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 30.0 30.1 WV-HA-4223 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber idenitified RTE impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
46HS139 (Not Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 30.0 30.1 WV-HA-4224 Complete Complete Complete 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 Included in NWP
Eligible) Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber idenitified RTE impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
46HS129 (Not Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 30.1 30.2 WV-HA-4226 Complete Complete Complete 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 Included in NWP
Eligible) Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber idenitified RTE impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 30.1 30.3 WV-HA-4227 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber idenitified RTE impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 30.2 30.7 WV-HA-135 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber idenitified RTE impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 30.4 30.7 WV-HA-136 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 30.6 30.8 WV-HA-134 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 30.7 30.8 WV-HA-137 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 30.8 30.9 WV-HA-138 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 30.8 30.9 WV-HA-139 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 30.9 31.1 WV-HA-140 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 31.1 31.5 WV-HA-141 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 31.3 31.6 WV-HA-142 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Doddridge West Virginia 31.4 31.5 WV-HA-141 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Doddridge West Virginia 31.5 31.7 WV-DO-001 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Doddridge West Virginia 31.5 31.7 WV-HA-142 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Doddridge West Virginia 31.7 31.9 WV-DO-002 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Doddridge West Virginia 31.7 32 WV-DO-003 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Page 5 of 28
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Doddridge West Virginia 32.0 32.2 WV-DO-004 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Doddridge West Virginia 32.0 32.3 WV-DO-005.01 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
46DO093 (Not CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Doddridge West Virginia 32.2 32.5 WV-DO-005 Complete Complete Complete Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
Eligible) idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase II Investigations
46DO094 (Not Sites 46DO094, 46HS100, 46HS101. 46HS104, 46HS109, CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Doddridge West Virginia 32.5 32.6 WV-HA-143 Complete Complete Complete 6/24/2016 7/14/2016 7/18/2016 Included in NWP
Eligible) 46HS125 and 46LE077, Doddgirge, Harrison and Lewis idenitified RTE impacts
Counties West Virginia (Espino et.al 2016)
Page 6 of 28
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Doddridge West Virginia 35.6 35.9 WV-DO-019 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 35.9 36.2 WV-DO-020 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 35.9 36.3 WV-HA-148 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Doddridge West Virginia 35.9 36.3 WV-DO-020 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Doddridge West Virginia 36.0 36.3 WV-HA-148 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Doddridge West Virginia 36.2 36.3 WV-DO-020.01 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 36.3 36.4 WV-HA-149 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Doddridge West Virginia 36.3 36.4 WV-HA-149 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 36.4 36.6 WV-HA-150 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Doddridge West Virginia 36.4 36.6 WV-HA-150 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 36.6 36.8 WV-HA-151 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber idenitified RTE impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Doddridge West Virginia 36.6 36.7 WV-DO-021 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber idenitified RTE impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Doddridge West Virginia 36.6 36.8 WV-HA-151 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber idenitified RTE impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Doddridge West Virginia 36.7 37 WV-DO-022 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 36.8 36.9 WV-DO-022 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 36.8 37.2 WV-HA-152 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Doddridge West Virginia 36.9 37.2 WV-HA-152 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Doddridge West Virginia 37.0 37.4 WV-DO-023 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 37.2 37.4 WV-DO-023 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 37.2 37.7 WV-HA-153 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Doddridge West Virginia 37.2 37.4 WV-HA-153 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 37.6 37.8 WV-HA-154 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 37.6 37.7 WV-HA-5682 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Harrison West Virginia 37.7 38 WV-HA-155 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 38.0 38.1 WV-HA-155 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 38.1 38.3 WV-LE-001 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 38.2 38.5 WV-LE-002 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 38.3 38.7 WV-LE-003 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 38.5 38.6 WV-LE-004 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 38.6 38.8 WV-LE-005 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 38.7 39 WV-LE-007 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 38.8 39.1 WV-LE-006 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Page 7 of 28
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 39.0 39.3 WV-LE-008 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 39.1 39.5 WV-LE-009 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 39.3 39.9 WV-LE-010 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 39.5 40.1 WV-LE-011 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 39.6 40 WV-LE-012 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 39.8 39.9 WV-LE-013 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 39.9 40.3 WV-LE-014 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 40.1 40.2 WV-LE-015 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 40.2 40.6 WV-LE-016 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 40.2 40.4 WV-LE-017 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 40.3 40.7 WV-LE-018 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 40.6 41 WV-LE-020 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 40.7 41 WV-LE-019 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 40.9 41 WV-LE-020.01 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 41.0 41.1 WV-LE-020.02 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 41.0 41.1 WV-LE-021 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 41.0 41.5 WV-LE-022 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 41.3 41.5 WV-LE-023 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 41.5 41.7 WV-LE-024 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 41.7 42 WV-LE-025 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 41.7 42.2 WV-LE-026 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 41.9 42.3 WV-LE-027 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 42.1 42.2 WV-LE-028 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 42.2 42.9 WV-LE-030 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 42.7 42.8 WV-LE-031 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 42.8 43.7 WV-LE-032 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 43.2 43.6 WV-LE-035 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 43.6 44.1 WV-LE-036 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 43.7 43.9 WV-LE-037 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 43.9 44 WV-LE-038 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 43.9 44.3 WV-LE-039 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 44.0 44.1 WV-LE-039.01 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 44.1 44.2 WV-LE-040 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Page 8 of 28
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 44.2 44.3 WV-LE-041 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 44.3 44.6 WV-LE-042 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 44.5 45.2 WV-LE-044 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 44.6 45.1 WV-LE-043 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
46LE083 (Not CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 45.1 46.5 WV-LE-045 Complete Complete Complete Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
Eligible) idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 46.5 47.3 WV-LE-047 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 46.7 46.8 WV-LE-049 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 47.2 47.3 WV-LE-050 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 47.3 47.7 WV-LE-051 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 47.3 47.6 WV-LE-052 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 47.6 47.9 WV-LE-053 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 47.6 47.7 WV-LE-054 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 47.9 48.3 WV-LE-056 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase II Investigations
Sites 46DO094, 46HS100, 46HS101. 46HS104, 46HS109, CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 48.2 48.8 WV-LE-057 Complete Complete Complete 46LE077 (Eligible) 6/24/2016 7/14/2016 7/18/2016 Included in NWP
46HS125 and 46LE077, Doddgirge, Harrison and Lewis idenitified RTE impacts
Counties West Virginia (Espino et.al 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 48.6 49 WV-LE-058 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 48.8 49.9 WV-LE-059 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 49.0 49.2 WV-LE-060 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 49.2 49.4 WV-LE-061 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 49.4 50.4 WV-LE-062 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 49.6 50.1 WV-LE-063 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 49.9 50 WV-LE-3466 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 50.0 50.1 WV-LE-065 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 50.1 50.3 WV-LE-066 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 50.1 50.3 WV-LE-067 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 50.4 50.7 WV-LE-069 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 50.7 50.8 WV-LE-070 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 50.7 50.8 WV-LE-071 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber idenitified RTE impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 50.8 51.5 WV-LE-072 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber idenitified RTE impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 51.4 51.5 WV-LE-074 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 51.5 52.1 WV-LE-075 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 52.1 52.3 WV-LE-076 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 52.1 52.3 WV-LE-077 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Page 9 of 28
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 52.3 52.6 WV-LE-078 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 52.4 52.5 WV-LE-079 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 52.5 52.6 WV-LE-080 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 52.6 53 WV-LE-081 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 52.6 52.7 WV-LE-082 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 52.8 52.9 WV-LE-083 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 52.9 53 WV-LE-084 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 53.0 53.4 WV-LE-085 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 53.2 53.3 WV-LE-088 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 53.3 53.4 WV-LE-089 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 53.4 53.9 WV-LE-090 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 53.4 53.6 WV-LE-091 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 53.6 53.7 WV-LE-092 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 53.7 54.1 WV-LE-093 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 53.9 54.4 WV-LE-097.01 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 54.1 54.6 WV-LE-097 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 54.3 54.7 WV-LE-097.02 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 54.6 54.8 WV-LE-097.03 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 54.6 54.7 WV-LE-099 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 54.7 54.9 WV-LE-097.04 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 54.8 55.3 WV-LE-100 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 54.9 55.3 WV-LE-101 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 55.3 55.9 WV-LE-102 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 55.4 55.8 WV-LE-103 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 55.7 56.2 WV-LE-104 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 55.9 56 WV-LE-105 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 56.0 56.4 WV-LE-106 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 56.3 57.2 WV-LE-107 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 56.4 56.6 BW-LE-5 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 56.6 56.7 BW-LE-7 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 56.8 56.9 WV-LE-109 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 57.2 57.7 WV-LE-110 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 57.7 58 WV-LE-112 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Page 10 of 28
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 57.7 57.8 WV-LE-113 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 57.9 58.1 WV-LE-114 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 58.0 58.1 WV-LE-111 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 58.1 58.9 WV-LE-115 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 58.8 59 WV-LE-116 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 58.9 59.3 WV-LE-117 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 59.0 59.1 WV-LE-118 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 59.1 59.3 WV-LE-119 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 59.2 59.6 WV-LE-120 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 59.6 59.7 WV-LE-120.01 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 59.7 60.1 WV-LE-126 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 60.0 60.3 WV-LE-126.01 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 60.3 60.7 WV-LE-128 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 60.5 60.6 WV-LE-130 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
46LE093 (Not Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 60.6 62.2 WV-LE-129 Complete Complete Complete 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 Included in NWP
Eligible) Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber idenitified RTE impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 61.9 62 WV-LE-4229 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber idenitified RTE impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 62.2 62.3 WV-LE-4230 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber idenitified RTE impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 62.3 62.8 WV-LE-142 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber idenitified RTE impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 62.5 62.8 WV-LE-4231 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber idenitified RTE impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 62.8 63 WV-LE-143 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber idenitified RTE impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 62.8 63.7 WV-LE-144 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber idenitified RTE impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 62.9 63 WV-LE-141 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 63.0 63.2 WV-LE-143.01 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 63.5 64.2 WV-LE-147 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 63.6 63.7 WV-LE-145 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 63.7 63.8 WV-LE-146 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 63.8 64 WV-LE-148 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 64.1 64.2 WV-LE-149 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 64.2 64.3 WV-LE-150 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 64.2 64.5 WV-LE-151 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 64.3 64.5 WV-LE-152 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Page 11 of 28
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 64.4 65.1 WV-LE-153 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber idenitified RTE impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 64.5 64.7 WV-LE-153.01 Complete Complete Complete No Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and 9/12/2015 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 Included in NWP
idenitified RTE impacts
Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Concurrence
Concurrence assumed
Survey, Addendum 3 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, assumed per CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 65.0 65.3 WV-LE-154 Complete Complete Complete No 12/20/2017 per Programatic Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., December Programatic idenitified RTE impacts
Agreement
2017) Agreement
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Concurrence
Concurrence assumed
Survey, Addendum 3 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, assumed per CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 65.3 65.4 WV-LE-154.01 Complete Complete Complete No 12/20/2017 per Programatic Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., December Programatic idenitified RTE impacts
Agreement
2017) Agreement
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 65.3 65.4 WV-LE-154.02 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber idenitified RTE impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, CLEARED - NO
Pipeline Lewis West Virginia 65.4 65.5 WV-LE-154.03 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber idenitified RTE impacts
2016)
Page 12 of 28
Facilities
MP Start MP End
(based on IFC (based on IFC Cultural
Wetland Survey Cultural RTE Survey Date Report Date SHPO Letter Filed Nationwide 12 Permit
Facility Name County State Route filed Route filed Resources Report Title (Date) SHPO Clearance Date RTE Status
Status Survey Status Status Filed with FERC with FERC Status
with FERC on with FERC on Identified Y/N
12-20-2017) 12-20-2017)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED ‐ NO
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐690 Harrison West Virginia 9.3 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐404A Harrison West Virginia 9.6 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1443 Harrison West Virginia 10.0 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐015 Harrison West Virginia 11.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐016 Harrison West Virginia 11.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐916 Harrison West Virginia 11.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐017 Harrison West Virginia 11.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1477 Harrison West Virginia 12.1 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED ‐ NO
46HS131 (Not Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐403 Harrison West Virginia 12.1 ‐ Complete Complete Complete 12/22/2017 12/07/2017 12/22/2017 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Eligible) Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge
CLEARED ‐ NO
9/12/2015, and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105), Mountain 10/06/2015, 10/23/2015,
MVP‐ATWS‐018 Harrison West Virginia 12.7 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No idenitified RTE Included in NWP
9/12/2015 Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey Report 10/06/2015 10/23/2015
impacts
Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis
Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED ‐ NO
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐405 Harrison West Virginia 13.0 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge
CLEARED ‐ NO
9/12/2015, and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105), Mountain 10/06/2015, 10/23/2015,
MVP‐ATWS‐751 Harrison West Virginia 13.3 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No idenitified RTE Included in NWP
9/12/2015 Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey Report 10/06/2015 10/23/2015
impacts
Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis
Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED ‐ NO
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐788 Harrison West Virginia 13.7 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge
CLEARED ‐ NO
9/12/2015, and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105), Mountain 10/06/2015, 10/23/2015,
MVP‐ATWS‐019 Harrison West Virginia 14.3 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No idenitified RTE Included in NWP
9/12/2015 Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey Report 10/06/2015 10/23/2015
impacts
Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis
Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105), Mountain
Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey Report
9/12/2015, Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis 10/06/2015, 10/23/2015,
CLEARED ‐ NO
9/12/2015, Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105), Mountain Valley 10/06/2015, 10/23/2015,
MVP‐ATWS‐020 Harrison West Virginia 14.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No idenitified RTE Included in NWP
9/12/2015, Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey Report 10/06/2015, 10/23/2015,
impacts
9/12/2015 Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis 10/06/2015 10/23/2015
Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105), Mountain Valley
Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey Report
Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis
Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105)
Page 13 of 28
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐020A Harrison West Virginia 15.0 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED ‐ NO
46HS123 (Not Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐022A Harrison West Virginia 15.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Eligible) Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
46HS101 Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
CLEARED ‐ NO
(Eligible), 12/22/2016, 2016), Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase II
MVP‐ATWS‐021A Harrison West Virginia 15.3 ‐ Complete Complete Complete 12/07/2016, 7/14/2016 12/22/2016, 7/18/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
46HS101 6/24/2016 Investigations Sites 46DO094, 46HS100, 46HS101.
impacts
(Eligible) 46HS104, 46HS109, 46HS125 and 46LE077, Doddgirge,
Harrison and Lewis Counties West Virginia (Espino et.al
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1383 Harrison West Virginia 15.3 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐406 Harrison West Virginia 15.3 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge
CLEARED ‐ NO
9/12/2015, and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105), Mountain 10/06/2015, 10/23/2015,
MVP‐ATWS‐022 Harrison West Virginia 15.4 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No idenitified RTE Included in NWP
9/12/2015 Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey Report 10/06/2015 10/23/2015
impacts
Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis
Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐021C Harrison West Virginia 15.4 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
46HS123 (Not Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED ‐ NO
Eligible); Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐022B Harrison West Virginia 15.4 ‐ Complete Complete Complete 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
46HS133 (Not Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
impacts
Eligible) 2016)
46HS141 (Not Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED ‐ NO
Eligible); Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐022C Harrison West Virginia 15.4 ‐ Complete Complete Complete 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
46HS142 (Not Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
impacts
Eligible) 2016)
46HS117 (Not Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED ‐ NO
Eligible); Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐458 Harrison West Virginia 15.4 ‐ Complete Complete Complete 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
46HS132 (Not Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
impacts
Eligible) 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED ‐ NO
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐756 Harrison West Virginia 15.6 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED ‐ NO
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐757 Harrison West Virginia 15.6 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐752 Harrison West Virginia 15.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐752A Harrison West Virginia 15.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐753 Harrison West Virginia 15.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐753A Harrison West Virginia 16.0 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge
CLEARED ‐ NO
9/12/2015, and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105), Mountain 10/06/2015, 10/23/2015,
MVP‐ATWS‐755 Harrison West Virginia 16.3 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No idenitified RTE Included in NWP
9/12/2015 Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey Report 10/06/2015 10/23/2015
impacts
Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis
Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐023 Harrison West Virginia 17.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Page 14 of 28
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105), Mountain
9/12/2015, Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey Report 10/06/2015, 10/23/2015, CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐024 Harrison West Virginia 17.7 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015, Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis 10/06/2015, 10/23/2015, idenitified RTE Included in NWP
9/12/2015 Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105), Mountain Valley 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 impacts
Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey Report
Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis
Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐025A Harrison West Virginia 17.7 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge
CLEARED ‐ NO
9/12/2015, and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105), Mountain 10/06/2015, 10/23/2015,
MVP‐ATWS‐025 Harrison West Virginia 17.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No idenitified RTE Included in NWP
12/22/2016 Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey, 12/07/2016 12/22/2016
impacts
Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge
and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED ‐ NO
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐025B Harrison West Virginia 17.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED ‐ NO
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐025C Harrison West Virginia 17.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐026 Harrison West Virginia 18.5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐026A Harrison West Virginia 18.6 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
46HS098 (Not
MVP‐ATWS‐028 Harrison West Virginia 18.7 ‐ Complete Complete Complete 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Eligible)
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED ‐ NO
46HS126 (Not Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐758 Harrison West Virginia 18.7 ‐ Complete Complete Complete 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Eligible) Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber CLEARED ‐ NO
12/22/2016, 12/07/2016, 12/22/2016,
MVP‐ATWS‐760 Harrison West Virginia 18.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 2016), Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural idenitified RTE Included in NWP
12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, impacts
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al.,
Novemeber 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐029 Harrison West Virginia 18.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED ‐ NO
46HS127 (Not Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐759A Harrison West Virginia 18.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Eligible) Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐407 Harrison West Virginia 18.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐407A Harrison West Virginia 18.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge
CLEARED ‐ NO
9/12/2015, and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105), Mountain 10/06/2015, 10/23/2015,
MVP‐ATWS‐030 Harrison West Virginia 20.6 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No idenitified RTE Included in NWP
9/12/2015 Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey Report 10/06/2015 10/23/2015
impacts
Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis
Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐031 Harrison West Virginia 20.7 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Page 15 of 28
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge
CLEARED ‐ NO
9/12/2015, and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105), Mountain 10/06/2015, 10/23/2015,
MVP‐ATWS‐033A Harrison West Virginia 20.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No idenitified RTE Included in NWP
12/22/2016 Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey, 12/07/2016 12/22/2016
impacts
Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge
and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐032 Harrison West Virginia 20.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐032A Harrison West Virginia 20.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐033 Harrison West Virginia 20.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase II Investigations
CLEARED ‐ NO
46HS109 (Not Sites 46DO094, 46HS100, 46HS101. 46HS104, 46HS109,
MVP‐ATWS‐034A Harrison West Virginia 21.5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete 6/24/2016 7/14/2016 7/18/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Eligible) 46HS125 and 46LE077, Doddgirge, Harrison and Lewis
impacts
Counties West Virginia (Espino et.al 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED ‐ NO
46HS113 (Not Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐034 Harrison West Virginia 21.6 ‐ Complete Complete Complete 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Eligible) Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED ‐ NO
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐1379 Harrison West Virginia 22.7 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐035 Harrison West Virginia 22.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐036 Harrison West Virginia 23.0 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐036A Harrison West Virginia 23.0 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐037 Harrison West Virginia 23.0 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
46HS128 (Not Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED ‐ NO
Eligible); Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐037A Harrison West Virginia 23.0 ‐ Complete Complete Complete 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
46HS135 (Not Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
impacts
Eligible) 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED ‐ NO
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐1430 Harrison West Virginia 23.0 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED ‐ NO
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐1355 Harrison West Virginia 23.6 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED ‐ NO
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐810 Harrison West Virginia 23.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED ‐ NO
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐810A Harrison West Virginia 23.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED ‐ NO
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐810B Harrison West Virginia 23.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐038 Harrison West Virginia 24.4 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐038A Harrison West Virginia 24.4 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐039 Harrison West Virginia 24.5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Page 16 of 28
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐039A Harrison West Virginia 24.6 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge
CLEARED ‐ NO
9/12/2015, and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105), Mountain 10/06/2015, 10/23/2015,
MVP‐ATWS‐040 Harrison West Virginia 24.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No idenitified RTE Included in NWP
9/12/2015 Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey Report 10/06/2015 10/23/2015
impacts
Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis
Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐040A Harrison West Virginia 24.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105), Mountain
Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey Report
9/12/2015, Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis 10/06/2015, 10/23/2015,
CLEARED ‐ NO
9/12/2015, Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105), Mountain Valley 10/06/2015, 10/23/2015,
MVP‐ATWS‐041A Harrison West Virginia 25.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No idenitified RTE Included in NWP
9/12/2015, Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey Report 10/06/2015, 10/23/2015,
impacts
9/12/2015 Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis 10/06/2015 10/23/2015
Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105), Mountain Valley
Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey Report
Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis
Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105), Mountain
9/12/2015, Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey Report 10/06/2015, 10/23/2015, CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐409 Harrison West Virginia 25.7 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015, Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis 10/06/2015, 10/23/2015, idenitified RTE Included in NWP
9/12/2015 Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105), Mountain Valley 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 impacts
Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey Report
Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis
Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐042 Harrison West Virginia 25.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
2016), Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel,
12/22/2016, 12/07/2016, 12/22/2016,
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., CLEARED ‐ NO
12/22/2016, 12/07/2016, 12/22/2016,
MVP‐ATWS‐1433 Harrison West Virginia 25.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No Novemeber 2016), Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, idenitified RTE Included in NWP
12/22/2016, 12/07/2016, 12/22/2016,
Cultural Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, impacts
12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016
Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino
et.al., Novemeber 2016), Mountain Valley Pipeline
Project, Cultural Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to
Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis
Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐789 Harrison West Virginia 26.0 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge
CLEARED ‐ NO
9/12/2015, and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105), Mountain 10/06/2015, 10/23/2015,
MVP‐ATWS‐043 Harrison West Virginia 26.7 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No idenitified RTE Included in NWP
9/12/2015 Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey Report 10/06/2015 10/23/2015
impacts
Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis
Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge
CLEARED ‐ NO
9/12/2015, and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105), Mountain 10/06/2015, 10/23/2015,
MVP‐ATWS‐043A Harrison West Virginia 26.7 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No idenitified RTE Included in NWP
9/12/2015 Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey Report 10/06/2015 10/23/2015
impacts
Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis
Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge
CLEARED ‐ NO
9/12/2015, and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105), Mountain 10/06/2015, 10/23/2015,
MVP‐ATWS‐765 Harrison West Virginia 26.7 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No idenitified RTE Included in NWP
9/12/2015 Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey Report 10/06/2015 10/23/2015
impacts
Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis
Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105)
Page 17 of 28
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐764 Harrison West Virginia 26.7 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐764A Harrison West Virginia 26.7 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐413 Harrison West Virginia 28.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐413A Harrison West Virginia 28.3 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐414 Harrison West Virginia 29.1 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED ‐ NO
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐766 Harrison West Virginia 29.3 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED ‐ NO
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐766A Harrison West Virginia 29.3 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Concurrence assumed Concurrence assumed CLEARED ‐ NO
Survey, Addendum 3 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐415A Harrison West Virginia 29.4 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/20/2017 per Programatic per Programatic idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., December
Agreement Agreement impacts
2017)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber CLEARED ‐ NO
12/22/2016, 12/07/2016, 12/22/2016,
MVP‐ATWS‐826 Harrison West Virginia 30.0 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 2016), Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural idenitified RTE Included in NWP
12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, impacts
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al.,
Novemeber 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED ‐ NO
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐827 Harrison West Virginia 30.0 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED ‐ NO
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐824 Harrison West Virginia 30.1 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber CLEARED ‐ NO
12/22/2016, 12/07/2016, 12/22/2016,
MVP‐ATWS‐825 Harrison West Virginia 30.4 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 2016), Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural idenitified RTE Included in NWP
12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, impacts
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al.,
Novemeber 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge
CLEARED ‐ NO
9/12/2015, and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105), Mountain 10/06/2015, 10/23/2015,
MVP‐ATWS‐418 Harrison West Virginia 30.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No idenitified RTE Included in NWP
9/12/2015 Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey Report 10/06/2015 10/23/2015
impacts
Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis
Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐046 Harrison West Virginia 31.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐046A Harrison West Virginia 31.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐047 Harrison West Virginia 31.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐048 Doddridge West Virginia 31.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐048A Doddridge West Virginia 31.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Page 18 of 28
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED ‐ NO
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐769 Doddridge West Virginia 31.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED ‐ NO
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐769A Doddridge West Virginia 31.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED ‐ NO
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐770 Doddridge West Virginia 31.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐049 Doddridge West Virginia 32.0 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
46HS104 (Not
Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge CLEARED ‐ NO
Eligible); 9/12/2015
MVP‐ATWS‐051 Harrison West Virginia 32.7 ‐ Complete Complete Complete and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105); 10/06/2015 7/14/2016 10/23/2015 7/18/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
46HS110 (Not 6/24/2016
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase II Investigations impacts
Eligible)
Sites 46DO094, 46HS100, 4ۋ鸄乍햠ۋº
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
2016), Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel,
12/22/2016, 12/07/2016, 12/22/2016,
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., CLEARED ‐ NO
12/22/2016, 12/07/2016, 12/22/2016,
MVP‐ATWS‐689 Doddridge West Virginia 33.5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No Novemeber 2016), Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, idenitified RTE Included in NWP
12/22/2016, 12/07/2016, 12/22/2016,
Cultural Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, impacts
12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016
Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino
et.al., Novemeber 2016), Mountain Valley Pipeline
Project, Cultural Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to
Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis
Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED ‐ NO
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐771 Doddridge West Virginia 33.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED ‐ NO
46DO106 (Not Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐771A Doddridge West Virginia 33.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Eligible) Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED ‐ NO
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐772 Doddridge West Virginia 33.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED ‐ NO
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐773 Doddridge West Virginia 34.0 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber CLEARED ‐ NO
12/22/2016, 12/07/2016, 12/22/2016,
MVP‐ATWS‐774 Doddridge West Virginia 34.3 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 2016), Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural idenitified RTE Included in NWP
12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, impacts
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al.,
Novemeber 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED ‐ NO
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐777 Doddridge West Virginia 34.5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber CLEARED ‐ NO
46DO107 (Not 12/22/2016, 12/07/2016, 12/22/2016,
MVP‐ATWS‐776 Doddridge West Virginia 34.6 ‐ Complete Complete Complete 2016), Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Eligible), 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, impacts
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al.,
Novemeber 2016)
46DO108 (Not
Eligible);
46DO109 (Not Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED ‐ NO
Eligible); Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐053 Doddridge West Virginia 34.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
46DO110 (Not Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
impacts
Eligible); 2016)
46DO111 (Not
Eligible)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐419 Doddridge West Virginia 35.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Page 19 of 28
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐419A Doddridge West Virginia 35.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED ‐ NO
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐778 Doddridge West Virginia 35.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED ‐ NO
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐778A Doddridge West Virginia 35.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge
CLEARED ‐ NO
9/12/2015, and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105), Mountain 10/06/2015, 10/23/2015,
MVP‐ATWS‐420 Doddridge West Virginia 36.0 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No idenitified RTE Included in NWP
9/12/2015 Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey Report 10/06/2015 10/23/2015
impacts
Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis
Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐685 Harrison West Virginia 36.6 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED ‐ NO
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐1064 Harrison West Virginia 37.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED ‐ NO
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐1065 Harrison West Virginia 37.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge
CLEARED ‐ NO
9/12/2015, and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105), Mountain 10/06/2015, 10/23/2015,
MVP‐ATWS‐818 Harrison West Virginia 37.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No idenitified RTE Included in NWP
9/12/2015 Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey Report 10/06/2015 10/23/2015
impacts
Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis
Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED ‐ NO
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐781 Harrison West Virginia 37.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED ‐ NO
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐781A Harrison West Virginia 37.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐057 Harrison West Virginia 37.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge
CLEARED ‐ NO
9/12/2015, and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105), Mountain 10/06/2015, 10/23/2015,
MVP‐ATWS‐056A Lewis West Virginia 38.0 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No idenitified RTE Included in NWP
9/12/2015 Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey Report 10/06/2015 10/23/2015
impacts
Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis
Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐056 Harrison West Virginia 38.0 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐831 Lewis West Virginia 39.7 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge
CLEARED ‐ NO
9/12/2015, and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105), Mountain 10/06/2015, 10/23/2015,
MVP‐ATWS‐421A Lewis West Virginia 39.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No idenitified RTE Included in NWP
9/12/2015 Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey Report 10/06/2015 10/23/2015
impacts
Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis
Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐421 Lewis West Virginia 39.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Page 20 of 28
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105), Mountain
9/12/2015, Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey Report 10/06/2015, 10/23/2015, CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐058 Lewis West Virginia 40.3 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015, Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis 10/06/2015, 10/23/2015, idenitified RTE Included in NWP
9/12/2015 Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105), Mountain Valley 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 impacts
Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey Report
Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis
Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
46LE098 (Not
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber CLEARED ‐ NO
Eligible), 12/22/2016, 12/07/2016, 12/22/2016,
MVP‐ATWS‐059A Lewis West Virginia 41.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete 2016), Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural idenitified RTE Included in NWP
46LE112 (Not 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, impacts
Eligible)
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al.,
Novemeber 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED ‐ NO
46LE099 (Not Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐059 Lewis West Virginia 41.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Eligible) Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐060 Lewis West Virginia 41.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐060A Lewis West Virginia 41.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐835 Lewis West Virginia 41.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐836 Lewis West Virginia 41.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐422 Lewis West Virginia 41.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐422A Lewis West Virginia 41.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐837 Lewis West Virginia 41.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐686 Lewis West Virginia 42.4 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐061 Lewis West Virginia 42.5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐061A Lewis West Virginia 42.5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐062 Lewis West Virginia 42.5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐062A Lewis West Virginia 42.5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1421 Lewis West Virginia 42.5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐686A Lewis West Virginia 42.5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐845 Lewis West Virginia 43.0 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Page 21 of 28
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐841 Lewis West Virginia 43.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED ‐ NO
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐842 Lewis West Virginia 43.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED ‐ NO
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐843 Lewis West Virginia 43.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐838 Lewis West Virginia 43.3 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐839 Lewis West Virginia 43.3 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED ‐ NO
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐840 Lewis West Virginia 43.3 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge
CLEARED ‐ NO
9/12/2015, and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105), Mountain 10/06/2015, 10/23/2015,
MVP‐ATWS‐460 Lewis West Virginia 43.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No idenitified RTE Included in NWP
9/12/2015 Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey Report 10/06/2015 10/23/2015
impacts
Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis
Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge
CLEARED ‐ NO
9/12/2015, and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105), Mountain 10/06/2015, 10/23/2015,
MVP‐ATWS‐691 Lewis West Virginia 44.1 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No idenitified RTE Included in NWP
9/12/2015 Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey Report 10/06/2015 10/23/2015
impacts
Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis
Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐851 Lewis West Virginia 44.4 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐852 Lewis West Virginia 44.4 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐063 Lewis West Virginia 44.5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐063A Lewis West Virginia 44.5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐064 Lewis West Virginia 44.6 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐065 Lewis West Virginia 44.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐065A Lewis West Virginia 44.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge
CLEARED ‐ NO
9/12/2015, and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105), Mountain 10/06/2015, 10/23/2015,
MVP‐ATWS‐423A Lewis West Virginia 45.1 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No idenitified RTE Included in NWP
9/12/2015 Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey Report 10/06/2015 10/23/2015
impacts
Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis
Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐423 Lewis West Virginia 45.1 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐461 Lewis West Virginia 45.1 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐066 Lewis West Virginia 45.3 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Page 22 of 28
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐066A Lewis West Virginia 45.4 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐066B Lewis West Virginia 45.4 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐068 Lewis West Virginia 45.5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1422 Lewis West Virginia 45.5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐070A Lewis West Virginia 45.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐071 Lewis West Virginia 45.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐071A Lewis West Virginia 45.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1341 Lewis West Virginia 45.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1423 Lewis West Virginia 45.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐072 Lewis West Virginia 45.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐072B Lewis West Virginia 45.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐072A Lewis West Virginia 46.0 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐072C Lewis West Virginia 46.0 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐823 Lewis West Virginia 46.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐073 Lewis West Virginia 46.5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
46LE113 (Not
MVP‐ATWS‐476 Lewis West Virginia 47.5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete 7/20/2017 Survey, Addendum 2 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, 8/17/2017 8/17/2017 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Eligible)
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., July 2017) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1449 Lewis West Virginia 47.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐074 Lewis West Virginia 47.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐074A Lewis West Virginia 47.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1384 Lewis West Virginia 47.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐477 Lewis West Virginia 47.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Page 23 of 28
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐477A Lewis West Virginia 47.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐075 Lewis West Virginia 48.0 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐075A Lewis West Virginia 48.0 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐075B Lewis West Virginia 48.0 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐076 Lewis West Virginia 48.4 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐076A Lewis West Virginia 48.4 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber CLEARED ‐ NO
12/22/2016, 12/07/2016, 12/22/2016,
MVP‐ATWS‐804 Lewis West Virginia 50.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 2016), Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural idenitified RTE Included in NWP
12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, impacts
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al.,
Novemeber 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber CLEARED ‐ NO
12/22/2016, 12/07/2016, 12/22/2016,
MVP‐ATWS‐804A Lewis West Virginia 50.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 2016), Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural idenitified RTE Included in NWP
12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, impacts
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al.,
Novemeber 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED ‐ NO
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐805 Lewis West Virginia 50.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED ‐ NO
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐806 Lewis West Virginia 50.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED ‐ NO
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐1500 Lewis West Virginia 51.0 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
CLEARED ‐ NO
12/22/2016, Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber 12/07/2016, 12/22/2016,
MVP‐ATWS‐801 Lewis West Virginia 51.4 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No idenitified RTE Included in NWP
9/12/2015 2016), Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural 10/06/2015 10/23/2015
impacts
Resources Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
Doddridge and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐078 Lewis West Virginia 51.7 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐078A Lewis West Virginia 51.7 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐079 Lewis West Virginia 52.3 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1532 Lewis West Virginia 52.4 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge
CLEARED ‐ NO
9/12/2015, and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105), Mountain 10/06/2015, 10/23/2015,
MVP‐ATWS‐080 Lewis West Virginia 52.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No idenitified RTE Included in NWP
9/12/2015 Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey Report 10/06/2015 10/23/2015
impacts
Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis
Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105)
Page 24 of 28
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐478 Lewis West Virginia 52.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge
CLEARED ‐ NO
9/12/2015, and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105), Mountain 10/06/2015, 10/23/2015,
MVP‐ATWS‐425A Lewis West Virginia 53.1 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No idenitified RTE Included in NWP
9/12/2015 Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey Report 10/06/2015 10/23/2015
impacts
Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis
Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐462 Lewis West Virginia 53.5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐858 Lewis West Virginia 53.7 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐426 Lewis West Virginia 54.1 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐081 Lewis West Virginia 55.0 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐859 Lewis West Virginia 55.0 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐860 Lewis West Virginia 55.0 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐861 Lewis West Virginia 55.0 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1439 Lewis West Virginia 55.1 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐863 Lewis West Virginia 55.1 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐864 Lewis West Virginia 55.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐865 Lewis West Virginia 55.3 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1431 Lewis West Virginia 56.6 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1432 Lewis West Virginia 56.6 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐083 Lewis West Virginia 56.7 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐084 Lewis West Virginia 58.1 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber CLEARED ‐ NO
12/22/2016, 12/07/2016, 12/22/2016,
MVP‐ATWS‐1435 Lewis West Virginia 58.5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 2016), Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural idenitified RTE Included in NWP
12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, impacts
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al.,
Novemeber 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐085 Lewis West Virginia 58.5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Page 25 of 28
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐085A Lewis West Virginia 58.5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge
CLEARED ‐ NO
9/12/2015, and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105), Mountain 10/06/2015, 10/23/2015,
MVP‐ATWS‐475 Lewis West Virginia 58.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No idenitified RTE Included in NWP
9/12/2015 Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey Report 10/06/2015 10/23/2015
impacts
Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis
Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge
CLEARED ‐ NO
9/12/2015, and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105), Mountain 10/06/2015, 10/23/2015,
MVP‐ATWS‐692 Lewis West Virginia 58.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No idenitified RTE Included in NWP
9/12/2015 Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey Report 10/06/2015 10/23/2015
impacts
Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis
Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1424 Lewis West Virginia 58.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐866 Lewis West Virginia 59.1 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐088 Lewis West Virginia 59.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐427 Lewis West Virginia 59.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge
CLEARED ‐ NO
9/12/2015, and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105), Mountain 10/06/2015, 10/23/2015,
MVP‐ATWS‐869 Lewis West Virginia 59.5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No idenitified RTE Included in NWP
9/12/2015 Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey Report 10/06/2015 10/23/2015
impacts
Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis
Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge
CLEARED ‐ NO
9/12/2015, and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105), Mountain 10/06/2015, 10/23/2015,
MVP‐ATWS‐871 Lewis West Virginia 59.5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No idenitified RTE Included in NWP
9/12/2015 Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey Report 10/06/2015 10/23/2015
impacts
Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis
Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge
CLEARED ‐ NO
9/12/2015, and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105), Mountain 10/06/2015, 10/23/2015,
MVP‐ATWS‐872 Lewis West Virginia 59.5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No idenitified RTE Included in NWP
9/12/2015 Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey Report 10/06/2015 10/23/2015
impacts
Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis
Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐089 Lewis West Virginia 59.5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐428 Lewis West Virginia 59.5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐870 Lewis West Virginia 59.5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐867 Lewis West Virginia 59.6 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐868 Lewis West Virginia 59.6 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge
CLEARED ‐ NO
9/12/2015, and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105), Mountain 10/06/2015, 10/23/2015,
MVP‐ATWS‐429 Lewis West Virginia 59.7 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No idenitified RTE Included in NWP
9/12/2015 Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey Report 10/06/2015 10/23/2015
impacts
Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis
Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105)
Page 26 of 28
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐874 Lewis West Virginia 59.7 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐875 Lewis West Virginia 59.7 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber CLEARED ‐ NO
12/22/2016, 12/07/2016, 12/22/2016,
MVP‐ATWS‐880 Lewis West Virginia 59.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 2016), Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural idenitified RTE Included in NWP
12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, impacts
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al.,
Novemeber 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐430 Lewis West Virginia 59.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐430A Lewis West Virginia 59.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐430B Lewis West Virginia 59.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐878 Lewis West Virginia 59.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐879 Lewis West Virginia 59.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge
CLEARED ‐ NO
9/12/2015, and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105), Mountain 10/06/2015, 10/23/2015,
MVP‐ATWS‐431 Lewis West Virginia 60.0 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No idenitified RTE Included in NWP
9/12/2015 Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey Report 10/06/2015 10/23/2015
impacts
Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis
Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge
CLEARED ‐ NO
9/12/2015, and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105), Mountain 10/06/2015, 10/23/2015,
MVP‐ATWS‐463 Lewis West Virginia 60.0 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No idenitified RTE Included in NWP
9/12/2015 Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey Report 10/06/2015 10/23/2015
impacts
Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis
Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐876 Lewis West Virginia 60.0 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED ‐ NO
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐881 Lewis West Virginia 60.0 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge
CLEARED ‐ NO
9/12/2015, and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105), Mountain 10/06/2015, 10/23/2015,
MVP‐ATWS‐463A Lewis West Virginia 60.1 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No idenitified RTE Included in NWP
9/12/2015 Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey Report 10/06/2015 10/23/2015
impacts
Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis
Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐877 Lewis West Virginia 60.1 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐479 Lewis West Virginia 60.3 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED ‐ NO
46LE093 (Not Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐795 Lewis West Virginia 61.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Eligible) Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED ‐ NO
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐796 Lewis West Virginia 61.3 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
46LE111 (Not
MVP‐ATWS‐1531 Lewis West Virginia 61.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete 7/20/2017 Survey, Addendum 2 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, 8/17/2017 8/17/2017 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Eligible)
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., July 2017) impacts
Page 27 of 28
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber CLEARED ‐ NO
12/22/2016, 12/07/2016, 12/22/2016,
MVP‐ATWS‐797 Lewis West Virginia 62.0 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 2016), Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural idenitified RTE Included in NWP
12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, impacts
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al.,
Novemeber 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber CLEARED ‐ NO
12/22/2016, 12/07/2016, 12/22/2016,
MVP‐ATWS‐793 Lewis West Virginia 62.4 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 2016), Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural idenitified RTE Included in NWP
12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, impacts
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al.,
Novemeber 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐095 Lewis West Virginia 64.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐096 Lewis West Virginia 64.6 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐096A Lewis West Virginia 64.6 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 9/12/2015 Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge 10/06/2015 10/23/2015 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105) impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber CLEARED ‐ NO
12/22/2016, 12/07/2016, 12/22/2016,
MVP‐ATWS‐817 Lewis West Virginia 65.1 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 2016), Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural idenitified RTE Included in NWP
12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, impacts
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al.,
Novemeber 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Concurrence assumed Concurrence assumed CLEARED ‐ NO
Survey, Addendum 3 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐435 Lewis West Virginia 65.3 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/20/2017 per Programatic per Programatic idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., December
Agreement Agreement impacts
2017)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber CLEARED ‐ NO
12/22/2016, 12/07/2016, 12/22/2016,
MVP‐ATWS‐436 Lewis West Virginia 65.4 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 2016), Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural idenitified RTE Included in NWP
12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016
Resources Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, impacts
Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al.,
Novemeber 2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED ‐ NO
46LE100 (Not Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐1436 Lewis West Virginia 65.4 ‐ Complete Complete Complete 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Eligible) Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
CLEARED ‐ NO
Survey, Addendum 1 to Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison,
MVP‐ATWS‐1436A Lewis West Virginia 65.4 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 12/07/2016 12/22/2016 idenitified RTE Included in NWP
Doddridge and Lewis Counties (Espino et.al., Novemeber
impacts
2016)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources
Survey Report Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge
CLEARED ‐ NO
9/12/2015, and Lewis Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105), Mountain 10/06/2015, 10/23/2015,
MVP‐ATWS‐1501 Lewis West Virginia 65.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No idenitified RTE Included in NWP
9/12/2015 Valley Pipeline Project, Cultural Resources Survey Report 10/06/2015 10/23/2015
impacts
Volume I, Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge and Lewis
Counties, WV (Espino et.al 2105)
Page 28 of 28
~ Mountain 625 Liberty Avenue, Suite 1700 | Pittsburgh, PA 15222
'!.~~,~~
844-MVP-TALK | mail@mountainvalleypipeline.info
www.mountainvalleypipeline.info
February 7, 2018
On October 13, 2017, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued an order granting a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC for the
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project in this docket. Mountain Valley submitted and supplemented
its Implementation Plan for the Project on various dates.
Mountain Valley requests that the Director of the Office of Energy Projects issue a Notice to
Proceed with all construction activities for the facilities listed in Attachment A. Mountain
Valley has received all permits and authorizations required under federal law to construct the
Project. Following issuance of the Notice to Proceed, the timing of the actual construction may
vary depending upon state permits.
Mountain Valley respectfully requests that this Notice to Proceed be issued by February 15,
2018.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (412) 553-5786 or
meggerding@eqt.com. Thank you.
Respectfully submitted,
MOUNTAIN VALLEY PIPELINE, LLC
by and through its operator,
EQM Gathering Opco, LLC
By:
Matthew Eggerding
Counsel, Midstream
Attachment
cc: All Parties
Paul Friedman, FERC
Lavinia DiSanto, Cardno, Inc.
Doug Mooneyhan, Cardno, Inc.
Ms. Kimberly D. Bose
February 7, 2018
Page 2 of 2
Attachment A
Pipeline
MP Start MP End
(based on IFC (based on IFC Cultural Date SHPO
Wetland Cultural RTE Survey Date Report Filed with Nationwide 12 Permit
Facility Name County State Route filed Route filed Parcel Number Resources Report Title (Date) SHPO Clearance Date Letter Filed with RTE Status
Survey Status Survey Status Status FERC Status
with FERC on with FERC on Identified Y/N FERC
12-20-2017) 12-20-2017)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Craig Virginia 217.1 217.2 VA‐CR‐200.047 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Roanoke, Montgomery, 3/9/2016 4/21/2016 5/6/2016 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
and Craig Counties, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report Addendum I, and Phase II CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Craig Virginia 217.2 217.4 VA‐CR‐200.048 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 6/7/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
Archaeological Evaluations Sites 44CG0253, 44CG0254, identified RTE impacts
44CG0255, Craig County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
44CG0255 (Not Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum 1 and Phase II CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Craig Virginia 217.4 217.5 VA‐CR‐200.049 Complete Complete Complete 12/22/2016 6/7/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
Eligible) Archaeological Evaluations Sites 44CG0253, 44CG0254, identified RTE impacts
44CG0255, Craig County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
44CG0255 (Not Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum 1 and Phase II CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Craig Virginia 217.4 217.6 VA‐CR‐5343 Complete Complete Complete 12/22/2016 6/7/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
Eligible) Archaeological Evaluations Sites 44CG0253, 44CG0254, identified RTE impacts
44CG0255, Craig County, Virginia
44CG0253 (Not Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Eligible); Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum 1 and Phase II CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Craig Virginia 217.6 218.0 VA‐CR‐200.051 Complete Complete Complete 12/22/2016 6/7/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
44CG0254 (Not Archaeological Evaluations Sites 44CG0253, 44CG0254, identified RTE impacts
Eligible) 44CG0255, Craig County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Craig Virginia 218.0 218.3 VA‐CR‐200.052 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Roanoke, Montgomery, 3/9/2016 4/21/2016 5/6/2016 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
and Craig Counties, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Craig Virginia 218.2 218.5 VA‐CR‐200.053 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Roanoke, Montgomery, 3/9/2016 4/21/2016 5/6/2016 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
and Craig Counties, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report Addendum I, and Phase II CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Craig Virginia 218.5 218.6 VA‐CR‐200.054 Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 6/7/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
Archaeological Evaluations Sites 44CG0253, 44CG0254, identified RTE impacts
44CG0255, Craig County, Virginia
Concurrence
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed
assumed per CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 219.7 219.9 VA‐MO‐200.058 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and 3/2/2017 per Programmatic Included in NWP
Programmatic identified RTE impacts
Montgomery Counties, Virginia Agreement
Agreement
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Combined
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 220.8 221.5 VA‐MO‐3370 Complete Complete Complete No County Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Giles, 6/30/2017 8/30/2017 9/5/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
Montgomery, Roanoke, and Franklin Counties, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Combined
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 221.5 222.0 VA‐MO‐3371 Complete Complete Complete No County Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Giles, 6/30/2017 8/30/2017 9/5/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
Montgomery, Roanoke, and Franklin Counties, Virginia
Concurrence
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed
assumed per CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 222.0 222.2 VA‐MO‐5511 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and 3/2/2017 per Programmatic Included in NWP
Programmatic identified RTE impacts
Montgomery Counties, Virginia Agreement
Agreement
Concurrence
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed
assumed per CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 222.0 222.1 VA‐MO‐5512 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and 3/2/2017 per Programmatic Included in NWP
Programmatic identified RTE impacts
Montgomery Counties, Virginia Agreement
Agreement
Concurrence
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed
assumed per CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 222.2 222.4 VA‐MO‐5514 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and 3/2/2017 per Programmatic Included in NWP
Programmatic identified RTE impacts
Montgomery Counties, Virginia Agreement
Agreement
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Combined
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 222.4 222.8 VA‐MO‐5516 Complete Complete Complete No County Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Giles, 6/30/2017 8/30/2017 9/5/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
Montgomery, Roanoke, and Franklin Counties, Virginia
Concurrence
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed
44MY0584 (Not assumed per CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 222.5 222.7 VA‐MO‐5515 Complete Complete Complete Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Montgomery 3/2/2017 per Programmatic Included in NWP
Eligible) Programmatic identified RTE impacts
and Roanoke Counties, Virginia Agreement
Agreement
Concurrence
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed
assumed per CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 222.7 222.9 VA‐MO‐5519 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and 3/2/2017 per Programmatic Included in NWP
Programmatic identified RTE impacts
Montgomery Counties, Virginia Agreement
Agreement
Addendum to the Phase I Reconnaissance Architectural
060‐5197 (Not Survey for the Mountain Valley Pipeline: Summary CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 222.8 223.1 VA‐MO‐5520 Complete Complete Complete 7/7/2017 8/2/2017 8/4/2017 Included in NWP
Eligible) Report, Pittsylvania, Franklin, Roanoke, Montgomery, identified RTE impacts
Craig, and Giles Counties, Virginia
Concurrence
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed
assumed per CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 223.0 223.1 VA‐MO‐5521 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and 3/2/2017 per Programmatic Included in NWP
Programmatic identified RTE impacts
Montgomery Counties, Virginia Agreement
Agreement
Concurrence
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed
assumed per CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 223.1 223.2 VA‐MO‐5523 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and 3/2/2017 per Programmatic Included in NWP
Programmatic identified RTE impacts
Montgomery Counties, Virginia Agreement
Agreement
Page 1 of 29
Concurrence
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed
assumed per CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 223.1 223.3 VA‐MO‐5882 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and 3/2/2017 per Programmatic Included in NWP
Programmatic identified RTE impacts
Montgomery Counties, Virginia Agreement
Agreement
Concurrence
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed
assumed per CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 223.2 223.9 VA‐MO‐5526 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and 3/2/2017 per Programmatic Included in NWP
Programmatic identified RTE impacts
Montgomery Counties, Virginia Agreement
Agreement
Concurrence
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed
assumed per CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 223.7 223.9 VA‐MO‐5527 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and 3/2/2017 per Programmatic Included in NWP
Programmatic identified RTE impacts
Montgomery Counties, Virginia Agreement
Agreement
Concurrence
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed
assumed per CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 225.8 226.1 VA‐MO‐5532 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and 3/2/2017 per Programmatic Included in NWP
Programmatic identified RTE impacts
Montgomery Counties, Virginia Agreement
Agreement
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 228.7 228.9 VA‐MO‐060 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Roanoke, Montgomery, 3/9/2016 4/21/2016 5/6/2016 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
and Craig Counties, Virginia
Concurrence
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed
assumed per CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 228.8 228.9 VA‐MO‐3711 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and 3/2/2017 per Programmatic Included in NWP
Programmatic identified RTE impacts
Montgomery Counties, Virginia Agreement
Agreement
Concurrence
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed
assumed per CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 228.9 229.0 VA‐MO‐061 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and 3/2/2017 per Programmatic Included in NWP
Programmatic identified RTE impacts
Montgomery Counties, Virginia Agreement
Agreement
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Combined
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 228.9 229.1 VA‐MO‐062 Complete Complete Complete No County Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Giles, 6/30/2017 8/30/2017 9/5/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
Montgomery, Roanoke, and Franklin Counties, Virginia
Concurrence
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed
assumed per CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 229.0 229.1 VA‐MO‐063 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and 3/2/2017 per Programmatic Included in NWP
Programmatic identified RTE impacts
Montgomery Counties, Virginia Agreement
Agreement
Concurrence
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed
assumed per CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 229.1 229.2 VA‐MO‐065 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and 3/2/2017 per Programmatic Included in NWP
Programmatic identified RTE impacts
Montgomery Counties, Virginia Agreement
Agreement
Concurrence
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed
assumed per CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 229.2 229.3 VA‐MO‐066 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and 3/2/2017 per Programmatic Included in NWP
Programmatic identified RTE impacts
Montgomery Counties, Virginia Agreement
Agreement
Concurrence
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed
assumed per CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 229.3 229.4 BVMO‐26 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and 3/2/2017 per Programmatic Included in NWP
Programmatic identified RTE impacts
Montgomery Counties, Virginia Agreement
Agreement
Concurrence
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed
assumed per CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 229.3 229.4 VA‐MO‐067 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and 3/2/2017 per Programmatic Included in NWP
Programmatic identified RTE impacts
Montgomery Counties, Virginia Agreement
Agreement
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 229.3 229.6 VA‐MO‐068 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Roanoke, Montgomery, 3/9/2016 4/21/2016 5/6/2016 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
and Craig Counties, Virginia
Concurrence
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed
assumed per CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 229.5 229.6 VA‐MO‐069 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and 3/2/2017 per Programmatic Included in NWP
Programmatic identified RTE impacts
Montgomery Counties, Virginia Agreement
Agreement
Concurrence
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed
assumed per CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 229.6 229.7 VA‐MO‐070 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and 3/2/2017 per Programmatic Included in NWP
Programmatic identified RTE impacts
Montgomery Counties, Virginia Agreement
Agreement
Concurrence
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed
assumed per CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 229.7 229.8 VA‐MO‐071 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and 3/2/2017 per Programmatic Included in NWP
Programmatic identified RTE impacts
Montgomery Counties, Virginia Agreement
Agreement
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 229.8 230.5 VA‐MO‐072 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Roanoke, Montgomery, 3/9/2016 4/21/2016 5/6/2016 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
and Craig Counties, Virginia
Concurrence
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed
assumed per CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 229.8 230.5 VA‐MO‐073 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and 3/2/2017 per Programmatic Included in NWP
Programmatic identified RTE impacts
Montgomery Counties, Virginia Agreement
Agreement
Concurrence
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed
assumed per CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 230.5 230.7 VA‐MO‐074 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and 3/2/2017 per Programmatic Included in NWP
Programmatic identified RTE impacts
Montgomery Counties, Virginia Agreement
Agreement
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 230.6 230.7 VA‐MO‐075 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Roanoke, Montgomery, 3/9/2016 4/21/2016 5/6/2016 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
and Craig Counties, Virginia
Concurrence
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed
assumed per CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 230.7 230.8 BV‐MN‐0053 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and 3/2/2017 per Programmatic Included in NWP
Programmatic identified RTE impacts
Montgomery Counties, Virginia Agreement
Agreement
Page 2 of 29
Concurrence
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed
assumed per CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 230.7 230.9 UNKNOWN Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and 3/2/2017 per Programmatic Included in NWP
Programmatic identified RTE impacts
Montgomery Counties, Virginia Agreement
Agreement
Concurrence
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed
assumed per CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 230.8 230.9 VA‐MO‐078 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and 3/2/2017 per Programmatic Included in NWP
Programmatic identified RTE impacts
Montgomery Counties, Virginia Agreement
Agreement
Concurrence
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed
assumed per CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 230.9 231.3 VA‐MO‐079 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and 3/2/2017 per Programmatic Included in NWP
Programmatic identified RTE impacts
Montgomery Counties, Virginia Agreement
Agreement
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 231.3 232.5 VA‐MO‐080 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Roanoke, Montgomery, 3/9/2016 4/21/2016 5/6/2016 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
and Craig Counties, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 231.5 231.7 VA‐MO‐081 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Roanoke, Montgomery, 3/9/2016 4/21/2016 5/6/2016 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
and Craig Counties, Virginia
Concurrence
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed
assumed per CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 232.5 232.7 VA‐MO‐082 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and 3/2/2017 per Programmatic Included in NWP
Programmatic identified RTE impacts
Montgomery Counties, Virginia Agreement
Agreement
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 232.6 233.3 VA‐MO‐083 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Roanoke, Montgomery, 3/9/2016 4/21/2016 5/6/2016 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
and Craig Counties, Virginia
Concurrence
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed
assumed per CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 233.3 234.1 VA‐MO‐084 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and 3/2/2017 per Programmatic Included in NWP
Programmatic identified RTE impacts
Montgomery Counties, Virginia Agreement
Agreement
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 234.2 234.3 VA‐MO‐006 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Roanoke, Montgomery, 3/9/2016 4/21/2016 5/6/2016 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
and Craig Counties, Virginia
Concurrence
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed
assumed per CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 234.3 234.5 VA‐MO‐007 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and 3/2/2017 per Programmatic Included in NWP
Programmatic identified RTE impacts
Montgomery Counties, Virginia Agreement
Agreement
Concurrence
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed
assumed per CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 234.5 234.6 VA‐MO‐008 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and 3/2/2017 per Programmatic Included in NWP
Programmatic identified RTE impacts
Montgomery Counties, Virginia Agreement
Agreement
Concurrence
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed
assumed per CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 234.5 234.6 VA‐RO‐034 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and 3/2/2017 per Programmatic Included in NWP
Programmatic identified RTE impacts
Montgomery Counties, Virginia Agreement
Agreement
Concurrence
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed
assumed per CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 234.6 234.9 VA‐MO‐009 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and 3/2/2017 per Programmatic Included in NWP
Programmatic identified RTE impacts
Montgomery Counties, Virginia Agreement
Agreement
Concurrence
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed
assumed per CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 234.6 235.1 VA‐RO‐004 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and 3/2/2017 per Programmatic Included in NWP
Programmatic identified RTE impacts
Montgomery Counties, Virginia Agreement
Agreement
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 235.4 235.5 VA‐MO‐011 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Roanoke, Montgomery, 3/9/2016 4/21/2016 5/6/2016 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
and Craig Counties, Virginia
Concurrence
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed
assumed per CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 235.4 235.5 VA‐MO‐012 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and 3/2/2017 per Programmatic Included in NWP
Programmatic identified RTE impacts
Montgomery Counties, Virginia Agreement
Agreement
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 235.5 235.6 VA‐MO‐013 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Roanoke, Montgomery, 3/9/2016 4/21/2016 5/6/2016 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
and Craig Counties, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 235.6 235.8 BVMO‐33 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Roanoke, Montgomery, 3/9/2016 4/21/2016 5/6/2016 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
and Craig Counties, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 235.6 235.7 VA‐MO‐5668 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Roanoke, Montgomery, 3/9/2016 4/21/2016 5/6/2016 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
and Craig Counties, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 235.7 235.8 VA‐MO‐014 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Roanoke, Montgomery, 3/9/2016 4/21/2016 5/6/2016 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
and Craig Counties, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 235.7 235.8 VA‐MO‐016 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Roanoke, Montgomery, 3/9/2016 4/21/2016 5/6/2016 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
and Craig Counties, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Combined
County Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum II, CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 235.8 235.9 VA‐MO‐3717 Complete Complete Complete No 8/4/2017 8/30/2017 9/5/2017 Included in NWP
Giles, Montgomery, Roanoke, Franklin, and Pittsylvania identified RTE impacts
Counties, Virginia
Concurrence
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed
assumed per CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 235.8 236.2 VA‐MO‐3718 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and 3/2/2017 per Programmatic Included in NWP
Programmatic identified RTE impacts
Montgomery Counties, Virginia Agreement
Agreement
Page 3 of 29
Concurrence
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed
assumed per CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 236.2 236.3 VA‐MO‐4321 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and 3/2/2017 per Programmatic Included in NWP
Programmatic identified RTE impacts
Montgomery Counties, Virginia Agreement
Agreement
Concurrence
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed
assumed per CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 236.3 236.4 VA‐MO‐019 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and 3/2/2017 per Programmatic Included in NWP
Programmatic identified RTE impacts
Montgomery Counties, Virginia Agreement
Agreement
Concurrence
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed
assumed per CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 236.3 236.4 VA‐MO‐5390 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and 3/2/2017 per Programmatic Included in NWP
Programmatic identified RTE impacts
Montgomery Counties, Virginia Agreement
Agreement
Concurrence
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed
assumed per CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 236.4 236.9 VA‐MO‐020 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and 3/2/2017 per Programmatic Included in NWP
Programmatic identified RTE impacts
Montgomery Counties, Virginia Agreement
Agreement
Concurrence
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed
assumed per CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 236.4 236.5 VA‐MO‐5391 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and 3/2/2017 per Programmatic Included in NWP
Programmatic identified RTE impacts
Montgomery Counties, Virginia Agreement
Agreement
Concurrence
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed
assumed per CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 236.8 237.0 VA‐MO‐021 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and 3/2/2017 per Programmatic Included in NWP
Programmatic identified RTE impacts
Montgomery Counties, Virginia Agreement
Agreement
Concurrence
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed
assumed per CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 237.0 237.2 VA‐MO‐022 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and 3/2/2017 per Programmatic Included in NWP
Programmatic identified RTE impacts
Montgomery Counties, Virginia Agreement
Agreement
Concurrence
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed
assumed per CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 237.2 237.5 VA‐MO‐023 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and 3/2/2017 per Programmatic Included in NWP
Programmatic identified RTE impacts
Montgomery Counties, Virginia Agreement
Agreement
Concurrence
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed
assumed per CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 237.5 237.6 VA‐MO‐024 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and 3/2/2017 per Programmatic Included in NWP
Programmatic identified RTE impacts
Montgomery Counties, Virginia Agreement
Agreement
Concurrence
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed
assumed per CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 237.6 238.0 VA‐MO‐025 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and 3/2/2017 per Programmatic Included in NWP
Programmatic identified RTE impacts
Montgomery Counties, Virginia Agreement
Agreement
Concurrence
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed
assumed per CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Montgomery Virginia 237.9 238.0 VA‐RO‐036 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and 3/2/2017 per Programmatic Included in NWP
Programmatic identified RTE impacts
Montgomery Counties, Virginia Agreement
Agreement
Concurrence
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed
assumed per CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Roanoke Virginia 238.0 238.1 VA‐RO‐036 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and 3/2/2017 per Programmatic Included in NWP
Programmatic identified RTE impacts
Montgomery Counties, Virginia Agreement
Agreement
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 246.4 247.2 VA‐FR‐001 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 247.2 247.7 VA‐FR‐001.01 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 247.6 247.8 VA‐FR‐005 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 247.7 248.1 VA‐FR‐008 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 248.0 248.1 VA‐FR‐008.01 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 248.1 248.4 VA‐FR‐009 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 249.8 249.9 VA‐FR‐014 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 249.9 250.5 VA‐FR‐015 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 250.2 251.2 VA‐FR‐016 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 250.4 250.6 VA‐FR‐015.04 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 250.5 250.7 VA‐FR‐015.02 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 251.2 251.3 VA‐FR‐017 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Page 4 of 29
44FR0391 (Not
Eligible);
44FR0393 (Not Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase II Archaeological CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 251.3 252.0 VA‐FR‐017.02 Complete Complete Complete 2/17/2017 8/18/2017 8/25/2017 Included in NWP
Eligible); Evaluations of 18 Sites, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
44FR0410 (Not
Eligible)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
44FR0390 (Not CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 252.0 252.3 VA‐FR‐017.06 Complete Complete Complete Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
Eligible) identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 252.3 252.4 VA‐FR‐017.04 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 252.4 252.5 VA‐FR‐017.07 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
44FR0377 (Not CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 252.5 253.0 VA‐FR‐017.08 Complete Complete Complete Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
Eligible) identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 252.9 253.4 VA‐FR‐017.10 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 253.0 253.1 VA‐FR‐017.09 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 253.1 253.9 VA‐FR‐017.11 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 253.4 253.5 VA‐FR‐017.12 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 253.5 253.6 VA‐FR‐017.13 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 253.5 253.7 VA‐FR‐017.14 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 253.9 255.0 VA‐FR‐017.15 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 254.5 254.7 VA‐FR‐017.16 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 254.5 254.6 VA‐FR‐017.17 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 254.6 254.7 VA‐FR‐017.19 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
44FR0403 (Not CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 254.9 255.4 VA‐FR‐017.20 Complete Complete Complete Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
Eligible) identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 255.0 255.1 VA‐FR‐5392 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
44FR0397 (Not
Eligible); Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase II Archaeological CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 255.4 255.8 VA‐FR‐017.21 Complete Complete Complete 2/17/2017 8/18/2017 8/25/2017 Included in NWP
44FR0401 (Not Evaluations of 18 Sites, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Eligible)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 255.7 255.8 VA‐FR‐017.24 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 255.8 256.0 VA‐FR‐017.25 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
44FR0376 (Not Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase II Archaeological CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 256.0 256.1 VA‐FR‐017.26 Complete Complete Complete 2/17/2017 8/18/2017 8/25/2017 Included in NWP
Eligible) Evaluations of 18 Sites, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Page 5 of 29
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 256.8 256.9 VA‐FR‐017.34 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 256.9 257.0 VA‐FR‐017.35 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 256.9 257.0 VA‐FR‐017.36 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 256.9 257.0 VA‐FR‐017.37 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 256.9 257.3 VA‐FR‐017.38 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 257.2 257.3 VA‐FR‐017.39 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 257.2 257.3 VA‐FR‐017.40 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 257.3 257.4 VA‐FR‐017.41 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 257.4 257.5 BV‐FR‐9 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 257.5 257.6 VA‐FR‐017.43 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 257.5 257.6 VA‐FR‐017.42 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 257.6 257.7 VA‐FR‐017.45 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 257.6 257.7 VA‐FR‐017.44 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 257.7 257.9 VA‐FR‐017.47 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 258.0 258.1 VA‐FR‐017.48 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 258.4 258.9 VA‐FR‐045 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
44FR0191 (Not Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase II Archaeological CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 258.9 259.0 BVA‐FR‐13 Complete Complete Complete 2/17/2017 8/18/2017 8/25/2017 Included in NWP
Eligible) Evaluations of 18 Sites, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 259.0 259.1 VA‐FR‐048 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 259.1 259.2 VA‐FR‐049 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Combined
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 259.2 259.4 VA‐FR‐050 Complete Complete Complete No County Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Giles, 6/30/2017 8/30/2017 9/5/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
Montgomery, Roanoke, and Franklin Counties, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 259.4 259.5 VA‐FR‐051 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 259.5 260.2 VA‐FR‐053 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 260.0 260.1 VA‐FR‐054.002 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
44FR0373 (Not Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase II Archaeological CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 260.2 260.3 VA‐FR‐057 Complete Complete Complete 2/17/2017 8/18/2017 8/25/2017 Included in NWP
Eligible) Evaluations of 18 Sites, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 260.3 260.6 VA‐FR‐058 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 260.6 260.8 VA‐FR‐059.01 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 260.7 261.0 VA‐FR‐062 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Page 6 of 29
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
BV‐FR‐0083 CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 261.0 261.1 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 261.0 261.1 VA‐FR‐063 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 261.1 261.4 VA‐FR‐064 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 261.4 261.5 BVFR‐24 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 261.4 261.8 VA‐FR‐068 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 261.7 261.8 VA‐FR‐070 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 261.8 261.9 VA‐FR‐070.01 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 261.8 262.0 VA‐FR‐072 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 262.0 262.1 VA‐FR‐073 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 262.0 262.1 VA‐FR‐074 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 262.1 262.4 VA‐FR‐075 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Combined
44FR0432 (Not County Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum III, CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 262.3 262.6 VA‐FR‐076.01 Complete Complete Complete 12/20/2017 1/11/2018 1/16/2018 Included in NWP
Eligible) Montgomery, Roanoke, Franklin, and Pittsylvania identified RTE impacts
Counties, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
44FR0409 (Not CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 262.6 262.9 BVFR‐26 Complete Complete Complete Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
Eligible) identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 262.6 262.9 VA‐FR‐077 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 262.9 263.0 VA‐FR‐077.01 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
44FR0404 (Not Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase II Archaeological CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 262.9 263.0 VA‐FR‐078 Complete Complete Complete 2/17/2017 8/18/2017 8/25/2017 Included in NWP
Eligible) Evaluations of 18 Sites, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 263.0 263.4 VA‐FR‐079 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
44FR0372 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase II Archaeological CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 263.4 263.6 VA‐FR‐080 Complete Complete Complete 2/17/2017 8/18/2017 8/25/2017 Included in NWP
(Eligible) Evaluations of 18 Sites, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 263.6 264.2 VA‐FR‐081 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 264.2 264.3 VA‐FR‐089 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 264.2 264.5 VA‐FR‐081.001 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 264.5 264.6 VA‐FR‐5474 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 264.6 264.9 VA‐FR‐5475 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 264.9 265.2 VA‐FR‐5476 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 265.2 265.3 VA‐FR‐5479 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 265.3 265.4 VA‐FR‐5481 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 265.3 265.4 VA‐FR‐5482 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 265.4 265.5 VA‐FR‐5483 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Page 7 of 29
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 265.5 265.6 VA‐FR‐5485 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 265.5 265.6 VA‐FR‐5486 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 265.5 265.6 VA‐FR‐5487 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
44FR0408 (Not CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 265.6 265.8 VA‐FR‐5488 Complete Complete Complete Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
Eligible) identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 265.7 265.8 VA‐FR‐5489 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 265.7 265.8 VA‐FR‐5791 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 265.8 265.9 VA‐FR‐5490 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 265.8 265.9 VA‐FR‐5492 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 265.9 266.1 VA‐FR‐5493 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 265.9 266.0 VA‐FR‐5494 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 266.1 266.2 VA‐FR‐5498 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 266.2 266.3 VA‐FR‐5497 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 266.2 266.3 VA‐FR‐5500 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 266.2 266.6 VA‐FR‐5501 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Combined
County Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum II, CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 266.2 266.3 VA‐FR‐5502 Complete Complete Complete No 8/4/2017 8/30/2017 9/5/2017 Included in NWP
Giles, Montgomery, Roanoke, Franklin, and Pittsylvania identified RTE impacts
Counties, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 266.4 266.5 VA‐FR‐5503 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 266.5 266.7 VA‐FR‐5504 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 266.6 266.8 VA‐FR‐5892 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 266.7 266.9 VA‐FR‐5505 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 266.7 267.1 VA‐FR‐5506 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 266.9 267.0 VA‐FR‐5507 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 267.0 267.3 VA‐FR‐5508 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 267.3 267.9 VA‐FR‐114 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 267.9 268.3 VA‐FR‐115 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 268.3 268.9 VA‐FR‐117 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 268.7 269.1 VA‐FR‐119 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 269.0 269.1 VA‐FR‐119.02 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 269.1 269.2 VA‐FR‐120 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Page 8 of 29
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 269.2 269.3 VA‐FR‐121 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 269.2 269.3 VA‐FR‐122 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 269.3 269.4 VA‐FR‐124 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 269.7 269.8 VA‐FR‐127 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 269.8 270.4 VA‐FR‐128 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 270.4 270.5 VA‐FR‐129 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 270.4 270.6 VA‐FR‐130 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 270.5 270.9 VA‐FR‐131 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 270.9 271.1 VA‐FR‐132 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 271.0 271.1 VA‐FR‐133 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 271.0 271.2 VA‐FR‐135 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 271.1 271.3 VA‐FR‐136 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 271.2 271.3 BVFR‐43 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 271.2 271.3 VA‐FR‐137 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 271.3 271.5 VA‐FR‐139 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 271.8 271.9 VA‐FR‐142 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
44FR0382 (Not
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Eligible); CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 271.9 272.5 VA‐FR‐143 Complete Complete Complete Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
44FR0383 (Not identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Eligible)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 272.5 272.6 VA‐FR‐143.01 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 272.5 272.6 VA‐FR‐143.02 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 272.6 272.7 VA‐FR‐143.03 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 272.6 272.7 VA‐FR‐145 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Page 9 of 29
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 272.7 273.3 VA‐FR‐146 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 274.5 274.8 VA‐FR‐153 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 274.7 274.9 VA‐FR‐154 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 274.8 274.9 VA‐FR‐155 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 274.8 274.9 VA‐FR‐155.01 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 274.9 275.1 VA‐FR‐156 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 274.9 275.0 VA‐FR‐155.02 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 275.0 275.1 VA‐FR‐156.01 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 275.1 275.8 VA‐FR‐157 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 275.3 275.4 VA‐FR‐157.01 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
44FR0360 (Not Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase II Archaeological CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 275.8 276.0 VA‐FR‐160 Complete Complete Complete 2/17/2017 8/18/2017 8/25/2017 Included in NWP
Eligible) Evaluations of 18 Sites, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 276.0 276.5 VA‐FR‐161 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 276.5 277.0 VA‐FR‐162 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 276.7 277.3 VA‐FR‐162.01 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 277.6 277.9 VA‐FR‐170 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 277.8 278.0 VA‐FR‐171 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 277.9 278.3 VA‐FR‐172 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 278.3 278.4 VA‐FR‐173 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 278.4 278.5 VA‐FR‐174 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 278.4 278.5 VA‐FR‐175 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 278.5 278.6 VA‐FR‐176 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Page 10 of 29
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 278.5 278.6 VA‐FR‐177 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 278.6 278.8 VA‐FR‐178 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 278.7 278.9 VA‐FR‐179 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 278.9 279.1 BVFR‐56 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 279.6 279.7 VA‐FR‐181 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 279.7 279.9 VA‐FR‐182 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 279.9 280.2 VA‐FR‐183 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 280.0 280.2 VA‐FR‐184 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 280.2 280.7 VA‐FR‐185 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 280.7 281.0 VA‐FR‐186 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 281.0 281.1 VA‐FR‐187 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 281.1 281.3 VA‐FR‐188 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 281.3 281.5 VA‐FR‐189 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 281.4 281.5 VA‐FR‐190 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 281.5 281.6 VA‐FR‐191 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 281.6 281.9 VA‐FR‐192 Complete Complete Complete No Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/22/2016 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 Included in NWP
identified RTE impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 281.9 282.3 VA‐FR‐193 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 282.1 282.4 VA‐FR‐194 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 282.4 282.8 VA‐FR‐195 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 282.8 283.0 VA‐FR‐196 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 283.0 283.5 VA‐FR‐196.01 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Franklin Virginia 283.5 283.6 VA‐FR‐196.02 Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia identified RTE impacts
Page 11 of 29
Facilities
MP Start MP End
(based on IFC (based on IFC Cultural
Wetland Survey Cultural RTE Survey Date Report Date SHPO Letter Filed Nationwide 12 Permit
Facility Name County State Route filed Route filed Resources Report Title (Date) SHPO Clearance Date RTE Status
Status Survey Status Status Filed with FERC with FERC Status
with FERC on with FERC on Identified Y/N
12-20-2017) 12-20-2017)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Combined
County Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Giles,
Montgomery, Roanoke, and Franklin Counties, Virginia, CLEARED ‐ NO
6/30/2017,
MVP‐ANC‐005 Giles Virginia 199.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Combined 8/30/2017, 08/30/2017 9/5/2017, 9/5/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
8/4/2017
County Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum II, impacts
Giles, Montgomery, Roanoke, Franklin, and Pittsylvania
Counties, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Addendum I
Archaeological Survey and Phase II Evaluations of Sites
44GS0227, 44GS0229, 44GS0230, 44GS0231, and
CLEARED ‐ NO
2/17/2017, 44GS0236, Giles County, Virginia, Mountain Valley 10/25/2017,
MVP‐ATWS‐1119 Giles Virginia 199.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 11/1/2017, 11/1/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
2/17/2017 Pipeline Project, Phase IB Addendum I Archaeological 10/25/2017
impacts
Survey and Phase II Evaluations of Sites 44GS0227,
44GS0229, 44GS0230, 44GS0231, and 44GS0236, Giles
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Addendum I
Archaeological Survey and Phase II Evaluations of Sites
44GS0227, 44GS0229, 44GS0230, 44GS0231, and
CLEARED ‐ NO
2/17/2017, 44GS0236, Giles County, Virginia, Mountain Valley 10/25/2017,
MVP‐ATWS‐1120 Giles Virginia 199.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 11/1/2017, 11/1/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
2/17/2017 Pipeline Project, Phase IB Addendum I Archaeological 10/25/2017
impacts
Survey and Phase II Evaluations of Sites 44GS0227,
44GS0229, 44GS0230, 44GS0231, and 44GS0236, Giles
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report Addendum I, and Phase II
Archaeological Evaluations Sites 44CG0253, 44CG0254,
44CG0255, Craig County, Virginia, Mountain Valley
12/22/2016, CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological Survey Report 6/7/2017, 6/7/2017, 6/30/2017, 6/30/2017,
MVP‐CR‐258.02 Craig Virginia 218.0 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016, identified RTE Included in NWP
Addendum I, and Phase II Archaeological Evaluations 4/21/2016 5/6/2016
3/9/2016 impacts
Sites 44CG0253, 44CG0254, 44CG0255, Craig County,
Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Roanoke, Montgomery,
and Craig Counties, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
N/A (Not
MVP‐ATWS‐1373 Montgomery Virginia 219.6 ‐ Complete Complete Complete 3/9/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Roanoke, Montgomery, 4/21/2016 5/6/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Eligible)
and Craig Counties, Virginia impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐MN‐258.03 Montgomery Virginia 219.6 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 3/9/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Roanoke, Montgomery, 4/21/2016 5/6/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
and Craig Counties, Virginia impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed Concurrence assumed CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1057 Montgomery Virginia 219.7 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 3/2/2017 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and per Programmatic per Programmatic identified RTE Included in NWP
Montgomery Counties, Virginia Agreement Agreement impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Combined CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1162 Montgomery Virginia 228.5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 6/30/2017 County Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Giles, 8/30/2017 9/5/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
Montgomery, Roanoke, and Franklin Counties, Virginia impacts
Page 12 of 29
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Combined CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1163 Montgomery Virginia 228.5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 6/30/2017 County Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Giles, 8/30/2017 9/5/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
Montgomery, Roanoke, and Franklin Counties, Virginia impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Combined
County Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Giles,
Montgomery, Roanoke, and Franklin Counties, Virginia,
8/30/2017, 8/30/2017, 9/5/2017, 9/5/2017,
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Combined
8/30/2017, 9/5/2017, Concurrence
County Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Giles,
Concurrence assumed assumed per
Montgomery, Roanoke, and Franklin Counties, Virginia,
per Programmatic Programmatic
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Combined
Agreement, Agreement,
6/30/2017, County Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Giles,
Concurrence assumed Concurrence assumed
6/30/2017, Montgomery, Roanoke, and Franklin Counties, Virginia,
per Programmatic per Programmatic
6/30/2017, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Agreement, Agreement, CLEARED ‐ NO
3/2/2017, Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and
MVP‐MN‐270 Montgomery Virginia 228.5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No Concurrence assumed Concurrence assumed identified RTE Included in NWP
3/2/2017, Montgomery Counties, Virginia, Mountain Valley
per Programmatic per Programmatic impacts
3/2/2017, Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological Survey Report,
Agreement, Agreement,
3/2/2017, Addendum I, Roanoke and Montgomery Counties,
Concurrence assumed Concurrence assumed
3/2/2017 Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
per Programmatic per Programmatic
Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and
Agreement, Agreement,
Montgomery Counties, Virginia, Mountain Valley
Concurrence assumed Concurrence assumed
Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological Survey Report,
per Programmatic per Programmatic
Addendum I, Roanoke and Montgomery Counties,
Agreement Agreement
Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and
Montgomery Counties, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Combined
County Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Giles,
8/30/2017, 9/5/2017, Concurrence
Montgomery, Roanoke, and Franklin Counties, Virginia,
Concurrence assumed assumed per
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
per Programmatic Programmatic
Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and
Agreement, Agreement,
6/30/2017, Montgomery Counties, Virginia, Mountain Valley
Concurrence assumed Concurrence assumed
3/2/2017, Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological Survey Report,
per Programmatic per Programmatic CLEARED ‐ NO
3/2/2017, Addendum I, Roanoke and Montgomery Counties,
MVP‐MN‐270.01 Montgomery Virginia 229.0 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No Agreement, 4/21/2016, Agreement, 5/6/2016, identified RTE Included in NWP
3/9/2016, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Concurrence assumed Concurrence assumed impacts
3/2/2017, Archaeological Survey Report, Roanoke, Montgomery,
per Programmatic per Programmatic
3/2/2017 and Craig Counties, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline
Agreement, Agreement,
Project, Phase IB Archaeological Survey Report,
Concurrence assumed Concurrence assumed
Addendum I, Roanoke and Montgomery Counties,
per Programmatic per Programmatic
Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Agreement Agreement
Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and
Montgomery Counties, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Roanoke, Montgomery, 4/21/2016, 5/6/2016, Concurrence
CLEARED ‐ NO
3/9/2016, and Craig Counties, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Concurrence assumed assumed per
MVP‐MN‐271 Montgomery Virginia 229.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No identified RTE Included in NWP
3/2/2017 Project, Phase IB Archaeological Survey Report, per Programmatic Programmatic
impacts
Addendum I, Roanoke and Montgomery Counties, Agreement Agreement
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Roanoke, Montgomery, CLEARED ‐ NO
3/9/2016,
MVP‐ATWS‐1166 Montgomery Virginia 229.4 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No and Craig Counties, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline 4/21/2016, 4/21/2016 5/6/2016, 5/6/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
3/9/2016
Project, Phase IB Archaeological Survey Report, Roanoke, impacts
Montgomery, and Craig Counties, Virginia
Page 13 of 29
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Roanoke, Montgomery,
and Craig Counties, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline
Project, Phase IB Archaeological Survey Report, Roanoke,
4/21/2016, 4/21/2016, 5/6/2016, 5/6/2016,
Montgomery, and Craig Counties, Virginia, Mountain
Concurrence assumed Concurrence assumed
Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological Survey
per Programmatic per Programmatic
3/9/2016, Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and Montgomery
Agreement, 4/21/2016, Agreement, 5/6/2016,
3/9/2016, Counties, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project,
Concurrence assumed Concurrence assumed
3/2/2017, Phase IB Archaeological Survey Report, Roanoke,
per Programmatic per Programmatic CLEARED ‐ NO
3/9/2016, Montgomery, and Craig Counties, Virginia, Mountain
MVP‐MN‐272 Montgomery Virginia 229.4 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No Agreement, 4/21/2016, Agreement, 5/6/2016, identified RTE Included in NWP
3/2/2017, Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological Survey
Concurrence assumed Concurrence assumed impacts
3/9/2016, Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and Montgomery
per Programmatic per Programmatic
3/2/2017, Counties, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project,
Agreement, Agreement,
3/2/2017 Phase IB Archaeological Survey Report, Roanoke,
Concurrence assumed Concurrence assumed
Montgomery, and Craig Counties, Virginia, Mountain
per Programmatic per Programmatic
Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological Survey
Agreement Agreement
Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and Montgomery
Counties, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project,
Phase IB Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I,
Roanoke and Montgomery Counties, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and
Montgomery Counties, Virginia, Mountain Valley
Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological Survey Report,
Roanoke, Montgomery, and Craig Counties, Virginia, Concurrence assumed Concurrence assumed
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB per Programmatic per Programmatic
3/2/2017,
Archaeological Survey Report, Roanoke, Montgomery, Agreement, 4/21/2016, Agreement, 5/6/2016,
3/9/2016,
and Craig Counties, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline 4/21/2016, 4/21/2016, 5/6/2016, 5/6/2016,
3/9/2016, CLEARED ‐ NO
Project, Phase IB Archaeological Survey Report, Roanoke, Concurrence assumed Concurrence assumed
MVP‐MN‐275 Montgomery Virginia 229.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 3/9/2016, identified RTE Included in NWP
Montgomery, and Craig Counties, Virginia, Mountain per Programmatic per Programmatic
3/2/2017, impacts
Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological Survey Agreement, 4/21/2016, Agreement, 5/6/2016,
3/9/2016,
Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and Montgomery Concurrence assumed Concurrence assumed
3/2/2017
Counties, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, per Programmatic per Programmatic
Phase IB Archaeological Survey Report, Roanoke, Agreement Agreement
Montgomery, and Craig Counties, Virginia, Mountain
Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological Survey
Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and Montgomery
Counties, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1167 Montgomery Virginia 230.0 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 3/9/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Roanoke, Montgomery, 4/21/2016 5/6/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
and Craig Counties, Virginia impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1168 Montgomery Virginia 230.0 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 3/9/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Roanoke, Montgomery, 4/21/2016 5/6/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
and Craig Counties, Virginia impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐703 Montgomery Virginia 230.7 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 3/9/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Roanoke, Montgomery, 4/21/2016 5/6/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
and Craig Counties, Virginia impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed Concurrence assumed CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐MN‐274 Montgomery Virginia 230.7 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 3/2/2017 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and per Programmatic per Programmatic identified RTE Included in NWP
Montgomery Counties, Virginia Agreement Agreement impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and Concurrence assumed Concurrence assumed
Montgomery Counties, Virginia, Mountain Valley per Programmatic per Programmatic
3/2/2017, CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological Survey Report, Agreement, 4/21/2016, Agreement, 5/6/2016,
MVP‐ATWS‐1062 Montgomery Virginia 230.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 3/9/2016, identified RTE Included in NWP
Roanoke, Montgomery, and Craig Counties, Virginia, Concurrence assumed Concurrence assumed
3/2/2017 impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB per Programmatic per Programmatic
Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and Agreement Agreement
Montgomery Counties, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and Concurrence assumed Concurrence assumed CLEARED ‐ NO
3/2/2017,
MVP‐ATWS‐704 Montgomery Virginia 230.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No Montgomery Counties, Virginia, Mountain Valley per Programmatic per Programmatic identified RTE Included in NWP
3/9/2016
Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological Survey Report, Agreement, 4/21/2016 Agreement, 5/6/2016 impacts
Roanoke, Montgomery, and Craig Counties, Virginia
Page 14 of 29
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed Concurrence assumed CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1375 Montgomery Virginia 230.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 3/2/2017 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and per Programmatic per Programmatic identified RTE Included in NWP
Montgomery Counties, Virginia Agreement Agreement impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1220 Montgomery Virginia 231.1 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 3/9/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Roanoke, Montgomery, 4/21/2016 5/6/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
and Craig Counties, Virginia impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Roanoke, Montgomery, CLEARED ‐ NO
3/9/2016,
MVP‐ATWS‐1221 Montgomery Virginia 231.1 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No and Craig Counties, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline 4/21/2016, 4/21/2016 5/6/2016, 5/6/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
3/9/2016
Project, Phase IB Archaeological Survey Report, Roanoke, impacts
Montgomery, and Craig Counties, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Roanoke, Montgomery,
and Craig Counties, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline
Project, Phase IB Archaeological Survey Report, Roanoke,
Montgomery, and Craig Counties, Virginia, Mountain
Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological Survey 4/21/2016, 4/21/2016, 5/6/2016, 5/6/2016,
Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and Montgomery Concurrence assumed Concurrence assumed
3/9/2016,
Counties, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, per Programmatic per Programmatic
3/9/2016,
Phase IB Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Agreement, Agreement,
3/2/2017,
Roanoke and Montgomery Counties, Virginia, Mountain Concurrence assumed Concurrence assumed
3/2/2017, CLEARED ‐ NO
Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological Survey per Programmatic per Programmatic
MVP‐MN‐276 Montgomery Virginia 231.1 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 3/9/2016, identified RTE Included in NWP
Report, Roanoke, Montgomery, and Craig Counties, Agreement, 4/21/2016, Agreement, 5/6/2016,
3/9/2016, impacts
Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB 4/21/2016, 5/6/2016, Concurrence
3/2/2017,
Archaeological Survey Report, Roanoke, Montgomery, Concurrence assumed assumed per
3/9/2016,
and Craig Counties, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline per Programmatic Programmatic
3/9/2016
Project, Phase IB Archaeological Survey Report, Agreement, 4/21/2016, Agreement, 5/6/2016,
Addendum I, Roanoke and Montgomery Counties, 4/21/2016 5/6/2016
Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Roanoke, Montgomery,
and Craig Counties, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline
Project, Phase IB Archaeological Survey Report, Roanoke,
Montgomery, and Craig Counties, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Roanoke, Montgomery, CLEARED ‐ NO
3/9/2016,
MVP‐MN‐276.01 Montgomery Virginia 231.1 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No and Craig Counties, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline 4/21/2016, 4/21/2016 5/6/2016, 5/6/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
3/9/2016
Project, Phase IB Archaeological Survey Report, Roanoke, impacts
Montgomery, and Craig Counties, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
4/21/2016, 5/6/2016, Concurrence
Archaeological Survey Report, Roanoke, Montgomery,
Concurrence assumed assumed per
and Craig Counties, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline
3/9/2016, per Programmatic Programmatic CLEARED ‐ NO
Project, Phase IB Archaeological Survey Report,
MVP‐MN‐276.02 Montgomery Virginia 231.1 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 3/2/2017, Agreement, Agreement, identified RTE Included in NWP
Addendum I, Roanoke and Montgomery Counties,
3/2/2017 Concurrence assumed Concurrence assumed impacts
Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
per Programmatic per Programmatic
Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and
Agreement Agreement
Montgomery Counties, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1216 Montgomery Virginia 231.5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 3/9/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Roanoke, Montgomery, 4/21/2016 5/6/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
and Craig Counties, Virginia impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1217 Montgomery Virginia 231.5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 3/9/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Roanoke, Montgomery, 4/21/2016 5/6/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
and Craig Counties, Virginia impacts
Page 15 of 29
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed Concurrence assumed
Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and per Programmatic per Programmatic
Montgomery Counties, Virginia, Mountain Valley Agreement, 4/21/2016, Agreement, 5/6/2016,
Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological Survey Report, Concurrence assumed Concurrence assumed
3/2/2017, Roanoke, Montgomery, and Craig Counties, Virginia, per Programmatic per Programmatic
3/9/2016, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Agreement, Agreement,
3/2/2017, Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and Concurrence assumed Concurrence assumed
3/2/2017, Montgomery Counties, Virginia, Mountain Valley per Programmatic per Programmatic
3/2/2017, Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological Survey Report, Agreement, Agreement,
3/2/2017, Addendum I, Roanoke and Montgomery Counties, Concurrence assumed Concurrence assumed
3/2/2017, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB per Programmatic per Programmatic
3/2/2017, Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and Agreement, Agreement,
3/2/2017, Montgomery Counties, Virginia, Mountain Valley Concurrence assumed Concurrence assumed
CLEARED ‐ NO
3/2/2017, Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological Survey Report, per Programmatic per Programmatic
MVP‐MN‐276.03 Montgomery Virginia 231.5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No identified RTE Included in NWP
3/2/2017, Addendum I, Roanoke and Montgomery Counties, Agreement, Agreement,
impacts
3/2/2017, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed Concurrence assumed
3/2/2017, Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and per Programmatic per Programmatic
3/2/2017, Montgomery Counties, Virginia, Mountain Valley Agreement, Agreement,
3/2/2017, Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological Survey Report, Concurrence assumed Concurrence assumed
3/2/2017, Addendum I, Roanoke and Montgomery Counties, per Programmatic per Programmatic
3/2/2017, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Agreement, Agreement,
3/2/2017, Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and Concurrence assumed Concurrence assumed
3/9/2016, Montgomery Counties, Virginia, Mountain Valley per Programmatic per Programmatic
3/2/2017 Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological Survey Report, Agreement, Agreement,
Addendum I, Roanoke and Montgomery Counties, Concurrence assumed Concurrence assumed
Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB per Programmatic per Programmatic
Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and Agreement, Agreement,
Montgomery Counties Virginia Mountain Valley Concurrence assumed Concurrence assumed
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1218 Montgomery Virginia 231.7 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 3/9/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Roanoke, Montgomery, 4/21/2016 5/6/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
and Craig Counties, Virginia impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1219 Montgomery Virginia 231.7 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 3/9/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Roanoke, Montgomery, 4/21/2016 5/6/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
and Craig Counties, Virginia impacts
Page 16 of 29
Concurrence assumed Concurrence assumed
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
per Programmatic per Programmatic
Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and
Agreement, Agreement,
Montgomery Counties, Virginia, Mountain Valley
3/2/2017, Concurrence assumed Concurrence assumed CLEARED ‐ NO
Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological Survey Report,
MVP‐MLV‐AR‐27 Roanoke Virginia 234.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 3/2/2017, per Programmatic per Programmatic identified RTE Included in NWP
Addendum I, Roanoke and Montgomery Counties,
3/2/2017 Agreement, Agreement, impacts
Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Concurrence assumed Concurrence assumed
Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and
per Programmatic per Programmatic
Montgomery Counties, Virginia
Agreement Agreement
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and Concurrence assumed Concurrence assumed CLEARED ‐ NO
3/2/2017,
MVP‐ATWS‐727 Montgomery Virginia 235.5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No Montgomery Counties, Virginia, Mountain Valley per Programmatic per Programmatic identified RTE Included in NWP
3/9/2016
Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological Survey Report, Agreement, 4/21/2016 Agreement, 5/6/2016 impacts
Roanoke, Montgomery, and Craig Counties, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐645 Montgomery Virginia 235.6 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 3/9/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Roanoke, Montgomery, 4/21/2016 5/6/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
and Craig Counties, Virginia impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Roanoke, Montgomery, CLEARED ‐ NO
3/9/2016,
MVP‐ATWS‐645A Montgomery Virginia 235.6 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No and Craig Counties, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline 4/21/2016, 4/21/2016 5/6/2016, 5/6/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
3/9/2016
Project, Phase IB Archaeological Survey Report, Roanoke, impacts
Montgomery, and Craig Counties, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
4/21/2016, 5/6/2016, Concurrence
Archaeological Survey Report, Roanoke, Montgomery,
Concurrence assumed assumed per
No, 44MY0582 and Craig Counties, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline
3/9/2016, per Programmatic Programmatic CLEARED ‐ NO
(Not Eligible), Project, Phase IB Archaeological Survey Report,
MVP‐MN‐279.01 Montgomery Virginia 235.6 ‐ Complete Complete Complete 3/2/2017, Agreement, Agreement, identified RTE Included in NWP
44MY0582 Addendum I, Montgomery and Roanoke Counties,
3/2/2017 Concurrence assumed Concurrence assumed impacts
(Not Eligible) Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
per Programmatic per Programmatic
Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Montgomery
Agreement Agreement
and Roanoke Counties, Virginia
Page 17 of 29
Concurrence assumed Concurrence assumed
per Programmatic per Programmatic
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Agreement, Agreement,
Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and Concurrence assumed Concurrence assumed
Montgomery Counties, Virginia, Mountain Valley per Programmatic per Programmatic
Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological Survey Report, Agreement, Agreement,
Addendum I, Roanoke and Montgomery Counties, Concurrence assumed Concurrence assumed
Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB per Programmatic per Programmatic
Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and Agreement, Agreement,
3/2/2017, Montgomery Counties, Virginia, Mountain Valley Concurrence assumed Concurrence assumed
3/2/2017, Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological Survey Report, per Programmatic per Programmatic
3/2/2017, Addendum I, Roanoke and Montgomery Counties, Agreement, Agreement,
3/2/2017, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Concurrence assumed Concurrence assumed CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐MN‐278.01 Roanoke Virginia 236.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 3/2/2017, Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and per Programmatic per Programmatic identified RTE Included in NWP
3/2/2017, Montgomery Counties, Virginia, Mountain Valley Agreement, Agreement, impacts
3/2/2017, Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological Survey Report, Concurrence assumed Concurrence assumed
3/2/2017, Addendum I, Roanoke and Montgomery Counties, per Programmatic per Programmatic
3/2/2017 Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Agreement, Agreement,
Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and Concurrence assumed Concurrence assumed
Montgomery Counties, Virginia, Mountain Valley per Programmatic per Programmatic
Pipeline Project, Phase IB Archaeological Survey Report, Agreement, Agreement,
Addendum I, Roanoke and Montgomery Counties, Concurrence assumed Concurrence assumed
Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB per Programmatic per Programmatic
Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Roanoke and Agreement, Agreement,
Montgomery Counties, Virginia Concurrence assumed Concurrence assumed
per Programmatic per Programmatic
Agreement Agreement
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐1246 Franklin Virginia 246.5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐1247 Franklin Virginia 246.5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐FR‐289 Franklin Virginia 246.6 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐343 Franklin Virginia 246.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐1038 Franklin Virginia 247.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐1039 Franklin Virginia 247.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐FR‐290 Franklin Virginia 247.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐344 Franklin Virginia 247.3 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1248A Franklin Virginia 248.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
County, Virginia impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1249 Franklin Virginia 248.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
County, Virginia impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin CLEARED ‐ NO
12/22/2016,
MVP‐ATWS‐1250 Franklin Virginia 248.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase 4/26/2017, 4/26/2017 6/30/2017, 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
12/22/2016
IB Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin CLEARED ‐ NO
12/22/2016,
MVP‐FR‐291 Franklin Virginia 248.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase 4/26/2017, 4/26/2017 6/30/2017, 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
12/22/2016
IB Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1248 Franklin Virginia 248.3 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
County, Virginia impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin CLEARED ‐ NO
12/22/2016,
MVP‐ATWS‐1410 Franklin Virginia 248.3 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase 4/26/2017, 4/26/2017 6/30/2017, 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
12/22/2016
IB Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1251 Franklin Virginia 248.7 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
County, Virginia impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia, CLEARED ‐ NO
10/21/2015,
MVP‐ATWS‐1411 Franklin Virginia 250.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB 12/30/2015, 4/26/2017 1/15/2016, 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
12/22/2016
Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin impacts
County, Virginia
Page 18 of 29
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1055 Franklin Virginia 251.0 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
County, Virginia impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐FR‐293.01 Franklin Virginia 251.0 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
County, Virginia impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
44FR0391 (Not Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase II Archaeological
MVP‐ATWS‐1412 Franklin Virginia 252.0 ‐ Complete Complete Complete 2/17/2017 8/18/2017 8/25/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
Eligible) Evaluations of 18 Sites, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1352 Franklin Virginia 253.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
County, Virginia impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1351 Franklin Virginia 254.0 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
County, Virginia impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1342 Franklin Virginia 254.3 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
County, Virginia impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1343 Franklin Virginia 254.3 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
County, Virginia impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐FR‐293.02 Franklin Virginia 254.3 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
County, Virginia impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
44FR0397 (Not Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase II Archaeological
MVP‐CPGB‐26 Franklin Virginia 255.4 ‐ Complete Complete Complete 2/17/2017 8/18/2017 8/25/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
Eligible) Evaluations of 18 Sites, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
44FR0397 (Not Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase II Archaeological
MVP‐ATWS‐1413 Franklin Virginia 255.5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete 2/17/2017 8/18/2017 8/25/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
Eligible) Evaluations of 18 Sites, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1252 Franklin Virginia 256.0 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
County, Virginia impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1253 Franklin Virginia 256.0 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
County, Virginia impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1414 Franklin Virginia 256.0 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
County, Virginia impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin
12/22/2016, County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase CLEARED ‐ NO
4/26/2017, 4/26/2017, 6/30/2017, 6/30/2017,
MVP‐FR‐294 Franklin Virginia 256.0 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016, IB Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin identified RTE Included in NWP
4/26/2017 6/30/2017
12/22/2016 County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase impacts
IB Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin CLEARED ‐ NO
12/22/2016,
MVP‐ATWS‐1254 Franklin Virginia 256.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase 4/26/2017, 4/26/2017 6/30/2017, 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
12/22/2016
IB Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin impacts
County, Virginia
CLEARED ‐ NO
44FR0376 (Not Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase II Archaeological
MVP‐ATWS‐1066 Franklin Virginia 256.3 ‐ Complete Complete Complete 2/17/2017 8/18/2017 8/25/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
Eligible) Evaluations of 18 Sites, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1255 Franklin Virginia 256.3 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
County, Virginia impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1416 Franklin Virginia 256.7 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
County, Virginia impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin
12/22/2016, County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase CLEARED ‐ NO
4/26/2017, 4/26/2017, 6/30/2017, 6/30/2017,
MVP‐ATWS‐1417 Franklin Virginia 256.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016, IB Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin identified RTE Included in NWP
12/30/2015 1/15/2016
10/21/2015 County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase impacts
IB Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County,
Virginia
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐1256 Franklin Virginia 257.7 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
Page 19 of 29
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia,
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia,
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin
County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase
10/21/2015,
IB Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin
10/21/2015,
County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase
12/22/2016,
IB Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 12/30/2015,
12/22/2016, 1/15/2016, 1/15/2016,
County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase 12/30/2015, 4/26/2017,
12/22/2016, 6/30/2017, 6/30/2017,
IB Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017, 4/26/2017, CLEARED ‐ NO
12/22/2016, 6/30/2017, 6/30/2017,
MVP‐FR‐295 Franklin Virginia 257.7 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase 4/26/2017, 4/26/2017, identified RTE Included in NWP
12/22/2016, 6/30/2017, 6/30/2017,
IB Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017, 4/26/2017, impacts
12/22/2016, 6/30/2017, 6/30/2017,
County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase 4/26/2017, 4/26/2017,
12/22/2016, 6/30/2017, 6/30/2017
IB Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017
12/22/2016,
County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase
12/22/2016,
IB Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin
12/22/2016
County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase
IB Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin
County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase
IB Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin
County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase
IB Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin
County, Virginia
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐1257 Franklin Virginia 257.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐1488 Franklin Virginia 257.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐1067 Franklin Virginia 258.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1258 Franklin Virginia 258.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
County, Virginia impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐613 Franklin Virginia 258.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
County, Virginia impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin
12/22/2016, County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase CLEARED ‐ NO
4/26/2017, 8/18/2017, 6/30/2017, 8/25/2017,
MVP‐FR‐296 Franklin Virginia 258.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 2/17/2017, II Archaeological Evaluations of 18 Sites, Franklin County, identified RTE Included in NWP
4/26/2017 6/30/2017
12/22/2016 Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB impacts
Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin
County, Virginia
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase II Archaeological
MVP‐ATWS‐1418 Franklin Virginia 258.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 2/17/2017 8/18/2017 8/25/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
Evaluations of 18 Sites, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐613B Franklin Virginia 258.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
County, Virginia impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
44FR0191 (Not Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase II Archaeological
MVP‐ATWS‐614 Franklin Virginia 258.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete 2/17/2017 8/18/2017 8/25/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
Eligible) Evaluations of 18 Sites, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
44FR0406 (Not Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase II Archaeological
MVP‐ATWS‐562 Franklin Virginia 259.1 ‐ Complete Complete Complete 2/17/2017 8/18/2017 8/25/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
Eligible) Evaluations of 18 Sites, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1362 Franklin Virginia 259.4 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
County, Virginia impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
44FR0373 (Not Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase II Archaeological
MVP‐ATWS‐1444 Franklin Virginia 260.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete 2/17/2017 8/18/2017 8/25/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
Eligible) Evaluations of 18 Sites, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase II Archaeological
MVP‐ATWS‐566 Franklin Virginia 260.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 2/17/2017 8/18/2017 8/25/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
Evaluations of 18 Sites, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐568 Franklin Virginia 260.4 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin
County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase
12/22/2016, IB Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin
12/22/2016, County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase 4/26/2017, 4/26/2017, 6/30/2017, 6/30/2017, CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐FR‐299 Franklin Virginia 260.4 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016, IB Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017, 4/26/2017, 6/30/2017, 6/30/2017, identified RTE Included in NWP
12/22/2016, County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 impacts
12/22/2016 IB Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin
County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase
IB Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin
County, Virginia
Page 20 of 29
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1261 Franklin Virginia 260.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
County, Virginia impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1262 Franklin Virginia 260.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
County, Virginia impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin
County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase
12/22/2016,
IB Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin CLEARED ‐ NO
12/22/2016, 4/26/2017, 4/26/2017, 6/30/2017, 6/30/2017,
MVP‐FR‐300 Franklin Virginia 260.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase identified RTE Included in NWP
12/22/2016, 4/26/2017, 4/26/2017 6/30/2017, 6/30/2017
IB Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin impacts
12/22/2016
County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase
IB Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐569A Franklin Virginia 260.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
County, Virginia impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐515A Franklin Virginia 261.4 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
County, Virginia impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐516 Franklin Virginia 261.4 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐516A Franklin Virginia 261.4 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin CLEARED ‐ NO
12/22/2016,
MVP‐ATWS‐515 Franklin Virginia 261.4 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase 4/26/2017, 12/30/2015 6/30/2017, 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
10/21/2015
IB Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, impacts
Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin
County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase
12/22/2016, IB Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin
12/22/2016, County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase 4/26/2017, 4/26/2017, 6/30/2017, 6/30/2017, CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐FR‐302 Franklin Virginia 261.4 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015, IB Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, 12/30/2015, 4/26/2017, 1/15/2016, 6/30/2017, identified RTE Included in NWP
12/22/2016, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 impacts
12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin
County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase
IB Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin
County, Virginia
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐346 Franklin Virginia 261.6 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
10/21/2015, Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia, 12/30/2015,
MVP‐ATWS‐347 Franklin Virginia 261.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 1/15/2016, 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
10/21/2015 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB 12/30/2015
impacts
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
44FR0386 (Not
MVP‐ATWS‐1040 Franklin Virginia 262.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
Eligible)
County, Virginia impacts
44FR0385 (Not
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Eligible);
MVP‐ATWS‐1041 Franklin Virginia 262.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
44FR0386 (Not
County, Virginia impacts
Eligible)
44FR0385 (Not
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
Eligible);
MVP‐FR‐303.01 Franklin Virginia 262.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
44FR0386 (Not
County, Virginia impacts
Eligible)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐518 Franklin Virginia 262.3 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
County, Virginia impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Combined
CLEARED ‐ NO
County Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum III,
MVP‐ATWS‐519 Franklin Virginia 262.4 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/20/2017 1/11/2018 1/16/2018 identified RTE Included in NWP
Montgomery, Roanoke, Franklin, and Pittsylvania
impacts
Counties, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐696 Franklin Virginia 262.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
County, Virginia impacts
44FR0404 (Not Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase II Archaeological
CLEARED ‐ NO
Eligible), 2/17/2017, Evaluations of 18 Sites, Franklin County, Virginia,
MVP‐ATWS‐697 Franklin Virginia 263.0 ‐ Complete Complete Complete 8/18/2017, 8/18/2017 8/25/2017, 8/25/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
44FR0404 (Not 2/17/2017 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase II Archaeological
impacts
Eligible) Evaluations of 18 Sites, Franklin County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐698A Franklin Virginia 263.3 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
County, Virginia impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase II Archaeological
MVP‐ATWS‐698B Franklin Virginia 263.4 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 2/17/2017 8/18/2017 8/25/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
Evaluations of 18 Sites, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
Page 21 of 29
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase II Archaeological
MVP‐ATWS‐698C Franklin Virginia 263.4 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 2/17/2017 8/18/2017 8/25/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
Evaluations of 18 Sites, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐1264 Franklin Virginia 263.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐FR‐305 Franklin Virginia 263.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
10/21/2015, Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia, 12/30/2015,
MVP‐ATWS‐1263 Franklin Virginia 263.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 1/15/2016, 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
10/21/2015 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB 12/30/2015
impacts
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Combined
CLEARED ‐ NO
County Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum II,
MVP‐ANC‐006 Franklin Virginia 264.1 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 8/4/2017 8/30/2017 9/5/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
Giles, Montgomery, Roanoke, Franklin, and Pittsylvania
impacts
Counties, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1299A Franklin Virginia 264.1 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
County, Virginia impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Combined
CLEARED ‐ NO
County Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum II,
MVP‐LY‐033 Franklin Virginia 264.1 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 8/4/2017 8/30/2017 9/5/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
Giles, Montgomery, Roanoke, Franklin, and Pittsylvania
impacts
Counties, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Combined
County Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum II,
Giles, Montgomery, Roanoke, Franklin, and Pittsylvania
Counties, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project,
8/4/2017, Phase IB Combined County Archaeological Survey CLEARED ‐ NO
8/30/2017, 8/30/2017, 9/5/2017, 9/5/2017,
MVP‐LY‐032 Franklin Virginia 264.1 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 8/4/2017, Report, Addendum II, Giles, Montgomery, Roanoke, identified RTE Included in NWP
8/30/2017 9/5/2017
8/4/2017 Franklin, and Pittsylvania Counties, Virginia, Mountain impacts
Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Combined County
Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum II, Giles,
Montgomery, Roanoke, Franklin, and Pittsylvania
Counties, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Combined
County Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum II,
Giles, Montgomery, Roanoke, Franklin, and Pittsylvania CLEARED ‐ NO
8/4/2017,
MVP‐LY‐034 Franklin Virginia 264.1 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No Counties, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, 8/30/2017, 8/30/2017 9/5/2017, 9/5/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
8/4/2017
Phase IB Combined County Archaeological Survey impacts
Report, Addendum II, Giles, Montgomery, Roanoke,
Franklin, and Pittsylvania Counties, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐CPGB‐27 Franklin Virginia 264.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
County, Virginia impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin CLEARED ‐ NO
12/22/2016,
MVP‐ATWS‐1299 Franklin Virginia 264.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase 4/26/2017, 4/26/2017 6/30/2017, 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
12/22/2016
IB Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin CLEARED ‐ NO
12/22/2016,
MVP‐PY‐005 Franklin Virginia 264.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase 4/26/2017, 4/26/2017 6/30/2017, 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
12/22/2016
IB Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1466 Franklin Virginia 264.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
County, Virginia impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin CLEARED ‐ NO
12/22/2016,
MVP‐FR‐306.02 Franklin Virginia 264.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase 4/26/2017, 4/26/2017 6/30/2017, 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
12/22/2016
IB Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐FR‐306.03 Franklin Virginia 265.1 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
County, Virginia impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1467 Franklin Virginia 265.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
County, Virginia impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1468 Franklin Virginia 265.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
County, Virginia impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐FR‐306.04 Franklin Virginia 265.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
County, Virginia impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1469 Franklin Virginia 265.3 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
County, Virginia impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1470 Franklin Virginia 265.3 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
County, Virginia impacts
Page 22 of 29
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐MLV‐AR‐31 Franklin Virginia 265.3 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
County, Virginia impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
44FR0408 (Not
MVP‐ATWS‐1471 Franklin Virginia 265.7 ‐ Complete Complete Complete 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
Eligible)
County, Virginia impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin
County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase
12/22/2016,
IB Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin CLEARED ‐ NO
12/22/2016, 4/26/2017, 4/26/2017, 6/30/2017, 6/30/2017,
MVP‐FR‐309.05 Franklin Virginia 266.1 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase identified RTE Included in NWP
12/22/2016, 4/26/2017, 4/26/2017 6/30/2017, 6/30/2017
IB Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin impacts
12/22/2016
County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase
IB Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐FR‐309.06 Franklin Virginia 266.3 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
County, Virginia impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1472 Franklin Virginia 266.7 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
County, Virginia impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin CLEARED ‐ NO
12/22/2016,
MVP‐ATWS‐1473 Franklin Virginia 266.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase 4/26/2017, 4/26/2017 6/30/2017, 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
12/22/2016
IB Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐FR‐309 Franklin Virginia 267.5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
County, Virginia impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1478 Franklin Virginia 267.6 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
County, Virginia impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin CLEARED ‐ NO
12/22/2016,
MVP‐FR‐309.07 Franklin Virginia 267.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase 4/26/2017, 12/30/2015 6/30/2017, 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
10/21/2015
IB Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, impacts
Virginia
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐1479 Franklin Virginia 268.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐1480 Franklin Virginia 268.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐1481 Franklin Virginia 268.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐521 Franklin Virginia 268.7 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
County, Virginia impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐521A Franklin Virginia 268.7 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
County, Virginia impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐FR‐310 Franklin Virginia 268.7 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
County, Virginia impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1265 Franklin Virginia 268.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
County, Virginia impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin CLEARED ‐ NO
12/22/2016,
MVP‐ATWS‐1266 Franklin Virginia 268.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase 4/26/2017, 12/30/2015 6/30/2017, 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
10/21/2015
IB Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, impacts
Virginia
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐523 Franklin Virginia 269.0 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1267 Franklin Virginia 269.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
County, Virginia impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐1268 Franklin Virginia 269.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐524B Franklin Virginia 269.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia,
10/21/2015, 12/30/2015, CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB 1/15/2016, 1/15/2016,
MVP‐FR‐311 Franklin Virginia 269.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015, 12/30/2015, identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia, 1/15/2016
10/21/2015 12/30/2015 impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
Page 23 of 29
CLEARED ‐ NO
44FR0375 (Not Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐350 Franklin Virginia 269.4 ‐ Complete Complete Complete 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Eligible) Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐693 Franklin Virginia 269.4 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
44FR0375 (Not 10/21/2015, Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia, 12/30/2015,
MVP‐MLV‐AR‐32 Franklin Virginia 269.4 ‐ Complete Complete Complete 1/15/2016, 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Eligible), No 10/21/2015 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB 12/30/2015
impacts
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐693A Franklin Virginia 269.5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐351 Franklin Virginia 269.6 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐351A Franklin Virginia 269.6 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐525 Franklin Virginia 270.1 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia,
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
10/21/2015, Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia, 12/30/2015,
10/21/2015, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB 12/30/2015,
1/15/2016, 1/15/2016, CLEARED ‐ NO
10/21/2015, Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia, 12/30/2015,
MVP‐FR‐313 Franklin Virginia 270.1 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 1/15/2016, 1/15/2016, identified RTE Included in NWP
10/21/2015, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB 12/30/2015,
1/15/2016, 1/15/2016 impacts
10/21/2015, Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia, 12/30/2015,
10/21/2015 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB 12/30/2015
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia,
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐1269 Franklin Virginia 270.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐352 Franklin Virginia 270.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐353 Franklin Virginia 270.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐354 Franklin Virginia 270.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Combined CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1484 Franklin Virginia 271.5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 6/30/2017 County Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Giles, 8/30/2017 9/5/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
Montgomery, Roanoke, and Franklin Counties, Virginia impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Combined CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐FR‐313.01 Franklin Virginia 271.5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 6/30/2017 County Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Giles, 8/30/2017 9/5/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
Montgomery, Roanoke, and Franklin Counties, Virginia impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB Combined CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1485 Franklin Virginia 271.6 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 6/30/2017 County Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Giles, 8/30/2017 9/5/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
Montgomery, Roanoke, and Franklin Counties, Virginia impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐526B Franklin Virginia 271.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia, CLEARED ‐ NO
10/21/2015,
MVP‐ATWS‐1272 Franklin Virginia 271.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB 12/30/2015, 4/26/2017 1/15/2016, 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
12/22/2016
Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin CLEARED ‐ NO
12/22/2016,
MVP‐FR‐314 Franklin Virginia 271.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase 4/26/2017, 12/30/2015 6/30/2017, 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
10/21/2015
IB Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, impacts
Virginia
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐526 Franklin Virginia 271.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia,
10/21/2015, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
12/30/2015, 1/15/2016, 1/15/2016,
MVP‐ATWS‐526A Franklin Virginia 271.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015, Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia, identified RTE Included in NWP
12/30/2015, 4/26/2017 6/30/2017
12/22/2016 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB impacts
Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin
County, Virginia
Page 24 of 29
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐622 Franklin Virginia 272.3 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
County, Virginia impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐623 Franklin Virginia 272.5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
County, Virginia impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐356 Franklin Virginia 272.7 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia,
10/21/2015, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB 12/30/2015,
CLEARED ‐ NO
10/21/2015, Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia, 12/30/2015, 1/15/2016, 1/15/2016,
MVP‐FR‐315 Franklin Virginia 272.7 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No identified RTE Included in NWP
10/21/2015, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB 12/30/2015, 1/15/2016, 1/15/2016
impacts
10/21/2015 Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia, 12/30/2015
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐356A Franklin Virginia 272.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
44FR0364 (Not Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐358 Franklin Virginia 273.5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Eligible) Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐358A Franklin Virginia 273.5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
44FR0364 (Not Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐527 Franklin Virginia 273.6 ‐ Complete Complete Complete 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Eligible) Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐659 Franklin Virginia 273.6 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐FR‐316 Franklin Virginia 273.6 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase II Archaeological
MVP‐ATWS‐359 Franklin Virginia 274.1 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 2/17/2017 8/18/2017 8/25/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
Evaluations of 18 Sites, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
44FR0381 (Not
MVP‐ATWS‐1340 Franklin Virginia 274.3 ‐ Complete Complete Complete 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
Eligible)
County, Virginia impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐360 Franklin Virginia 274.5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐528 Franklin Virginia 274.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐FR‐317 Franklin Virginia 274.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐361 Franklin Virginia 274.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐529 Franklin Virginia 274.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
10/21/2015, Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia, 12/30/2015,
MVP‐CPGB‐28 Franklin Virginia 274.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 1/15/2016, 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
10/21/2015 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB 12/30/2015
impacts
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin CLEARED ‐ NO
12/22/2016,
MVP‐FR‐317.01 Franklin Virginia 275.3 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase 4/26/2017, 4/26/2017 6/30/2017, 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
12/22/2016
IB Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐362 Franklin Virginia 275.4 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
County, Virginia impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐363 Franklin Virginia 275.7 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
44FR0360 (Not Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase II Archaeological
MVP‐ATWS‐530 Franklin Virginia 276.0 ‐ Complete Complete Complete 2/17/2017 8/18/2017 8/25/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
Eligible) Evaluations of 18 Sites, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
10/21/2015, Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia, 12/30/2015,
MVP‐ATWS‐1043 Franklin Virginia 276.0 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 1/15/2016, 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
10/21/2015 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB 12/30/2015
impacts
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
Page 25 of 29
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
10/21/2015, Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia, 12/30/2015,
MVP‐ATWS‐1044 Franklin Virginia 276.0 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 1/15/2016, 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
10/21/2015 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB 12/30/2015
impacts
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia, CLEARED ‐ NO
10/21/2015,
MVP‐FR‐318 Franklin Virginia 276.0 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB 12/30/2015, 4/26/2017 1/15/2016, 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
12/22/2016
Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin impacts
County, Virginia
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐531 Franklin Virginia 276.3 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐531A Franklin Virginia 276.3 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐532 Franklin Virginia 276.5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐FR‐319.01 Franklin Virginia 276.7 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐661 Franklin Virginia 276.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
10/21/2015, Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia, 12/30/2015,
MVP‐FR‐319 Franklin Virginia 277.0 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 1/15/2016, 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
10/21/2015 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB 12/30/2015
impacts
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐365 Franklin Virginia 277.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐366 Franklin Virginia 277.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐367 Franklin Virginia 277.3 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐533 Franklin Virginia 277.4 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
10/21/2015, Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia, 12/30/2015,
MVP‐ATWS‐1274 Franklin Virginia 277.6 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 1/15/2016, 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
10/21/2015 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB 12/30/2015
impacts
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
10/21/2015, Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia, 12/30/2015,
MVP‐ATWS‐1275 Franklin Virginia 277.6 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 1/15/2016, 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
10/21/2015 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB 12/30/2015
impacts
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
No, 44FR0358 10/21/2015, Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia, 12/30/2015,
MVP‐FR‐320 Franklin Virginia 277.6 ‐ Complete Complete Complete 1/15/2016, 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
(Not Eligible) 10/21/2015 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB 12/30/2015
impacts
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
CLEARED ‐ NO
44FR0358 (Not Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐1301 Franklin Virginia 277.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Eligible) Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐368 Franklin Virginia 277.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐534 Franklin Virginia 277.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐536 Franklin Virginia 278.1 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐536A Franklin Virginia 278.1 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐369 Franklin Virginia 278.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
Page 26 of 29
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin
County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase
IB Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin
County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase
IB Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin
12/22/2016, County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase
12/22/2016, IB Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin
12/22/2016, County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase
4/26/2017, 4/26/2017,
12/22/2016, IB Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 6/30/2017, 6/30/2017,
4/26/2017, 4/26/2017,
12/22/2016, County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase 6/30/2017, 6/30/2017,
4/26/2017, 4/26/2017, CLEARED ‐ NO
12/22/2016, IB Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 6/30/2017, 6/30/2017,
MVP‐FR‐321 Franklin Virginia 278.3 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 4/26/2017, 4/26/2017, identified RTE Included in NWP
12/22/2016, County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase 6/30/2017, 6/30/2017,
4/26/2017, 12/30/2015, impacts
12/22/2016, IB Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 6/30/2017, 1/15/2016,
12/30/2015,
12/22/2016, County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase 1/15/2016, 1/15/2016
12/30/2015
10/21/2015, IB Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin
10/21/2015, County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase
10/21/2015 IB Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin
County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase
IB Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County,
Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia,
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1276 Franklin Virginia 278.4 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
County, Virginia impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia,
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin
County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase
10/21/2015,
IB Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin
12/22/2016,
County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase
12/22/2016, 12/30/2015, 4/26/2017, 1/15/2016, 6/30/2017,
IB Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin
12/22/2016, 4/26/2017, 4/26/2017, 6/30/2017, 6/30/2017, CLEARED ‐ NO
County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase
MVP‐FR‐321.01 Franklin Virginia 278.4 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016, 4/26/2017, 4/26/2017, 6/30/2017, 6/30/2017, identified RTE Included in NWP
IB Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin
12/22/2016, 4/26/2017, 12/30/2015, 6/30/2017, 1/15/2016, impacts
County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase
12/22/2016, 12/30/2015 1/15/2016
IB Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin
10/21/2015,
County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase
10/21/2015
IB Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin
County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase
IB Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County,
Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐370 Franklin Virginia 278.5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
10/21/2015, Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia, 12/30/2015,
MVP‐ATWS‐1279 Franklin Virginia 278.6 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 1/15/2016, 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
10/21/2015 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB 12/30/2015
impacts
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐371 Franklin Virginia 278.7 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐1389 Franklin Virginia 279.3 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐372 Franklin Virginia 279.3 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐373 Franklin Virginia 279.4 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin CLEARED ‐ NO
12/22/2016,
MVP‐ATWS‐1280 Franklin Virginia 279.4 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase 4/26/2017, 4/26/2017 6/30/2017, 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
12/22/2016
IB Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin impacts
County, Virginia
Page 27 of 29
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin
County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase
12/22/2016, IB Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County,
10/21/2015, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB 4/26/2017, 12/30/2015, 6/30/2017, 1/15/2016, CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐FR‐322 Franklin Virginia 279.4 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015, Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia, 12/30/2015, 4/26/2017, 1/15/2016, 6/30/2017, identified RTE Included in NWP
12/22/2016, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 impacts
12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin
County, Virginia, Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase
IB Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin
County, Virginia
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐715 Franklin Virginia 279.6 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia, CLEARED ‐ NO
10/21/2015,
MVP‐ATWS‐715A Franklin Virginia 279.6 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB 12/30/2015, 4/26/2017 1/15/2016, 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
12/22/2016
Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
44FR0380 (Not
MVP‐ATWS‐1282 Franklin Virginia 280.1 ‐ Complete Complete Complete 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
Eligible)
County, Virginia impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia,
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia,
10/21/2015, 12/30/2015,
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
10/21/2015, 12/30/2015,
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia, 1/15/2016, 1/15/2016,
10/21/2015, 12/30/2015, CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB 1/15/2016, 1/15/2016,
MVP‐FR‐323 Franklin Virginia 280.2 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015, 12/30/2015, identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia, 1/15/2016, 1/15/2016,
10/21/2015, 12/30/2015, impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB 1/15/2016
10/21/2015, 12/30/2015,
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia,
10/21/2015 12/30/2015
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia,
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐374 Franklin Virginia 280.5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
County, Virginia impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐539 Franklin Virginia 280.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐375 Franklin Virginia 281.0 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia, CLEARED ‐ NO
10/21/2015,
MVP‐ATWS‐376 Franklin Virginia 281.3 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB 12/30/2015, 4/26/2017 1/15/2016, 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
12/22/2016
Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin impacts
County, Virginia
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐540 Franklin Virginia 282.1 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐541 Franklin Virginia 282.1 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
10/21/2015, Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia, 12/30/2015,
MVP‐ATWS‐377 Franklin Virginia 282.3 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 1/15/2016, 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
10/21/2015 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB 12/30/2015
impacts
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐378 Franklin Virginia 282.6 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
County, Virginia impacts
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB CLEARED ‐ NO
MVP‐ATWS‐1364 Franklin Virginia 282.7 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 Archaeological Survey Report, Addendum I, Franklin 4/26/2017 6/30/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
County, Virginia impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐379 Franklin Virginia 282.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐380 Franklin Virginia 283.5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
44FR0354 (Not Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐1283 Franklin Virginia 283.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Eligible) Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
CLEARED ‐ NO
44FR0354 (Not Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
MVP‐ATWS‐1284 Franklin Virginia 283.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete 10/21/2015 12/30/2015 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
Eligible) Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
impacts
Page 28 of 29
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
10/21/2015, Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia, 12/30/2015,
MVP‐ATWS‐650 Franklin Virginia 283.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 1/15/2016, 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
10/21/2015 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB 12/30/2015
impacts
Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
44FR0354 (Not Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Eligible), 10/21/2015, Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia, 12/30/2015,
MVP‐FR‐324 Franklin Virginia 283.8 ‐ Complete Complete Complete 1/15/2016, 1/15/2016 identified RTE Included in NWP
44FR0354 (Not 10/21/2015 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB 12/30/2015
impacts
Eligible) Archaeological Survey Report, Franklin County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Archaeological Survey Report Addendum 2, and Phase II
MVP‐PI‐338.01 Pittsylvania Virginia 298.5 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 9/22/2017 9/25/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Evaluation Site 44PY0442, Pittsylvania
impacts
County, Virginia
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Phase IB
CLEARED ‐ NO
Archaeological Survey Report Addendum 2, and Phase II
MVP‐PI‐344 Pittsylvania Virginia 303.9 ‐ Complete Complete Complete No 12/22/2016 9/22/2017 9/25/2017 identified RTE Included in NWP
Archaeological Evaluation Site 44PY0442, Pittsylvania
impacts
County, Virginia
Page 29 of 29
Exhibit E – Reilly Declaration
BEFORE THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
BOLD ALLIANCE )
BOLD EDUCATION FUND, )
Petitioners )
)
v. ) Docket No. __________________
)
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY )
COMMISSION, )
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
My name is Carolyn Elizabeth Reilly and I am over the age of 18, competent
to testify and have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration.
Under penalty of perjury, I declare the following:
1
and residence means that we will face the constant risk of catastrophic explosion
24/7.
8. Bold is not just challenging the MVP project but also FERC’s use of
eminent domain. To this end, Bold filed a lawsuit in the federal district court of
the District of Columbia on behalf of itself and 55 individual members challenging
the constitutionality of FERC’s eminent domain practices as applied in pipeline
2
certificate cases, including MVP. See Bold Alliance et. al. v. Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission and Mountain Valley Pipeline, Docket 17-1822 (D.D.C.
Sept. 5, 2017). Bold is awaiting a ruling from the court on motions to dismiss filed
by FERC and MVP.
9. In March 2018, while this litigation was pending, Bold Alliance and
Education Fund filed a motion for rehearing of FERC Project Manager Paul
Friedman’s grant of eight requests by MVP to proceed with construction of the
pipeline. Bold argued that Friedman’s grant of notices to proceed were invalid
because under the certificate, only FERC’s Director of the Office of Energy
Projects or a subordinate with a supervisory position (like Deputy or Branch Chief)
can approve a request to proceed.
3
Mountain Valley Pipeline v. 6.56 Acres et. al., Docket No. 18-1159 (4th Cir. March
18, 20 I 8). Allowing a low level project manager to approve construction before
these pending challenges are resolved will result in destruction of my property
before these legal issues can be decided which in turn, will deprive me of my due
process rights.
12. Granting a stay to stop construction from moving forward under
the challenged notices to proceed will avoid harm to my family's property and
preserve our due process rights to challenge the pipeline. Moreover, all landowners
impacted by the pipeline will benefit if this Court can ensure that a FERC official
with the sufficient level of authority is reviewing and approving MVP's notices to
proceed to avoid any mistakes that could result in grievous environmental harm.
I state under penalty of perjury that the foregoing Declaration is true and
accurate to the best of my knowledge.
&� G!J
CarolynR0
>
4
Exhibit F – W. Dist. Va. Civil Docket for or
Case No. 7:17-cv-00492-EKD ECF No. 318
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION
DEREK O. TEANEY (pro hac vice) ISAK J. HOWELL (Va. Bar. # 75011)
JOSEPH M. LOVETT (Va. Bar # 89735) LAW OFFICE OF ISAK HOWELL
APPALACHIAN MOUNTAIN ADVOCATES, INC. 119 Norfolk Ave. SW # 330
P.O. Box 507 Roanoke, VA 24011
Lewisburg, WV 24901 Telephone: (540) 998-7744
Telephone: (304) 793-9007 Facsimile: (304) 645-9008
Facsimile: (304) 645-9008 isak@howell-lawoffice.com
dteaney@appalmad.org
Counsel for Appalachian Mountain Advocates Counsel for Law Office of Isak Howell
Defendants1 Defendants2
1
Stephen W. Bernard, Anne W. Bernard, and New River Conservancy, Inc.
2
John L. Barbazon and Laura S. Barbazon, Glenn C. Frith and Linda K. Frith, Trustees of The
Frith Living Trust, Orren Richard Anderson and Geneva Bell Anderson, Jennifer L. Fraley,
Andrew P. Buckman and Sharon H. Buckman, Frank H. Biscardi and Jacqueline S. Biscardi,
Raymond Thomas Worrell and Linda D. Worrell, Heatherwood Properties, Inc., George Lee
Jones, Nancy Lorraine Britton and Kenith Dwain Britton, Sr., Trustees of the Nancy Lorraine
Britton and Kenith Dwain Britton, Sr. Living Trust, Michael S. Hurt and Mary Frances K. Hurt,
Gordon Wayne Jones and Donna W. Jones, Roanoke Valley 4-Wheelers Association, Stephen
W. Bernard and Anne W. Bernard, Lydia Laverne Brown, Keith M. Wilson and Mary K. Wilson,
George Lee Jones, Steven C. Hodges and Judy R. Hodges, Vernon V. Beacham, Sr. and Vernon
V. Beacham, II, Delwyn A. Dyer, Trustee of the Dyer Family Trust, and Delwyn A. Dyer,
Trustee of the Dyer Living Trust, Clarence B. Givens and Karolyn W. Givens, Elizabeth Rogers
Harrison, Wendell Wray Flora and Mary McNeil Flora, New River Conservancy, Inc., and
Donna Rogers Altizer.
3
John L. Barbazon, Laura S. Barbazon, Vernon V. Beacham, Sr., Vernon V. Beacham, II,
Stephen W. Bernard, Anne W. Bernard, Andrew P. Buckman, Sharon H. Buckman, Roanoke
Valley 4-Wheelers Association, Delwyn A. Dyer, Trustee of the Dyre Family Trust, Jennifer L.
Fraley, Glenn C. Frith, Trustee, and Linda K. Frith, Trustee, of the Frith Living Trus,
Heatherwood Properties, Inc., Wendell W. Flora, Mary M. Flora, Steven C. Hodges, Judy R.
Hodges, George Lee Jones, Donna Rogers Altizer, Elizabeth Rogers Harrison, Karolyn W.
Givens, Nancy Lorraine Britton, Trustee, and Kenith Dwain Britton, Sr. Trustee of the Nancy
Lorraine Britton and Kenith Dwain Britton, Sr. Living Trust, Lydia Laverne Brown, Gordon W.
Jones, Donna W. Jones, Keith M. Wilson, Mary K. Wilson, Raymond Thomas Worrell, Linda
Worrell, Michael S. Hurt, Frances K. Hurt, Frank H. Biscardi, Jacquelin S. Biscardi, Orren R.
Anderson, Geneva Bell Anders, and New River Conservancy.
4
Benny L. Huffman; Jeremy Joseph Rice and Michelle Renee Rice; Roy A. Stevens; Daniel G.
Myers and Deborah L. Myers; Bruce M. Wood and Jennifer M. Wood; Ronald B. Edwards, Sr.,
Gloria Martin, Terrance Edwards, Linda White, Ruby Penn, Janis E. Waller, Crystal Diane
Edwards, and Penny Edwards Blue; George A. Craighead and Helen P. Craighead; Dale E.
Angle and Mary A. Angle, Trustees of Dale E. Angle and Mary A. Angle Revocable Trust;
Russell W. Lawless; Timothy and Megan Lawless; Frederick C. McGhee and Angela L.
McGhee; Donald W. Long and Evelyn W. Long; Robert Alan Pegram; James Glynwood Haynes,
Jr.; Travis Scott Lancaster and Tracy Lynn Taylor; Shelby A. Law; William David Board; Susan
Board Myers, Kenneth Craig Board, and Nancy B. Flora; Oyler Land and Leasing, LLC;
Trustees of Evangel Foursquare Church; Joseph Patrick Tomelty; Donald B. Barnhart; Helena
Delaney Teekell; George Teekell and Helena Delaney Teekell, Trustees of Helena Delaney
Teekell Trust; Robert W. Crawford and Patricia D. Crawford, Trustees Under the Crawford
Living Trust, and Anita Hughes; Mark Cronk and Allison Cronk; Russell E. Callaway and Heide
K. Callaway; Robert Wayne Morgan and Patricia Ann Morgan; Lucy A. Price; Mark A. Divers
and Marie P. Divers; and Charles Flora and Stephanie Flora.
5
Lonnie L. Lester and Judith P. Lester; George Robert Ferguson and Dana Michelle Ferguson;
Michelle R. Lester; Teddy D. Crowe and Susan F. Crowe; Michael L. Lester and Teresa A.
Lester; Carolyn A. Cunningham; Heirs of June Smith, Estate of Raymond Foster Smith,
deceased, Patricia Devecka, Stephen R. Smith, Barry Scott Smith, Douglas F. Smith, David L.
Smith, Frederick I. Apgar, Ruth Apgar Glock, Gregory M. Apgar and Angela H. Apgar; JoAnne
A. Lofaro & Lisa J. Tincher, heirs and successors in interest to Anthony B. Novitzki, deceased;
Russell R. Barksdale; Robert Matthew Hamm and Aimee Chase Hamm; Cletus Woodrow Bohon
and Beverly Ann Bohon; Carolyn A. Cunningham; Jacquiline J. Lucki; Gail Dudley Smithers
and Ginger K. Smithers; Rebecca Jane Dameron; Grace Minor Terry; Elizabeth Terry Reynolds;
Robin B. Austin and Allen R. Austin; Kermit C. Crowe and Alva T. Crowe; Betty E. McCoy and
Edward Conner; James Cabel Law and Carolyn Diana Eanes Law; Bruce M. Coffey and Mary E.
Coffey; Emilie M. Owen and Richard Clark Owen; Richard Wayne Jones, Trustee of Bobby I.
Jones and Richard Wayne Jones Revocable Trust; Martin G. Morrison and Patricia A. Boyd;
Robert M. Jones and Donna Thomas Jones; Evelena Grubbs Rouse and Enzy Grubbs Anderson;
Alvin E. Wray, Linda L. Wray, L. Benton Wray, Jr., and Diane S. Wray; H.W. Cox, Jr. and Janet
DeGroff; May Ellen Rives, Sandra H. Lancaster; Guy W. Buford and Margaret S. Buford; John
Coles Terry, III; Howard Thompson and Christine W. Thompson; Donald D. Apgar and Mildred
M. Apgar; Hilah Parks Terry; Phyllis M. Hutton; Brian David Glock and Susan Elizabeth Glock
Buch; Mark A. Pettipiece and Teresa J. Pettipiece; Sandra Townes Powell; Lois King Waldron
and Lois Mabel Waldron Martin; Thomas W. Triplett and Bonnie B. Triplett; David J. Werner,
Betty B. Werner, Ian Elliott Reilly, and Carolyn Elizabeth Reilly; Doris Marie Henry; Matthew
D. Roller and Deanna S. Robinson; Mark E. Daniel and Angela D. Daniel; James T. Chandler
and Kathy E. Chandler; Fred W. Vest; Brenda Lynn Williams; Juliana Bernholz and Irina
Bernholz Siegrist; Thomas O. White, Jr., Trustee of the Beverly A. McLaughlin Testamentary
Trust; Frank H. Terry, Jr.; and Elizabeth Lee Terry Reynolds.
6
Ann Elizabeth Andrews; Dawn E. Cisek; Frances D.W. Collins; Doe Creek Farm, Inc.; Dowdy
Farm, LLC; Eagle’s Nest Ministries, Inc.; Estial Earl Echols, Jr. & Edith Fern Echols; Georgia
Lou Haverty; Allison Hollopter and Gary Hollopter; Stephen D. Legge, David Legge, and
Phyllis J. Legge; Glenn W. Loveless & June S. Loveless; Lenora W. Montuori; Lenora Montuori
and Kristina Montuori Hillman, Trustees of the Antonio Montuori Family Trust; Nancye B.
Motley; Occanneechi, Inc.; Samuel Hale Reynolds & Mary Sutton Reynolds; James D. Scott and
Karen B. Scott; Clifford A. Shaffer and Teresa C. Hrubec; Sizemore, Incorporated of Virginia;
Margaret McGraw Slayton and Michael Edward Slayton, Trustees of the Margaret McGraw
Slayton Living Trust Dated December 14, 2001; Larry Thompson & Loreen Thompson; and
David G. Yolton and Karen M. Yolton.
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
A. MVP Does Not Clearly Show It Will Suffer Irreparable Harm Without
Immediate Possession..........................................................................................................3
2. MVP Has No Evidence It Will Suffer Irreparable Injury (Even Economic Injury)
Without Immediate Possession......................................................................................7
c. MVP’s Claim Claim That it Will Incur Excessive Administrative Costs Cannot
Withstand Scrutiny.................................................................................................14
3. MVP Cannot Show that Denial of Early Entry Would Cause Its Alleged Injuries.....16
4. MVP’s Alleged Injuries Are Not “Imminent:” MVP Can Complete its
Pipeline in Compliance With its FERC Certificate and Shipping Agreements
Even if Access to Landowners’ Properties Were Delayed Until November 2018
or Later.........................................................................................................................18
i
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD Document 318 Filed 01/20/18 Page 4 of 59 Pageid#: 7543
c. The Harm To the Landowners Is Not Simply A Question of Timing...................28
1. MVP’s FERC Certificate Does Not Establish That Immediate Possession Serves
the Public Interest........................................................................................................34
II. MVP May Not Take Private Property Based On the Evidence in the Record Regarding the
Appropriate Security................................................................................................................40
C. MVP Successfully Precluded Landowners from Inquiring Into its Financial Strength
and Ability to Provide Just Compensation.........................................................................49
D. Alternatively, If the Court Were Inclined to Grant the Injunctive Relief Sought,
It Should Require Further Discovery and Proceedings to Determine the Bond Amount..49
CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................50
ii
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD Document 318 Filed 01/20/18 Page 5 of 59 Pageid#: 7544
INTRODUCTION
pursuant to the Court’s January 16, 2018 Order. ECF #304. As explained below, the evidence
produced at the Motions Hearing on January 12 and 13, 2018, shows that Plaintiff Mountain
Valley Pipeline, LLC (“MVP”) has failed to establish the requirements for a preliminary
mandatory injunction.
through motions practice—before the Court has decided whether MVP has the right to take
Landowners’ property, before a neutral factfinder has had an opportunity to determine the proper
amount of just compensation, and before MVP has established it is able to pay that amount.
Importantly, no court has yet had the opportunity to review the merits of MVP’s FERC
Certificate or decided whether MVP has the right to take Landowners’ property.
MVP is not entitled to an injunction because it has not satisfied the four injunction
factors. MVP (1) fails to show it will suffer any injury, let alone any legally cognizable
“irreparable injury,” if denied immediate possession of Landowners’ property. That failure alone
requires denial of MVP’s motion. Additionally, MVP (2) grossly understates the harm
Landowners will suffer if their property is immediately taken; (3) overstates MVP’s likelihood of
success on the merits; and (4) misconstrues the public interest. Finally, there is no competent
evidence before the Court on which it could determine the appropriate amount for a deposit or a
bond. For those reasons, the Court should deny MVP’s motion for immediate possession.
v. Natural Res. Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). To succeed, a plaintiff must (1)
1
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD Document 318 Filed 01/20/18 Page 6 of 59 Pageid#: 7545
make a “clear showing” that it will “likely” suffer irreparable harm absent the injunction; (2)
“clearly demonstrate” that it will “likely” prevail on the merits; (3) demonstrate that the equities
weigh in its favor; and (4) demonstrate that granting the injunction serves the public interest. The
Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. F.E.C., 575 F.3d 342, 346-47 (4th Cir. 2009) (citing Winter,
555 U.S. at 20). “[A]ll four factors must be independently satisfied”; “no matter how likely the
irreparable injury absent an injunction, a plaintiff can obtain a preliminary injunction only if he
[also] demonstrates a clear likelihood of success on the merits, and the balance of equities favors
him, and the injunction is in the public interest.” League of Women Voters of N. Carolina v.
North Carolina, 769 F.3d 224, 250 (4th Cir. 2014). The standard from The Real Truth About
Obama is far more exacting than the one applied in East Tennessee Natural Gas Co. v. Sage, 361
F.3d 808, 828 (4th Cir. 2004) (which predated Winter), and relied on by MVP (see ECF # 7 at
12); that standard did not require a clear showing of likely irreparable harm, instead requiring
only a basic showing of possible irreparable harm. Moreover, it allowed a strong showing of one
factor to displace other factors. Sage, 361 F.3d at 828 (citing Blackwelder Furniture Co. v. Seilig
Additionally, preliminary injunctions that seek to alter the status quo rather than maintain
it are especially disfavored. See In re Microsoft Corp. Antitrust Litigation, 333 F.3d 517, 525
(4th Cir. 2003) (“Our application of this exacting standard of review is even more searching
when the preliminary injunctive relief … is mandatory rather than prohibitory …”); Taylor v.
Freeman, 34 F.3d 266, 270 n.2 (4th Cir. 1994) (“Mandatory preliminary injunctive relief in any
1
The Real Truth About Obama expressly overruled Blackwelder—and, by extension, aspects of
Sage, which relied on Blackwelder—holding that its standard was too lax in light of Winter. See
575 F.3d at 346-47.
2
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD Document 318 Filed 01/20/18 Page 7 of 59 Pageid#: 7546
circumstance is disfavored and warranted only in the most extraordinary circumstances.”).2
Accordingly, MVP must show that “the facts and law clearly favor” the injunction. Faulkner v.
Jones, 10 F.3d 226, 238 (4th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted). It fails to do so.
A. MVP Does Not Clearly Show It Will Suffer Irreparable Harm Without Immediate
Possession.
harm . . . , and the irreparable harm must be neither remote nor speculative, but actual and
imminent.” Cornwell v. Sachs, 99 F.Supp.2d 695, 702 (E.D. Va. 2000) (punctuation and citations
omitted). This means “[t]he movant must provide proof . . . that the harm is certain to occur in
the near future”; “bare allegations of what is likely to occur are of no value since the court must
decide whether the harm will in fact occur.” Bloodgood v. Garraghty, 783 F.2d 470, 475-76 (4th
Cir. 1986) (punctuation and citations omitted). See also Direx Israel, Ltd. v. Breakthrough Med.
Corp., 952 F.2d 802, 812 (4th Cir. 1991) (holding that irreparable harm must be “neither remote
nor speculative, but actual and imminent” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Where a plaintiff
seeks mandatory relief, the clear showing of irreparable injury must be “strong” because
“changing the status quo is not favored.” Handsome Brook Farm, LLC v. Humane Farm Animal
Care, Inc., 193 F.Supp.3d 556, 566 (E.D. Va. 2016). An unreported opinion of the Fourth Circuit
suggests that “the appropriate standard” on the irreparable harm prong for a mandatory
injunction is “clear and convincing” evidence. Tiffany v. Forbes Custom Boats, Inc., 959 F.2d
2
See also Communist Party of Ind. v. Whitcomb, 409 U.S. 1235 (1972) (Rehnquist, J., opinion in
chambers) (“While a Circuit Justice of this Court apparently has authority under Supreme Court
Rule 51 to grant . . . a mandatory injunction, usage and practice suggest that this extraordinary
remedy be employed only in the most unusual case. In order that it be available, the applicants’
right to relief must be indisputably clear.”); Transwestern Pipeline Co. v. 17.19 Acres of Prop.,
550 F.3d 770, 776 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding in an NGA condemnation action that mandatory
preliminary injunctions are “particularly disfavored in the law”).
3
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD Document 318 Filed 01/20/18 Page 8 of 59 Pageid#: 7547
232, 1992 WL 67358 at *11 (4th Cir. Apr. 6, 1992) (unpublished). If the plaintiff fails to make a
strong, clear showing of actual, imminent, irreparable harm, the preliminary-injunction analysis
MVP fails to meet that standard. Its argument boils down to the claim that without early
possession it may suffer financial losses and construction delays. That argument fails for
1. Even if MVP Would Suffer Injury Without Immediate Possession, That Injury
Would Not Be Irreparable.
All of MVP’s alleged irreparable injuries, even if real, would be economic in nature. But
“‘purely economic injury and economic loss alone, however substantial, does not constitute
irreparable harm.’” Mylan Pharm., Inc. v. U.S.F.D.A., 23 F.Supp.3d 631, 646 (N.D. W. Va.
2014) (quoting Mylan Pharms., Inc. v. Thompson, 207 F.Supp.2d 476, 485 (N.D. W. Va. 2001));
see also Wisc. Gas Co. v. F.E.R.C., 758 F.2d 669, 674 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (“It is...well settled that
economic loss does not in and of itself, constitute irreparable harm.”). “[M]onetary loss is not
irreparable unless it threatens a business’s existence.” Children’s Hosp. of the King's Daughters,
Inc. v. Price, 258 F.Supp.3d 672, 690 (E.D. Va. 2017); see also Wisc. Gas Co., 758 F.2d at 674.
MVP has not claimed or shown that the alleged monetary losses arising from later entry would
threaten its existence. In fact, MVP admitted that MVP would likely survive to build its pipeline
even if it has to wait until November 15, 2018 to begin construction. Day 1 Tr. at 209:21–23.
It has long been the law in the Fourth Circuit that “mere injuries, however substantial, in
terms of money, time and energy necessarily expended in the absence of [equitable relief], are
not enough” to support equitable relief. Di Biase v. SPX Corp., 872 F.3d 224, 230 (4th Cir.
2017); Long v. Robinson, 432 F.2d 977, 980 (4th Cir. 1970). Notwithstanding those holdings,
MVP asserts that Sage stands for the proposition that financial harm to a pipeline developer is
4
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD Document 318 Filed 01/20/18 Page 9 of 59 Pageid#: 7548
sufficient to establish irreparable harm. Day 1 Tr. at 90:4–6. For that to be so, however, Sage
would have had to abrogate Long, which it did not purport to do. As explained below, Long and
Sage are not in conflict, but if there were a conflict between the two, Long would control as the
prior opinion. “When published panel opinions are in direct conflict on a given issue, the earliest
opinion controls, unless the prior opinion has been overruled by an intervening opinion from this
court sitting en banc or the Supreme Court.” McMellon v. U.S., 387 F.3d 329, 332 (4th Cir.
2004) (en banc). Consequently, Sage, not an en banc ruling, could not overrule Long.
In all events, MVP misunderstands the import of Sage—an opinion issued under the now-
rejected Blackwelder standard. Sage, 361 F.3d at 828 (citing Blackwelder). Under Blackwelder, a
lesser showing of irreparable harm could support an injunction if a particularly strong showing of
likelihood of success on the merits was made. 550 F.2d at 195. The Fourth Circuit abandoned
that sliding scale in The Real Truth About Obama, recognizing that Blackwelder’s allowance for
the mere demonstration of a possibility of irreparable injury upon a strong showing on the
probability of success was “explicitly rejected [by the Supreme Court] in Winter[.]” 575 F.3d at
347. After The Real Truth About Obama, a party seeking an injunction must “make a clear
In Sage, the Fourth Circuit was not merely persuaded that the pipeline developer had a
likelihood of success on the merits, it was certain that “[s]uccess on the merits for ETNG is . . .
apparent.” 361 F.3d at 829–30. Indeed, the landowners in Sage conceded as much. Id. Because
the pipeline developer was guaranteed success on the merits, under the applicable Blackwelder
standard, a de minimis showing of possible irreparable harm by the pipeline developer was
sufficient. Sage must be read with that key point in mind. In other words, because the pipeline
developer was guaranteed success on the merits, the Fourth Circuit did not have to conclude that
5
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD Document 318 Filed 01/20/18 Page 10 of 59 Pageid#: 7549
economic loss constituted irreparable harm.
noted that the pipeline developer was “under an order from FERC to complete construction and
have the pipeline in operation by January 1, 2005. It would not be possible to meet FERC’s
deadline without a preliminary injunction.” Sage, 361 F.3d at 829. To the extent that there was
irreparable harm present in Sage, it was the potential that the pipeline developer would miss the
After The Real Truth About Obama and Winter, pipeline developers must make a
stronger showing of irreparable harm to obtain injunctive relief, no matter their likelihood of
success on the merits. Because the analysis changed as a result of Winter, Sage cannot be applied
to this case without modification. McMellon v. United States, 387 F.3d at 332. Specifically, MVP
must clearly establish irreparable injury. Because, under Fourth Circuit precedent, monetary
losses do not constitute irreparable injury, MVP falls short of carrying its burden.
Additionally, MVP claims that construction delays will render it “unable to meet its
contractual requirements” and suggests that Sage found “inability to meet contractual obligations
to be” a form of “irreparable harm.” ECF # 6 at 14. That gloss on Sage is misleading. Sage found
inability to meet contractual obligations to be irreparable harm because the plaintiff’s “inability
to satisfy these commitments would have negative impacts on its customers and the consumers
they serve.” Sage, 361 F.3d at 829. That is not the case here, as MVP has no customers that are
not its own corporate affiliates. Ps’ Ex. 1, FERC Certificate at 5–6 & nn. 12–16.
///
///
3
As discussed further below, the injunction sought by MVP is not necessary to comply with the
FERC completion deadline in this case, distinguishing the facts here from Sage, where the
condemnor faced an expiring FERC certificate.
6
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD Document 318 Filed 01/20/18 Page 11 of 59 Pageid#: 7550
2. MVP Has No Evidence It Will Suffer Irreparable Injury (Even Economic
Injury) Without Immediate Possession.
MVP’s efforts to establish irreparable harm fall far short of the requisite clear, strong
showing. Evidence presented at the motions hearing established that MVP’s claimed harms are
an unrealistic maximum projection—not actual, concrete, imminent threats. Day 1 Tr. at 197:2–
4. That necessarily defeats MVP’s preliminary-injunction request, and the Court need not
proceed further. See Winter, 555 U.S. at 20–21 (holding irreparable harm must be likely, not
merely possible). Even leaving this aside, all of MVP’s claims of alleged harm still fail.
MVP alleges it will lose $40-$50 million in revenue for every month the in-service date
of the proposed pipeline is delayed. Day 1 Tr. at 169:16–19.4 As a threshold matter, “lost
revenue” is not the same as “lost profits,” and MVP has not even attempted to show that delayed
possession will cause the latter. That is, although MVP has identified its claimed gross revenue,
it has not offered evidence of its monthly operation and maintenance costs, which are needed to
determine the true net loss to MVP of a month’s delay. The costs to operate and maintain a 303-
mile long, 42” natural gas pipeline with four compressor stations are substantial. Without
evidence of operation and maintenance costs, MVP’s gross revenue numbers are meaningless.
Moreover, MVP’s alleged sources of revenue are all from its corporate affiliates. MVP
bases its claims of lost revenue on the revenue it would generate from shipping natural gas once
the pipeline is in service. MVP has precedent agreements with five “shippers”—all of whom
have a corporate familial relationship with the members of MVP, LLC. P’s Ex. 1, FERC
Certificate at 5–6 & nn. 12–16. As a result, to the extent that MVP “loses” revenue each month
4
Plaintiff has redacted the shipping rates from the contracts under which it claims a right to a
seven-figure monthly revenue (see P’s Ex. 3, Precedent Agreements), leaving its numbers
unsupported and falling short of a clear and convincing evidence standard.
7
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD Document 318 Filed 01/20/18 Page 12 of 59 Pageid#: 7551
that its pipeline is not in service, its members or their corporate affiliates retain that same
amount of money. On this matter, a disadvantage to one member of the corporate family—lost
revenue—is an advantage to another member of the same family—avoided shipping costs. Day 2
Tr. at 132:12–4. In other words, it is a wash. Because MVP has not been able to find end-users to
buy the gas it would transport, MVP’s owners will not actually “lose” anything with delays; their
books will simply fail to reflect a transfer of money from one affiliated company to another.
That aside, there are many other reasons to reject MVP’s claim that later possession will
reduce its revenues. First, the MVP Project as a whole is premised on a 20-year transportation
agreement that does not start to run until service begins. See, e.g., P’s Ex. 3 at Bates No.
MVP_0008025, ¶5(d)(ii). MVP’s “lost revenue” is, at worst, merely “delayed revenue.” MVP
will have 20 years of revenue from the pipeline, regardless of whether the pipeline is placed in
service on its target date of December 2018, or at some later time. It will earn the delayed
revenue on the back-end of the shipping contracts. Because, as MVP’s project manager testified,
the shipping rates under MVP’s contracts turn, in part, on gas commodity prices (Day 1 Tr. at
170:14–25), a delayed beginning to the agreed 20-year transportation period could actually
benefit MVP if gas prices rise over time, so MVP cannot demonstrate that delayed possession
will decrease its revenues. Any such alleged harm is purely speculative.
MVP claims no contractual penalties under its shipping contracts; indeed it cannot. Those
contracts expressly provide that MVP “shall not be liable in any manner to [its] Shipper[s] due to
[its] failure to complete the construction of the Project within the timeframe contemplated
herein.” P’s Ex. 3 at Bates No. MVP_0008028, ¶7(c)). Moreover, its shipping contracts
expressly allow it until June 1, 2020, to place the pipeline in service and trigger the “Service
8
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD Document 318 Filed 01/20/18 Page 13 of 59 Pageid#: 7552
Commencement Date.” Id. at Bates No. MVP_0008029, ¶8(b).5 As discussed below, MVP has
contemplated alternative schedules under which it begins tree felling and clearing in November
15, 2018, and still places its pipeline in service by November or December 2019. Ds’ Ex. Nos. 3
& 4. In short, the terms of MVP’s shipping contracts would not impose any harm on MVP—
economic or otherwise—if MVP does not obtain the injunction that it seeks.
Finally, to the extent that MVP claims that delays in possession will cause it to lose the
“time value of money” from delayed revenues, that effort fails to establish clear irreparable
harm. MVP’s sole harm witness admitted that he was not qualified to calculate such a figure and
Merely suggesting that there is a concept known as the time-value-of-money is a far cry
from providing “clear” and “strong” evidence of how much it will lose if its revenue stream is
delayed. Moreover, whether such loss would occur—and the amount of such potential loss—is
too speculative and uncertain to support an injunction. Bloodgood, 784 F.2d at 476. Further, as
explained above, the “revenue” MVP could start “earning” absent delays is actually its affiliates’
money. P’s Ex. 1, FERC Certificate at 5–6 & nn. 12–16; Day 1 Tr. at 172:13–16. If that money
is not sitting in MVP’s coffers, it will sit in its affiliates’ coffers, and MVP’s ultimate owners can
earn interest on it either way. In all events, gas prices may rise in the future, which may more
than offset the (unquantified) time value of money that MVP may claim it will lose if its revenue
stream is delayed. MVP has put on no evidence either way, making it wholly speculative for
MVP claims that construction delays may force it to pay up to $200 million in
5
That allowance for a later date establishes that the MVP corporate family was content to
assume the risk that the pipeline may not be in service by December 2018 as hoped.
9
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD Document 318 Filed 01/20/18 Page 14 of 59 Pageid#: 7553
“[p]enalties and delay charges” to its contractors. Day 1 Tr. at 191:9–15. Those delay charges
and cancellation fees are included in the terms of the purchase orders issued under MVP’s
contracts with its three main contractors on the pipeline. MVP contends that the terms of those
contracts and purchase orders allow MVP’s contractors to collect incremental and cumulative
charges based on delays in starting work on the project. Day 1 Tr. at 197:13–16. The evidence
shows that MVP wildly exaggerates the amount of delay and cancellation charges it would
As a threshold matter, MVP’s alleged contractual penalties do not directly stem from lack
of access to Landowner’s property. Rather, they are self-inflicted by MVP’s entry into
construction contracts, and issuing purchase orders under them, that include the penalty
provisions about which MVP now complains. MVP voluntarily entered into those contracts. Day
1 Tr. at 191:16–17. MVP executed one of the contracts, and issued multiple purchase orders
thereunder, before it even received its FERC Certificate. See, e.g., P’s Ex. 5 at Bates Nos.
MVP_0010080 & MVP_0010153; Day 1 Tr. at 196:2–5. All of the contracts were executed and
purchase orders issued before MVP obtained access to all of the properties along the pipeline
route. See generally P’s Ex. 5. By doing so, MVP assumed the risk that the delay charges and
cancellation penalties might kick in. Day 1 Tr. at 227:13–18. A party should not be permitted to
enter prematurely into third-party contracts and then use those contracts as justification to seek a
court-ordered alteration of the status quo to avoid penalties under those contracts. Equity does
not demand that Landowners bear the burden of MVP’s poor contractual choices and it does not
This case is like Davis v. Mineta, in which the Tenth Circuit, in the preliminary
injunction context, rejected claims of financial penalties from delay as “self-inflicted” because
10
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD Document 318 Filed 01/20/18 Page 15 of 59 Pageid#: 7554
the parties prematurely entered into “contractual obligations that anticipated a pro forma result.”
302 F.3d 1104, 1116 (10th Cir. 2002). Because the parties in question were “largely responsible
for their own harm,” such harm could not tip the balance of equities in their favor. Id. In Long v.
Robinson, the Fourth Circuit held that “a party may not claim equity in his own defaults” when
the claimed injury “is of their own making.” 432 F.2d 977, 981 (4th Cir. 1970). Likewise, the
Eighth and Third Circuits discount self-inflicted harm in the preliminary injunction analysis.
Sierra Club v. U.S.A.C.O.E., 645 F.2d 978, 997 (8th Cir. 2011); Pappan Enters., Inc. v. Hardee’s
Food Sys., Inc., 143 F.3d 800, 806 (3d Cir. 1998).
Although the Fourth Circuit considered “self-made harm” in its injunction analysis in a
false-advertising case, the harm that it considered was harm to the non-moving party. Scotts Co.
v. United Indus. Corp., 315 F.3d 264, 284 (4th Cir. 2002). It reasoned that giving less weight to
self-made harm to a defendant in a false advertising case would essentially always tilt the
balance of the harms to the plaintiff. Id. Its entire analysis was driven by the fact that the self-
inflicted harm was the non-movant’s harm. Id. at 284–85. In all events, the Court ultimately
concluded that the harm to the non-movant was minimal, rendering its statements regarding the
injury invites real moral hazard. Doing so would allow firms to benefit from entering into
premature contracts and from a failure to mitigate damages or to insulate themselves from
liability. Those concerns are especially acute where the party claiming irreparable injury does so
offensively rather than defensively. That is, rather than resisting an injunction on the basis of
self-made harm, like the defendant in Scotts Co., here MVP, as plaintiff, seeks to alter the status
quo through a mandatory injunction. Accordingly, courts considering requests for preliminary
11
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD Document 318 Filed 01/20/18 Page 16 of 59 Pageid#: 7555
injunctions in light of traditional principles of equity agree that self-inflicted injuries should be
appropriately discounted. See, e.g., Sierra Club, 645 F.3d at 997 (Clean Water Act permit); Salt
Lake Tribune Pub. Co. v. AT&T Corp., 320 F.3d 1081, 1106 (10th Cir. 2003) (breach of
contract); San Francisco Real Estate Investors v. Real Estate Investment Future of Amer., 692
F.2d 814, 818 (1st Cir. 1982) (transfer of securities). To hold otherwise would allow parties to
contractually obligate themselves to extraordinary penalties and then use those penalties to
Moreover, MVP’s contractual penalties are highly unlikely to reach the $200 million
mark, if they occur at all, rendering them legally irrelevant. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20 (alleged
irreparable harm must be “likely”); Bloodgood, 783 F.2d at 475–76 (“bare allegations of what is
likely to occur are of no value since the court must decide whether the harm will in fact occur”).
MVP’s project manager admitted in his testimony that the $200 million is an absolute maximum
and that he had multiple ways to mitigate the contractual penalties MVP might incur. Day 1 Tr.
at 196:23–25, 197:1–4, 198:3–6. Indeed, he admitted that he would be unlikely to retain his job if
he allowed the contractual penalties to reach the $200-million mark. Id. at 197:21–25, 198:1–2.
According to the testimony of its project manager, MVP has voluntarily obtained access
to approximately 85% of the parcels needed to construct the pipeline. Id. at 112:8–16. Mr.
Cooper further testified that he could direct MVP’s contractors to work on those parcels and
substantially mitigate the delay charges that it would face under the purchase orders. Id. at
196:20–25; 197:1. MVP’s construction contracts also contemplate “Move Around Events” in
which its contractors have to relocate their labor and equipment because of MVP’s inability to
obtain access to a particular site. P’s Ex. 5 at Bates No. MVP_0010162. Move Around Events do
not entitle MVP’s contractors to any time extensions, although they do allow the contractor to
12
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD Document 318 Filed 01/20/18 Page 17 of 59 Pageid#: 7556
increase certain contract pricing. Id. at Bates No. MVP_0010170.6 Accordingly, MVP could also
mitigate its delay penalties by directing its contractors to work on parcels out of sequence.
“Force Majeure Events,” which are events and circumstance that are unavoidable or that could
not be prevented or overcome by the reasonable efforts and due diligence of the Party claiming
the event. P’s Ex. 5 at Bates No. MVP_0010161. If, despite its reasonable efforts and due
diligence, MVP were unable to obtain early possession in this action, it could invoke the Force
Majeure event provisions of its contracts in Section 5.8 and/or issue a Change Order to modify
the penalties in its purchase orders under Section 4.6. Id. at Bates Nos. MVP_0010172–73;
MVP_0010170. Consequently, the Force Majeure provisions of MVP’s contracts may allow it to
eliminate any delay charges imposed by its prematurely issued purchase orders.
Moreover, MVP’s construction contracts allow it to terminate the agreements “or any
part thereof” “for its convenience and without cause, at any time” on 48 hours’ notice. Id. at
Bates No. MVP_0010175, ¶6.3.1. At the hearing, MVP’s project manager could not identify
anything in the purchase orders that would not allow MVP to exercise its option to terminate its
contracts and purchase orders without penalty. Day 1 Tr. at 194:7–10. Thus, MVP could cancel
its improvidently issued Purchase Orders and greatly mitigate its delay charges. Even if the
purchase orders themselves carry cancellation charges, timely acceptance by MVP of those
charges would avoid cumulative delay charges and substantially reduce MVP’s proffered $200-
6
MVP offered no evidence on the financial implications of working around unacquired parcels
and did not quantify any increased costs. Rather, MVP merely asserted that it was impractical to
“skip around a large number of properties.” Day 1 Tr. at 151:9–11. Impracticality does not
equate to irreparable harm, however. Aurora Co-op. Elevator Co. v. Aventine Renewable Energy
Holdings, Inc., No. 4:12-CV-3200, 2014 WL 895669, at *5 (D. Neb. Mar. 6, 2014)
(impracticality is not the same as irreparable); Citifinancial, Inc. v. Lightner, Civ. No. 5:06-
CV145, 2007 WL 3088087, at *2 (N.D. W. Va. Oct. 22, 2007) (agreeing that future
inconvenience and inefficiency are too remote and speculative to constitute irreparable harm).
13
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD Document 318 Filed 01/20/18 Page 18 of 59 Pageid#: 7557
million penalty figure. MVP need not cancel the entire construction contract and could retain its
contractors under Section 6.3. Even if it were forced to cancel the entire contract, MVP’s project
manager testified that it was possible he could retain other contractors or enter into a new
agreement with the parties to any cancelled contracts. Day 1 Tr. at 274:11–17.
Finally, even if the “worst-case-scenario” were accurate, in the context of this massive
project, $200 million is a small percentage of the total cost of the project and nearly within the
contingency amount projected by MVP. MVP’s management has approved capital expenditures
in the amount of $3.7 billion for the construction of the pipeline. Day 1 Tr. at 165:9–12. Mr.
Cooper testified that the $3.7 billion figure included approximately $180 million dollars in
contingencies, and MVP’s claimed $200 million in additional contract charges for delays is
scale of the $3.7 billion approved budget, the contractual penalties are the same size as the built-
in contingency. Mr. Cooper further admitted that a 5 percent increase in projected construction
costs is not unusual. Id. at 198:12–14. Even large monetary losses must be compared to the
project’s overall costs. For example, in Air Transport Association of America, Inc. v. Export-
Import Bank of the U.S., the district court held that “an extreme hypothetical” was not sufficient
than 7% of [the movant’s] business, a figure that hardly seems ruinous.” 840 F. Supp. 2d 327,
338 (D.D.C. 2012). MVP’s claimed penalties of approximately 5% in a $3.7 billion budget are
likewise not ruinous, especially considering that Mr. Cooper testified that MVP will likely
construct the project even without an injunction from this Court. Day 1 Tr. at 209:21–23.
MVP’s final category of claimed irreparable injury are “project administration” costs of
14
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD Document 318 Filed 01/20/18 Page 19 of 59 Pageid#: 7558
approximately $40 million. Day 1 Tr. at 204:9–16. MVP’s claims are exaggerated and do not
As with MVP’s contractual penalties, its administrative costs are self-inflicted and
therefore should be excluded from the irreparable harm analysis under Long, 432 F.2d at 981,
and the other cases cited above. MVP’s project manager testified that these costs are the carrying
costs that MVP would incur to maintain the project in stasis until entry is allowed. Day 1 Tr. at
203:9–16. Those costs do not stem from lack of access to Landowners’ properties, but rather
they result from MVP’s self-imposed schedule. FERC did not mandate that MVP start tree-
cutting in the winter of 2017-2018. MVP decided to buy the materials that it needed for its
preferred schedule of its own volition and it accepted the risk that it would not have early
property access. Id. at 227:13–18. MVP’s business decision to purchase materials early may not
now be used to justify preliminary relief to which it would otherwise not be entitled.
Moreover, MVP provided no evidence outside of Mr. Cooper’s testimony to support its
claims regarding its administrative costs. For that reason, the Court should not give any weight to
MVP summarily claims that its $40 million figure is the aggregate of costs for retaining
project staff, holding needed construction equipment, leasing warehouses and storage yards,
capitalized property taxes, legal fees, “compression fees,” protecting its purchased pipes from the
elements, and retaining inspection staff. Day 1 Tr. at 133:9 to 134:24; 204:20 to 206:7. More
than half of the $40 million is allocated to salary and benefits for retaining project staff during
the delay, id. at 208:12–14, but MVP’s project manager testified that MVP could receive
services from its retained staff for activities other than caretaking services. Id. at 208:12–25,
209:1–3. In short, MVP’s claimed administrative costs are just the cost of remaining a going
15
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD Document 318 Filed 01/20/18 Page 20 of 59 Pageid#: 7559
enterprise—or, according to MVP’s project manager, are costs for personnel who could work on
other issues for MVP or its affiliates. Id. Importantly, such administrative costs are in fact costs
only to MVP’s corporate affiliates; the project manager and other “staff” are the employees of
corporate affiliates, not of MVP, LLC. Id. at 174:16–17. MVP cannot both rely on its nature as a
technically independent corporate entity for purposes of its “lost” gross revenues, discussed
above, and then treat all affiliates as one when it comes to bearing such administrative costs.
In any event, MVP’s claimed $40 million in administrative costs are approximately 1%
of its approved $3.7 billion capital budget. Id. at 209:5–7. Indeed, MVP’s project manager
admitted in his testimony that he would certainly advise his supervisors to proceed with a project
based on a 1% increase in cost. Id. at 209:9–12. Further, MVP admits that it can mitigate its
claimed administrative costs (id. at 209:25, 210:1–9), undermining MVP’s assertion that those
costs constitute irreparable harm. Cf. HCI Techs., Inc. v. Avaya, Inc., 446 F.Supp.2d 518, 521
(E.D. Va. 2006) (preliminary-injunction movant’s “ability to mitigate its losses” undercuts claim
of irreparable harm). Accordingly, MVP’s claimed additional administrative costs are not clear
3. MVP Cannot Show that Denial of Early Entry Would Cause Its Alleged Injuries.
injunction, th[at] “undermin[es] the need for injunctive relief in the first place.” Apple Inc. v.
Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 735 F.3d 1352, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2013). See also Wisc. Gas, 758 F.2d at
674 (holding that “the movant must show that the alleged harm will directly result from the
action which the movant seeks to enjoin.”). That principle defeats MVP’s motion.
MVP’s corporate representative admitted in his testimony that later entry onto
Landowners’ properties is but one of many events that could equally delay the Project and
16
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD Document 318 Filed 01/20/18 Page 21 of 59 Pageid#: 7560
financially harm MVP: for example, (1) FERC could deny or delay the Notices to Proceed that
MVP needs to proceed with construction or even tree-cutting;7 (2) MVP has not yet even
requested, let alone obtained, all the necessary permissions to proceed with construction or even
tree-cutting on the properties it seeks to condemn;8 (3) MVP has not yet received a Virginia
permit for erosion and sediment control;9 (4) the end users of the vast majority of the gas that
would flow through the proposed pipeline are currently unknown;10 and (5) MVP has not yet
completed the §106 certification process under the National Historical Preservation Act.11 MVP
cannot pretend, therefore, that land acquisition via an injunction is the bottleneck that threatens
its February 1, 2018 start date. Accordingly, MVP cannot show that a preliminary injunction will
prevent its alleged irreparable harm, making the issuance of an injunction pointless. Apple, 735
F.3d at 1363; Wisc. Gas, 758 F.2d at 674. MVP’s project manager testified that there were many
potential causes for delay and, fatal to this injunction request, that there was “nothing unique”
about a potential delay from a denial of early entry. Day 1 Tr. at 207:21–25, 208:1–10.
Indeed, these facts undermine MVP’s credibility. At the outset of this action, MVP
submitted a declaration from Mr. Cooper in support of MVP’s motion for preliminary injunction
in which he averred that “if MVP is unable to begin the tree clearing and construction activities
of the MVP Project on the Landowners’ properties by February 1, 2018, it will be unable to
complete work according to its construction schedule, and it will incur additional delay fees and
7
Day 1, Tr. at 183:5–8, 184:8–11, 185:1–5, 207:21–25, 208:1–6.
8
Day 1 Tr. at 183:14–25, 184:1–11.
9
P’s Ex. 9 at Bates No. MVP_0013621; Day 1 Tr. at 190:16–25, 191:1.
10
P’s Ex. 1, FERC Certificate at 101 n. 286.
11
P’s Ex. 9 at Bates Nos. MVP_0013620–21; Ds’ Ex. 2.
17
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD Document 318 Filed 01/20/18 Page 22 of 59 Pageid#: 7561
contractor costs.” ECF # 4-1 at ¶ 24. But, as of January 120, 2018, MVP has not even requested
from FERC the permission that it needs to conduct tree cutting on any property that it seeks to
condemn.12 February 1, 2018, is just 12 days away and MVP has not even submitted the
paperwork—which FERC will take time to approve—that would allow it to begin tree-cutting
and construction on condemnation proceeding properties. Even if this Court were to grant MVP
the injunction that it seeks, MVP will likely find itself lacking the necessary approvals from
FERC to do the tree-cutting it insists that it must begin, due to the time it takes FERC to approve
notices to proceed. Day 1, Tr. at 183:5 to 185:5. FERC still has not approved the limited notice
to proceed that MVP requested on January 5, 2018. Accordingly, it is unlikely that MVP can
obtain the necessary approvals before February 1, 2018, particularly since it has not even
requested those approvals. It is not access to Landowner’s properties that jeopardizes MVP’s
4. MVP’s Alleged Injuries Are Not “Imminent:” MVP Can Complete its Pipeline
in Compliance With its FERC Certificate and Shipping Agreements Even if
Access to Landowners’ Properties Were Delayed Until November 2018 or Later.
33 months away. P’s Ex. 1, FERC Certificate at 108. That takes this case beyond the purview of
Sage, where harm was imminent because the pipeline company had just nine months to complete
construction and would miss that FERC-imposed deadline without immediate possession. 361
F.3d at 829. MVP’s contingency plans and ability to mitigate delays (discussed above) further
MVP emphasizes that it must complete tree clearing by March 31, 2018 to protect certain
bat species (Day 1 Tr. at 122:2–17), but the tree-clearing window will re-open on November 15,
12
Day 1 Tr. at 180:3–6, 183:14–17. Landowners request that the Court take judicial notice of the
FERC docket and the fact that MVP’s three requested notices to proceed are not applicable to
properties that MVP seeks to condemn.
18
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD Document 318 Filed 01/20/18 Page 23 of 59 Pageid#: 7562
2018. Id. at 122:25, 123:1. Thus, if MVP is unable to complete tree clearing by March 31, 2018,
it can resume that activity on November 15, 2018—a delay of less than eight months. Even if
there were a 9-month delay in tree-clearing, MVP could still complete all activities on pipeline
construction and reclamation long before FERC’s project-completion deadline of October 13,
2020. Accordingly, MVP’s assertion that land-acquisition delays will impact its ability to meet
The only MVP project deadline that is not self-imposed is FERC’s project-completion
date of October 13, 2020. P’s Ex. 1, FERC Certificate at 108. Denying preliminary relief would
not jeopardize that deadline. As a result, MVP is not facing the same kind of irreparable harm
that the Fourth Circuit recognized in Sage, where delays threatened the pipeline developer’s
ability to meet its FERC deadline. 361 F.3d at 829. The schedule that MVP insists it needs
equitable relief to execute is a mere preference and is not mandated by any governmental agency.
The evidence adduced at the motions hearing establishes that, if MVP were to begin tree-
cutting when the species window reopens in November 2018, it would place its project in-service
by late 2019, and complete reclamation before October 2020. Day 1 Tr. at 215:14–17, 218:11–
13; Ds’ Ex. Nos. 3 & 4. Mr. Cooper testified that, in the summer of 2017, MVP created at least
two alternative schedules for implementation in the event that it was unable to timber the
pipeline route during the winter of 2017-2018. Day 1 Tr. at 210:25, 211:1–11. Under one of
those schedules, MVP would conduct construction activities on its compressor stations (where it
owns the property that it needs) during 2018, conduct tree-cutting on the pipeline route
beginning November 15, 2018, and achieve an in-service (or “turn in line”) date of November
28, 2019. Ds’ Ex. 3. Under the other schedule, MVP could delay all activities on pipeline
construction until commencing tree-cutting on November 15, 2018, and still achieve an in-
19
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD Document 318 Filed 01/20/18 Page 24 of 59 Pageid#: 7563
service date of December 7, 2019. Ds’ Ex. 4. Mr. Cooper testified that, under either of those
schedules, MVP would complete reclamation prior to October 2020, and neither of those
schedules jeopardized either FERC’s October 13, 2020 deadline or the June 1, 2020 in-service
date deadline in MVP’s shipping agreements. Day 1 Tr. at 214:13–25, 215:1–17, 218:11–15.
MVP’s project manager also admitted in his testimony that MVP would most likely build the
pipeline under one of those schedules in the event that it could not gain access to all properties in
In short, the emergency claimed by MVP is a false alarm. MVP can comply with all
species-protection restrictions and meet the FERC-imposed completion date even if it does not
obtain access to Landowners’ properties now. The only “deadline” that it will miss is its self-
imposed in-service date of late 2018. But MVP voluntarily assumed that risk when it designed its
preferred schedule—with full knowledge that that schedule might be unworkable at least as early
as the summer of 2017. Landowners do not deny that MVP might find immediate possession
convenient. Convenience, however, is not the legal standard for the extraordinary equitable relief
of a mandatory preliminary injunction. See, e.g., Citifinancial, Inc. v. Lightner, Civ. No. 5:06-cv-
145, 2007 WL 3088087, at *2 (N.D. W. Va. Oct. 22, 2007) (agreeing that “future inconvenience
and inefficiency” are “too remote and speculative to constitute irreparable harm”). Instead, MVP
harm. Dickson v. Morrison, 187 F.3d 629 (4th Cir. 1999). It has failed to do so.
Mr. Cooper testified that MVP would suffer certain “intangible” harm from delay,
described as harm to it “ability to elicit other business from other shippers that may wish us to
become their transporter and build them a project. It will bring great doubt in their mind that we
20
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD Document 318 Filed 01/20/18 Page 25 of 59 Pageid#: 7564
can complete the project as contracted. It also has the ability to make it difficult for us in our
negotiations when we resume with the other pipeline contractors to come back.” Day 1 Tr. at
139:20 to 131:1. Mr. Cooper thus attempted to identify two forms of alleged intangible harm: (1)
increased difficulty in soliciting shippers for other, non-MVP pipeline projects and (2) increased
difficulty in securing contractors on favorable terms on a later schedule. Neither type of harm is
cognizable. As to soliciting other business, there is no evidence even hinting that MVP has
another pipeline at any stage of development. Accordingly, the alleged harm is pure speculation
and insufficient. Direx Israel, 952 F.2d at 812. Likewise, the alleged harm vis-a-vis contractors
is a direct result of MVP’s voluntary entry into contracts with ill-advised deadlines, rendering it
self-inflicted and not cognizable. See, e.g., Davis, 302 F.3d at 1116.
Landowners’ potential harms, in contrast, are irreparable because they include irreversible
environmental damage. Further, any harm that would befall MVP stems directly from the fact
that MVP entered into contracts and shipping agreements in anticipation of a FERC certificate to
which it had no guarantee. Accordingly, from the beginning of this venture, MVP voluntarily
assumed risk to its time and capital. Nothing in its FERC Certificate (or any other source of law)
requires the schedule that MVP is urging. Landowners, in contrast, stand to suffer irreversible
environmental and property injuries if early entry is allowed and MVP subsequently fails to
obtain authorization to complete construction. See Ohio Valley Envtl. Coalition v. U.S. Army
21
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD Document 318 Filed 01/20/18 Page 26 of 59 Pageid#: 7565
Corps of Eng’s, 528 F. Supp. 2d 625, 632 (S.D. W. Va. 2007) (“Money can be earned, lost, and
Unlike MVP’s purely monetary losses, courts have routinely recognized that
environmental harm, such as timber removal, constitutes irreparable harm. See Amoco Prods. v.
Village of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 545 (1987) (“Environmental injury, by its nature, can seldom
be adequately remedied by money damages and is often permanent or at least of long duration,
i.e., irreparable.”). 14 Large-scale timber removal changes the landscape and alters forests,
waterways, viewsheds, and ecosystems. Early entry for timber removal would profoundly
damage many Landowners’ properties. Moreover, expert hydrogeologist Dr. Pamela Dodds
testified extensively about the potential harms to ground and surface water from pipeline
construction activities. See generally Day 2 Tr. at 89–102. The type of harm that Dr. Dodds
testified about is irreparable harm sufficient to support a preliminary injunction, see e.g., Sierra
Club v. U.S. Forest Service, 843 F.2d 1190, 1194–95 (9th Cir. 1988), so it is certainly sufficient
13
See also League of Wilderness Defs. v. Connaughton, 752 F.3d 755, 765 (9th Cir. 2014)
(finding that temporary delay of one year resulting in economic harm to ski resort developer was
not so substantial as to outweigh irreparable environmental harm faced by plaintiffs); Sierra
Club, 645 F.3d at 996–97 (finding that harm to an endangered mussel outweighed the possibility
that a power company would incur $11 million per month in economic loss if an injunction
issued); Alaska Ctr. for the Env’t v. West, 31 F. Supp. 2d 714, 723 (D. Alaska 1998) (longer
permit processing time was “not of consequence sufficient to outweigh irreversible harm to the
environment”); Citizen’s Alert Regarding the Env’t v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Civ. No. 95-1702
(GK), 1995 WL 748246 at *11 (D.D.C. Dec. 8, 1995) (potential loss of revenue, jobs, and
monetary investment that would be caused by project delay did not outweigh “permanent
destruction of environmental values that, once lost, may never again be replicated”).
14
See also Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011) (finding
timbering and loss of use of enjoyment of forested areas to constitute irreparable harm); Cronin
v. U.S. Dep’t of Agriculture, 919 F.2d 439, 445 (7th Cir. 1990) (recognizing timbering as an
irreparable harm); Environmental Defense Fund v. Tenn. Valley Authority, 468 F.2d 1164, 1183–
84 (6th Cir. 1972) (holding that cutting and burning of timber is the type of “permanent defacing
[of] the natural environment” to constitute irreparable harm supporting an injunction); Sierra
Club v. Bosworth, Civ. No. C-04-02588-CRB, 2005 WL 3096149 at *11 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14,
2005) (“Timber cutting that has an environmental impact always has a strong potential of
causing irreparable harm justifying preliminary relief.”).
22
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD Document 318 Filed 01/20/18 Page 27 of 59 Pageid#: 7566
to constitute harm to the non-moving party in the balance of the equities. Harm to Landowners’
cultural and historical resources, as established at the hearing and described below, also
constitutes irreparable harm. Quechan Tribe of Fort Yuma Indian Reservation v. U.S. Dept. of
Interior, 755 F. Supp.2d 1104, 1120–21 (S.D. Cal. 2010) (holding that balance of equities tipped
in favor of protecting historic and cultural resources pending completion of National Historic
Preservation Act procedures); Day 1 Tr. at 243:21 to 244:2 (Mr. Cooper agreeing that his
construction activities for the pipeline would irreparably alter areas with historic resources). As
an archeological expert averred in his declaration admitted into evidence, that harm would be
mitigated by delaying pipeline construction for a season to allow further study of historic and
cultural resources in the pipeline’s path. Ds’ Ex. 11 at ¶ 10. Finally, because MVP’s FERC
Certificate, or its underlying approvals, may be invalidated or modified on judicial review, there
is the real threat that activities under an early possession order from this Court could be for
naught and the pipeline may not be completed. Day 1 Tr. at 275:8–12. In such circumstances,
MVP’s early possession would constitute the wrongful exercise of eminent domain, which
constitutes irreparable harm. See Carpenter Tech. Corp. v. City of Bridgeport, 180 F.3d 93, 97
(2d Cir. 1999) (finding threat of irreparable injury presented by potentially wrongful exercise of
eminent domain); Tioranda, LLC v. N.Y., 386 F.Supp.2d 342, 350 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (holding that
deprivation of an interest in real property, and damage that would result from wrongful
condemnation, constitute irreparable harm); Monarch Chem. Works, Inc. v. Exon, 452 F.Supp.
493, 502 (D. Neb. 1978) (holding condemnation of land can result in irreparable injury).
Numerous landowners testified as to the harm they expect to incur if the Court grants
MVP a preliminary injunction. New River Conservancy (“NRC”) is unique among those
23
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD Document 318 Filed 01/20/18 Page 28 of 59 Pageid#: 7567
landowners. Its president, George Santucci, testified that NRC is a land trust that acquired an
easement, referred to as the Sizemore easement, on Giles County property because of its unique
environmental values. Day 2 Tr. at 197:23; 200:5-11. NRC does not hold the Sizemore Easement
for any pecuniary purpose. Id. at 203:15. Accordingly, when its property interests are injured,
NRC acquired the Sizemore Easement because of its important natural and
environmental resources, including forests and streams such as Little Stony Creek of the New
River. Id. at 200:5–11. The property features globally rare species, migratory bird breeding
habitat, and aquatic habitat, all of which would be permanently degraded by the proposed 6.5-
acre MVP easement. Id. at 208:10–11, 208:15, 208:19–20, 209:4, 203:11–12. The controlling
NRC deeds expressly prohibit the type of activity contemplated by MVP. Id. at 202:24–25.
NRC’s obligations to protect the easement in perpetuity even prohibit it from accepting an
easement offer from MVP. Id. at 208:4. For those reasons, NRC opposes the construction of the
pipeline and has requested a rehearing and a stay from FERC. Id. at 202:15.
None of the cases addressing early possession under the NGA have involved a
conservation easement, where a property owner cannot be made whole by just compensation.
Because this is a case of first impression, the Fourth Circuit’s harm analysis in Sage is
inapplicable. 361 F.3d at 829. The timing of harm from early possession of the Sizemore
Easement cuts against allowing Plaintiff access prior to final judgment because each day that the
Sizemore Easement exists, protecting the property from development and making its
environmental resources available to the flora and fauna of the New River Watershed, provides
incalculable value to NRC that cannot be justly compensated. Day 2 Tr. at 209:5–22.
24
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD Document 318 Filed 01/20/18 Page 29 of 59 Pageid#: 7568
Fern Echols, a landowner in Giles County, testified that the pipeline would be 40 feet
from her kitchen window and would require her and her husband to move from the home they
own outright and do not have the money to replace. Day 2 Tr. at 238:19–20, 239:9. Michael
Williams, managing member of Dowdy Farm, LLC, testified that the proposed pipeline would
cut his farm in half, impacting numerous springs used for domestic and livestock purposes. Id. at
278:12 to 279:18. Georgia Haverty, president of Doe Creek Farm, Inc., explained that she
currently has 21 weddings booked for 2018 on her 400-acre farm east of Pembroke, all of which
construction, resulting in lost profits and reputational harm that are likely not compensable in an
eminent domain case. Id. at 255:8–21. Such damages would not occur if construction were
Dawn Cisek testified about the impact of an access road that would come within feet of
her front porch, restricting her ability to access multiple areas of her property. Id. at 230:21–24.
Martin Morrison also testified as to the impact of an access road located less than fifteen feet
from his rental property, on a parcel he owns that was omitted from the plat MVP served upon
him. Id. at 331:13; 331:1-2. Richard Sizemore testified that the loss of income from seminary
students on the properties owned by Sizemore, Inc., and Eagles’ Nest Ministries, Inc., would
result in an inability to make mortgage payments on the property. Id. at 219:17-18; 220:5-10.
James Scott testified that MVP’s repeatedly-changing route, along with its recent letter
indicating that it is still searching for the best route for its pipeline, exposes him to the risk that
MVP could begin cutting trees on one route, and then abandon it for another. Id. at 273:9-14.
David Werner testified that Four Corners Farm, a business he and his family members
operate, would be irreparably harmed by the pipeline’s crossings of Teel Creek and Little Creek
25
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD Document 318 Filed 01/20/18 Page 30 of 59 Pageid#: 7569
and by early pipeline construction during the 2018 growing season. Day 2 Tr. at 310:19 to 311:2.
Kathy Chandler testified that MVP’s proposed route through her property threatens irreparable
harm to her well and numerous springs that supply water supply to her family and other residents
in the Bent Mountain Community. Id. at 319:14–24; 323:5–14; 324:12–13. She also testified that
the character of the Bent Mountain Apple Orchard Historical District, including Green Hollow
Lane (which MVP proposes to use as permanent access road), will be irreparably harmed by the
pipeline’s right-of-way and access roads. Id. at 326:4–12. Landowner Grace Terry testified that
the Coles Terry Historic District on her family’s property would similarly lose its historical
nature and designation due to the pipeline. Id. at 306:10–14. She also testified that MVP’s agents
unearthed 10,000+-year old artifacts on her family’s property, and that pipeline construction in
2018 would irreparably harm their ability to have experts study the archeological value of their
property. Id. at 307:1–12; Tom Triplett testified about the numerous springs on his property that
Steven Hodges testified that the proposed MVP route will run across the steep rim of one
sinkhole on his property and directly down the slope of a second sinkhole. Day 2 Tr. at 167:1–4;
167:10–13. He testified that due to the pipeline location and the steep slope, 96% of the soil in
the sinkhole area will erode into the open sinkhole, causing both surface and groundwater
damage. Id. at 168:18-23. Erosion into the sinkhole contaminates drinking water for Mr. Hodges
and his neighbors. Id. at 170:1–4. Mr. Hodges’ testimony establishes practically unquantifiable
harm to his own property and to the aquifer that the area residents rely upon. Don Jones, who
15
Mr. Triplett also testified that, prior to receiving MVP’s complaint, he never received any plat
of the proposed route through his property with MVP’s offer to purchase an easement. That is,
MVP never identified to Mr. Triplet the easement that it sought. As a result, MVP’s motion for
partial summary judgment must fail because MVP cannot establish that it was unable to acquire
the property by contract as required by 15 U.S.C. § 717f(h).
26
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD Document 318 Filed 01/20/18 Page 31 of 59 Pageid#: 7570
holds Power of Attorney for Defendant George Lee Jones, testified that his property is
characterized by springs and sinkholes, all of which are at risk due to MVP’s proposed route. Id.
at 176:4; 178:23; 179:6. Mr. Jones planned to build a family cabin on a ridge overlooking the
historic Jones family property. Id. at 180:1–3. However, the proposed MVP route eliminates the
cabin site as a feasible building location. Id. at 180:8. Water quality is also a chief concern for
Keith Wilson. His Franklin County property is subject to a proposed MVP access road that
would run directly over the well that supplies his home with drinking water. Id. at 184:4–5. The
road would pass no more than 40 feet from the Wilson home. Id. at 184:8. The road would lead
to the pipeline route, which would require the removal of old-growth forest on the Wilson
property. Id. at 185:22-23. The construction would be uphill from the only well supplying the
Wilson home with water. Id. at 186:17. Anne Bernard’s unique property has been a working art
studio for more than 20 years. Id. at 189:2. The proposed pipeline route goes directly adjacent to
the Bernard water well, residence, and art studio. Id. at 190:7-9. The pipeline would cross the
Bernard’s creek and field, while an MVP access road would occupy the Bernards’ driveway, the
sole access to the residence and art lesson space. Id. at 190:9–11, 191:17. The MVP route would
irreversibly disrupt the Bernard home, business, and art studio setting.
Defendant Robert A. Pegram submitted an affidavit about the harm he will suffer if MVP
were awarded immediate possession. Ds’ Ex. 10. Mr. Pegram averred that pipeline construction
would sever his septic system from his home. Mr. Pegram further averred that his land does not
“perc,” requiring placement of his septic field on a neighboring parcel, and that the septic and
plumbing structure on his property is specially designed to meet his particular health needs. Id.
¶¶ 4–8. Hence, severance of the septic field from the home renders the property virtually
27
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD Document 318 Filed 01/20/18 Page 32 of 59 Pageid#: 7571
unlivable. If construction were delayed until November 2018, Mr. Pegram would have time to
get his affairs in order and mitigate the impact of the accelerated construction schedule.
Angle and Mary E. Angle, who own three parcels at issue in this action. Ds’ Ex. 11. Mr. Joyner
averred that the Angles’ property contains valuable archeological sites dating back 15,000 years
that will be irreparably damaged by the construction of the pipeline. Id. ¶ 6. Study of these
archeological sites would assist to deepen scholars’ understanding of previous eras of human
development. Id. ¶¶ 6–8. Although delaying entry does not permanently preserve these sites,
Joyner notes that delay does provide the opportunity to excavate undiscovered and undisturbed
Because MVP’s FERC certificate and other environmental approvals are subject to
multiple petitions for judicial review in the United States Courts of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit and the District of Columbia Circuit, and because several regulatory agencies have not
rendered final determinations about whether they will issue necessary approvals to MVP, this
Court may not assume, as MVP would have it do, that the only question for the Court is whether
the pipeline should be built now or later. Even MVP concedes that its FERC Certificate and
other regulatory approvals could be vacated or modified on judicial review. Ex. 3, Tr. at 275:8–
12. If early possession is allowed, and judicial review confirms deficiencies in MVP’s regulatory
approvals or if an agency denies a necessary approval, then harms to Landowners and their
treasured environmental and historical resources will have occurred unnecessarily. In that way,
this case is different from Sage, where there was no indication that approvals for that pipeline
28
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD Document 318 Filed 01/20/18 Page 33 of 59 Pageid#: 7572
were subject to judicial review. 361 F.3d at 808. Harm to Landowners is not “simply a timing
argument” as it was in Sage because construction of this pipeline is far from certain.
Completion of the pipeline is also in doubt because MVP refuses to provide evidence
even attempting to establish that it has sufficient financial resources to complete the Project. If
MVP runs out of money before completing the project, Landowners will be left with cleared
rights-of-way, blasting damage, potential water loss and a useless pipeline on their properties.
Finally, the conditional nature of MVP’s FERC certificate also threatens to work
recent NGA condemnation action highlights how important it is for the Court to consider the
conditional nature of MVP’s FERC certificate before allowing early possession. In Constitution
Pipeline Co., LLC v. A Permanent Easement for 1.77 Acres, a landowner argued that an NGA
condemnation action against her was premature because the pipeline developer’s FERC
certificate was conditioned on an approval under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act from the
State of New York that had not yet been issued. Civ. No. 3:14-cv-2094, 2015 WL 1638370 at
*1–*2 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2015). The district court rejected that argument and allowed the
The State of New York subsequently denied the required Section 401 approval, and the
Second Circuit upheld that denial. Constitution Pipeline Co., LLC v. New York State Dep’t of
Envtl. Conservation, 868 F.3d 87, 90–91 (2d Cir. 2017). The Constitution Pipeline project is
essentially stalled, rendering pointless the destructive early construction in Pennsylvania under
The saga of the Constitution Pipeline underscores the harm to landowners that can result
29
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD Document 318 Filed 01/20/18 Page 34 of 59 Pageid#: 7573
from allowing early possession under a conditional FERC certificate. If the Court allows early
possession in this uncertain environment, it risks allowing MVP to irreparably damage the
environmental values of Landowners’ properties without any guarantee that MVP will complete
its project. Those harms outweigh MVP’s claimed irreparable injuries—which, as explained
above, are unlikely to materialize and are, in any event, not “irreparable.”
MVP continues to make changes to its proposed route, even as it asks the Court to allow
it to permanently alter properties along the route identified in the Complaint. Specifically, MVP
acknowledges that, although the FERC Certificate directs it to implement a route adjustment in
Montgomery County known as “Variation 250” (P’s Ex. 1 at App.C, p. 7), the route set forth in
the Complaint does not conform to Variation 250. After certain landowners identified this issue
in their opposition to MVP’s Summary Judgment motion on December 5, 2017, MVP waited
until January 2 and 8, 2018, to file an Amended Complaint purporting to implement parts of
Variation 250. See ECF Nos. 259, 260, 272, & 273.
numerous parcels of land. Compare, e.g., Exs. 78-A (ECF # 259-1), 79-A (ECF # 259-2), 80-A
(ECF # 259-3), 97-A (ECF # 259-4), and 98-A (ECF # 259-5) to Exss 78 (ECF # 1-78), 79 (ECF
# 1-79), 80 (ECF # 1-80), 97 (ECF # 1-97), and 98 (ECF # 1-98). MVP’s rush to condemn has
deprived Variation 250 landowners of the ability to fully use and enjoy their properties. The
uncertainty of where the proposed pipeline route will cross their properties makes it well nigh
impossible for them to sell, develop, mortgage, or otherwise exercise all the strands in their
bundle of property rights. See, e.g. Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164, 176 (1979);
Klemic v. Dominion Transmission Inc., 138 F.Supp.3d 673, 688 (W.D. Va. 2015).
30
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD Document 318 Filed 01/20/18 Page 35 of 59 Pageid#: 7574
The Variation 250 landowners, who include Michael and Margaret Slayton, Trustees,
Delwyn Dyer, Trustee, Robert and Donna Jones, Sandra Townes Powell, Thomas and Bonnie
Triplett, Phyllis Hutton, Henry Cox and Janet Degroff, and J. Garrett and Suzanne Baker, have a
right to know where MVP is actually seeking to construct its pipeline across their properties and
to not be deprived of the important rights of possession and use without due process of law. U.S.
Const., amend V. At base, due process requires strict compliance with the requirement of Rule
71.1 and allowing these owners (and any others affected by MVP’s numerous amendments to its
Complaint) the right to answer those amendments and raise appropriate objections and defenses
thereto, which otherwise would be waived under Rule 71.1(e)(3) if not timely asserted.
At the hearing, the Court expressed its concern over MVP’s recent route changes, which
also includes a route adjustment for the pipeline’s Pigg River crossing in Pittsylvania County
(ECF Nos. 274 & 275), filed with the Court on January 8. Day 1 Tr. at 83:12–16. These route
changes are the reasonable and foreseeable consequences of MVP’s decision to file its
Complaint only two weeks after issuance of the FERC Certificate. Because the FERC Certificate
includes numerous conditions which require route adjustments and coordination with numerous
affected landowners (see, e.g., Ps’ Ex. 1, FERC Certificate at App. C, Conditions 16, 17, 18, 23,
30, 32, & 33), and because MVP’s own evidence reveals that it is still working to meet those
action and cannot even identify for the Court where, specifically, it seeks early possession.
The situation of James and Karen Scott of Bent Mountain in Roanoke County perfectly
illustrates the schizophrenic nature of MVP’s routing. Mr. Scott testified that, over the past three
years, MVP has made no fewer than four route proposals to the Scotts, each different from the
previous. Day 2 Tr. at 260–72. The route set forth in the Complaint for the Scott property goes
31
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD Document 318 Filed 01/20/18 Page 36 of 59 Pageid#: 7575
directly through the proposed building site of a home for the Scotts’ eldest son, which already
has a septic drainfield approved and installed, as well as through a historic cemetery. Id. at 262.
Between April 2017 and January 2018, MVP did additional surveying on the Scotts’ property,
which revealed that MVP’s plats—which were based off Roanoke County tax maps—were
incorrect. Compare Ds’ Ex. 18 to Ds’ Ex. 19. Additional problems with the boundaries depicted
on those plats result in the Scotts’ neighbors being offered compensation for easements actually
Despite being directed by FERC to coordinate with the Scotts to address the concerns
created by MVP’s proposed route, MVP has failed to do so. Instead, MVP recently provided the
Scotts with yet another new drawing showing a new proposed route across their property (Ds’
Ex.t 19), but also showing numerous additional acquisition areas not previously provided to the
Scotts. Instead of coordinating with the Scotts, MVP seeks to bully them into agreeing to a
proposed new route with the threat of cutting trees on their property along the route identified in
the Complaint. Yet MVP has acknowledged that the route which avoids the cemetery and the
Under normal circumstances, MVP would be working out route changes with the Scotts
and other affected landowners before commencing a condemnation action and asking for early
possession. But in its desperation to meet a self-imposed deadline, MVP has abandoned all
pretense of fairness and due process. And even though MVP’s own witness acknowledged that
there are numerous unmet conditions, any one of which could postpone construction of the
pipeline, it recklessly asks the Court for a preliminary injunction under which it would enter the
Scotts’ property and begin clearing trees along a route it may never use. Irreparable harm to the
Scotts would follow if MVP obtains approval from FERC of the route change it claims to prefer.
32
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD Document 318 Filed 01/20/18 Page 37 of 59 Pageid#: 7576
Evidence at the hearing established that MVP is open to additional route changes on other
properties as well. The Town of Chatham, which owns property in Pittsylvania County on which
a closed landfill is located, introduced evidence that MVP never investigated the environmental
condition of the Town’s property before filing the Complaint and Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment. Although MVP’s representative testified that MVP would consider route adjustments
as it learns more about the status of the Town’s property, such tests and investigations should
have been done months if not years ago. MVP’s proposed construction, involving clearing and
grubbing the site, and excavating a trench across the site could create an environmental disaster
at the landfill property because MVP does not know the condition or contents of the landfill.
MVP’s routing problems are of its own creation, as it has had the ability to perform
numerous surveys on properties along its entire route in Virginia, whether with landowner
permission or under Section 56-49.01 of the Code of Virginia. Portions of its proposed route in
West Virginia remains unsurveyed, in part because the Supreme Court of Appeals of West
Virginia ruled MVP’s proposed pipeline was not for public use and, therefore, MVP could not
avail itself of the involuntary survey provisions of W.Va. Code § 54-1-3. Mountain Valley
Pipeline, LLC v. McCurdy, 238 W.Va. 200, 212 (2016). In contrast, this Court and others,
including the Supreme Court of Virginia, have held that entry without landowner permission for
survey purposes under Section 56-49.01 of the Virginia Code is permissible. See Klemic 138
F.Supp.3d at 698; Palmer v. Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC, 293 Va. 573, 584 (2017).
The very purpose of Section 56-49.01 is to permit companies like MVP to “select[] . . .
the most advantageous location or route” in order to avoid the very circumstance in which MVP,
by its haste, finds itself—with an approved route that it cannot build and numerous unanswered
questions as to where, precisely, it does intend to build. MVP’s communications to the Scotts
33
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD Document 318 Filed 01/20/18 Page 38 of 59 Pageid#: 7577
reveal that MVP is still trying to select the best route for its proposed pipeline, see Ds’ Ex. 20, all
the while asking this Court for a disfavored mandatory injunction permitting it to enter onto
private property and build along a route it long ago abandoned as not constructible.
MVP’s rush to condemn without ensuring that it even knows what it is condemning has
resulted in significant confusion as to what rights are being condemned and over what areas.
Landowners in this case have been hard pressed to understand the impact of the proposed taking
of their property rights. This confusion has led to what MVP’s own representative testified was a
surprisingly high number of properties over which MVP was unable to acquire easement rights
by purchase. Tr. at 167–68. Yet MVP’s response to the confusion it has sown is to insist that it
be permitted to enter properties and begin massive construction operations, even as it continues
to make route adjustments. Consequently, an order from this Court allowing MVP immediate
For reasons explained in the responses filed to MVP’s motion for partial summary
judgment, MVP is not likely to succeed on the merits. Landowners incorporate those arguments
by reference.
1. MVP’s FERC Certificate Does Not Establish That Immediate Possession Serves
the Public Interest.
MVP seems to suggest that it conclusively carries its burden of proof on the public-
interest prong merely by possessing a FERC certificate. See ECF # 7 at 11. If possessing a FERC
Certificate were sufficient, though, the public-interest prong would effectively drop out of every
NGA pipeline case. Injunctions are not automatic or awarded as of right. Winter, 555 U.S. at 24;
Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 313 (1982). Consequently, the Court should reject
34
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD Document 318 Filed 01/20/18 Page 39 of 59 Pageid#: 7578
MVP’s efforts to limit the public-interest analysis to whether or not it has a FERC certificate.
Even if FERC’s issuance of a certificate to MVP were to indicate public interest, nothing
in the FERC certificate suggests that immediate access to Landowners’ properties is necessary to
serve that interest. In fact, MVP’s FERC certificate suggests that any public interest the
Mountain Valley Pipeline will serve will be met so long as the pipeline is completed by October
13, 2020. See ECF # 1-2, FERC Certificate at 108. If FERC thought that the public need for the
Project was so urgent that construction needed to immediately commence, it surely would not
have given MVP three years to complete the Project when MVP admits that it can do so in less
than one year. As shown by the testimony of Mr. Cooper and MVP’s alternative schedules, tree
cutting can be delayed until November 15, 2018, with no impact on compliance with the FERC
Certificate. Day 1 Tr. at 214:13–25, 215:1–17, 218:11–15; Ds’ Ex. 3; Ds’ Ex. 4. That alone
shows that there is no public interest in immediate possession based on the FERC Certificate.
Moreover, the Court should not treat MVP’s FERC Certificate as conclusive on the
question of whether the Project serves the public interest. This is an “affiliate pipeline,” as there
is common ownership of the members of Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC, and the entities that
will ship gas on the pipeline. ECF # 1-2, FERC Certificate at 5–6 & nn. 12–15. MVP still has not
found end users for 87% of the pipeline capacity. Id. at 101 n. 286.16 In that way, this case is
distinguishable from Sage, where the project would “bring natural gas to portions of southwest
Virginia for the first time[, which will] make gas available to consumers, and it will help in the
efforts of local communities to attract much-needed new business.” 361 F.3d at 830. Here, in
contrast, MVP has proven no such benefits, instead generally alleging that its gas will be sold
somewhere—wherever supply and demand dictate—without yet finding the necessary end-users
16
The remaining 13% of the capacity could be used by customers of Roanoke Gas Company
(0.5%) and customers of Consolidated Edison (12.5%). ECF # 1-2 at 5–6, 101 n. 286.
35
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD Document 318 Filed 01/20/18 Page 40 of 59 Pageid#: 7579
of the gas. ECF # 6-1 at ¶ 6. Sage simply does not help MVP’s public interest argument.
promotes the public interest.” International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, 857 F.3d 554,
604 (4th Cir. 2017), vacated on other grounds, 138 S.Ct. 353 (2017).17 Landowners’ rights to
private property protected by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Even if the
public were to experience some inchoate, marginal benefit from having MVP’s pipeline come on
line a few months earlier than contemplated by FERC, such a benefit—which MVP has not even
attempted to quantify—would pale in comparison to the weight of public interests on the other
side: the risk that the Court will wrongfully bless the invasion of Landowners’ property and the
cutting of their trees in violation of the NGA, the Constitution, and other federal law.
Here, MVP has yet to show that its project will comply with all federal laws designed by
Congress to protect the environment, and because denying an injunction would prevent
permanent environmental damage, the public interest weighs heavily in favor of denying MVP’s
requested extraordinary relief. MVP has yet to obtain requisite approvals for its erosion and
sediment controls from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. P’s Ex. 9 at Bates
No. MVP_0013621. Obtaining those approvals is a condition of MVP’s Section 401 Water
Quality Certificate under the Clean Water Act, and, as a result, is now a condition of its FERC
Certificate. Day 1 Tr. at 185:15–22; 33 U.S.C. §1341(d) (providing that conditions of Section
17
See also Giovanni Carandola, Ltd. v. Bason, 303 F.3d 507, 521 (4th Cir. 2002) (“[U]pholding
constitutional rights surely serves the public interest.”). There is always a “strong public interest
in preserving constitutional rights.” Doe v. LaDue, 514 F.Supp.2d 1131, 1138 (D. Minn. 2007);
see also G & V Lounge, Inc. v. Mich. Liquor Control Comm’n, 23 F.3d 1071, 1079 (6th Cir.
1994) (“[I]t is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional
rights.”).
36
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD Document 318 Filed 01/20/18 Page 41 of 59 Pageid#: 7580
401 certifications become conditions of the federal licenses to which they relate). Preventing
harm to the environment that would result from allowing early possession and construction is in
the public interest. See Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Burford, 676 F. Supp. 271, 279 (D.D.C. 1985).
The public “has a strong interest in maintaining the balance Congress sought to establish
between economic gain and environmental protection.” Ohio Valley Envtl. Coalition, 528
F.Supp.2d at 633. Because outstanding federal regulatory approvals remain, the public has an
interest in maintaining the status quo to ensure that congressional mandates are fulfilled.
Moreover, the public interest lies in ensuring that conservation easements such as that
held by NRC are not prematurely extinguished. Preserving open spaces in their natural state in
perpetuity serves the public interest. See, e.g., Feduniak v. Calif. Coastal Comm’n, 148 Cal. App.
deductions for them in the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. § 170(h)) shows that conservation
easements serve the public interest. Johnson v. USDA, 734 F.2d 774, 788 (11th Cir. 1984).
Additionally, the public interest is served by the protection of historical and cultural
resources, as indicated by the enactment of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
(“NHPA”), 16 U.S.C. § 470 et seq. Under Section 106 of the NHPA, FERC must consult with
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation before allowing activity to proceed under a FERC
certificate. 16 U.S.C. § 470f. MVP concedes that it must demonstrate compliance with Section
106 prior to construction under Condition 9 to its FERC Certificate, as demonstrated in its status
reports to FERC regarding satisfaction of Condition 9. Ex. 1 at 3–4. Those consultations are not
complete. Although MVP asserted to FERC that it has executed a Programmatic Agreement
under Section 106, it admits that it is awaiting concurrences on a number of issues from the
37
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD Document 318 Filed 01/20/18 Page 42 of 59 Pageid#: 7581
historical resource agencies in West Virginia and Virginia. Id. Section 106 consultation is not
complete just because a Programmatic Agreement has been executed. Quechan Tribe of Fort
Yuma Indian Reservation v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 755 F.Supp.2d 1104, 1109 (S.D. Cal. 2010).
Rather, under the applicable federal regulations, compliance with the procedures set out in the
MVP needs under Section 106, the procedures set out in the December 15, 2017 Programmatic
Agreement have not been satisfied, leaving FERC Certificate Condition 9 itself unsatisfied.
Even if MVP were to take the position that the Programmatic Agreement is sufficient to
satisfy Condition 9, there is no indication in the record, or in FERC’s publicly available docket,
that FERC agrees that Condition 9 has been satisfied. Moreover, FERC Certificate Condition 15
also relates to historic and cultural resources and also remains unsatisfied, by MVP’s own
admission. Day 1 Tr. at 190. MVP cannot predict when that condition will be met. Id. at 190:4–
12, 16–25, 191:1. On December 26, 2017, FERC requested further information from MVP on
state review of cultural and historic resource issues, and asked MVP to advise FERC of projected
filing dates for state concurrences. Id. at 189:13–17. In its response to FERC on January 5, 2018,
MVP informed FERC that seven of the nine issues in West Virginia remained outstanding, and
that it had only sought West Virginia’s concurrence on those issues on December 22, 2017. Ds’
Ex. 2 at 17. Eighteen outstanding issues in Virginia still required concurrence. Id. at 13–14. MVP
By enacting the NHPA, Congress acknowledged the public interest in protecting historic
and cultural resources. Johnson, 734 F.2d at 788 (congressional intent and purpose establish
public interest). The record establishes that MVP has not resolved all outstanding issues related
38
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD Document 318 Filed 01/20/18 Page 43 of 59 Pageid#: 7582
to historic and cultural resources. Even MVP’s project manager conceded that, once MVP starts
construction in areas with historical and cultural resources, the areas would be irreparably
altered. Ex. 3, Tr. at 243:21–25, 244:1–2. The public interest favors protecting those resources
until the federal and state regulators conclude their review of the effects of the project on those
Finally, denying immediate possession is in the public interest in light of FERC’s abuse
of so-called “tolling orders” on requests for rehearing, which FERC maintains preclude judicial
review. The NGA provides that, before seeking judicial review, a party must first request
rehearing by FERC. 15 U.S.C. § 717r(a). Although the NGA gives FERC 30 days to act on a
request for rehearing, FERC insists that certificates are not final for purposes of judicial review
until it has ruled on the merits of such a request. Moreau v. FERC, 982 F.2d 556, 559–62 (D.C.
Cir. 1993). FERC has purported to delegate authority to its Secretary to “toll the time for action
FERC issued a tolling order on requests for rehearing related to MVP’s FERC Certificate
on December 13, 2017. ECF # 119-1. If this Court allows MVP early possession of Landowners’
property while those requests are in administrative purgatory, then Landowners may be deprived
of due process with no way to meaningfully exercise their statutory right to judicial review of the
very certificate on which MVP relies to assert that it has the authority to condemn Landowners’
property. To treat Plaintiff’s conditional certificate as final for one purpose—allowing it early
possession—yet treat it as not final for others—including for purposes of judicial review—
violates the public’s interest in the fair and equitable administration of the law.
39
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD Document 318 Filed 01/20/18 Page 44 of 59 Pageid#: 7583
property rights, the environment, and historical and cultural resources serve far more important
public interests that the immediate distribution of fossil fuels to already served markets.
Accordingly, this Court should preserve the status quo to protect the Landowners’ constitutional
rights and the environment, cultural, and historical resources along the pipeline route by denying
II. MVP May Not Take Private Property Based On the Evidence in the Record Regarding
the Appropriate Security.
Well-established principles of law relating to federal eminent domain make it clear that
MVP must establish the amount of the security by an independent appraisal. That requirement is
especially important in this case because MVP refused to provide any information about its
revenues, assets, debts, or even its general ability to pay for the taking after the fact. There is no
competent evidence before the Court regarding the value of MVP’s proposed take, and MVP is
obviously proceeding without the full faith and credit of the United States Treasury as a
backstop. No relevant principles of equity would allow MVP to take and cause significant
irreparable injury to Landowners’ property without absolute assurance that the landowners can
be made whole at the end of the day. It is indisputable that there is no such evidence before the
Court. The Court is not in a position to determine, pursuant to Rule 65(c), the “proper” security
that would make Landowners whole. Landowners respectfully assert that the Court may not
The Constitutional dimensions of this case remove it from the realm of run-of-the-mill
business disputes where injunctive relief is at issue. Indeed, so far as Landowners have
determined, none of the many Rule 65(c) bond burden cases addressed by federal courts and
relied on by MVP are takings cases. Just compensation is a Constitutional right, however, and a
landowner “is entitled to reasonable, certain, and adequate provision for obtaining compensation
40
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD Document 318 Filed 01/20/18 Page 45 of 59 Pageid#: 7584
before his occupancy [(i.e., possession)] is disturbed.” Cherokee Nation v. S. Kan. Ry. Co., 135
U.S. 641, 659 (1890) (emphasis added). As one law journal article analyzing Sage observes,
“[i]n a procedure for immediate entry, the property owner’s right to reasonable, certain and
adequate security for payment of just compensation is one of his or her most significant legal
protections. The protection is constitutional.” Jim Behnke & Harold Dondis, The Sage Approach
to Immediate Entry, 27 Energy L. J. 499, 529 (2006). Accordingly, applying principles from non-
eminent domain cases such as Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente União do Vegetal, 546
U.S. 418 (2006), or, respectfully, Volvo Group North America, LLC v. Truck Enterprises, Inc.,
Civ. No. 7:16-cv-00025, 2016 WL 1479687, *6 (W.D. Va. Apr. 4, 2016), is not justified because
As the Fourth Circuit observed, “the entire concept of the burden of proof does not lend
itself too readily to application in condemnation proceedings.” Bank of Edenton v. United States,
152 F.2d 251, 253 (4th Cir. 1945). There, the Fourth Circuit refused to hold that the trial court’s
“assignment of the burden of proof to the Government” was reversible error. Id. Because an
Indiana, 409 U.S. 1235 (Rehnquist, J., opinion in chambers), the burden of establishing all
To hold otherwise would not only risk violation of the Constitutional guarantee of adequate
rush the preliminary injunction process and seek an injunction with an insufficient nominal bond
when condemnees do not have the time or information necessary to prove the appropriate bond
amount. In Sage, the Fourth Circuit pointed out that “to obtain this intermediate relief, the gas
company must satisfy the strict requirements for a preliminary injunction. … In this case ETNG
41
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD Document 318 Filed 01/20/18 Page 46 of 59 Pageid#: 7585
was awarded possession only after it engaged in five months of intensive litigation that analyzed
and determined its right to take and its right to equitable relief (an injunction).” 361 F.3d at 825.
Here, in contrast, MVP jumped the gun; it was unable, in this abbreviated action, to meet the
Placing the burden to assure just compensation on MVP is also consistent with Sage’s
observation that, in NGA cases under Rule 65, the procedural safeguards in the preliminary
injunction context are sufficiently comparable to the provisions of the Declaration of Takings
Act (“DTA”) to protect landowners. 361 F.3d at 825. Further, to comply with the Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (the “Relocation Act”), 42
U.S.C. § 4261 et seq., when it initiates a “quick-take” under the DTA, a federal agency should
have already obtained an appraisal of the property at issue, prior to taking possession, in order to
“deposit[] with the court in accordance with [the DTA] . . . an amount not less than the agency’s
approved appraisal of the fair market value[.]” Id. § 4651(4) (emphasis added). The Relocation
qualified appraiser setting forth an opinion of defined value of an adequately described property
as of a specific date, supported by the presentation and analysis of relevant market information.”
Id. § 4601(13). In other words, when a federal agency acts under the DTA, the Relocation Act
provides that it should arrive in court with an impartial appraisal—not with an estimate and not
with its last offer. To be true to Sage’s reasoning, the Court should place a comparable burden on
In Sage and other cases, bonds were set based on appraisals. 361 F.3d at 824 (deposit set
“in an amount equal to the appraised value of the interests condemned”); In re Transcon. Gas
42
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD Document 318 Filed 01/20/18 Page 47 of 59 Pageid#: 7586
Pipeline Co., LLC, Civ. No. 1:16-cv-02991, 2016 WL 8861714, at * 11 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 10,
2016) (requiring the submission of appraisals to allow the establishment of a bond amount prior
to entry onto 43 parcels); Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC v. +/- 1.44 Acres of Land, Civ. No.
5:16-cv-164, 2016 WL 2991151, at *6 (M.D. Fla. May 24, 2016) (pipeline developer posted
“two times the amount of [its] most recent appraisal of the compensation owed”); Rockies Exp.
Pipeline, LLC v. 4.895 Acres of Land, Civ. No. 2:08-cv-554, 2008 WL 4758688, at *4 (S.D.
Ohio Oct. 27, 2008) (setting bond based on appraisal). In other cases, something other than an
appraisal has been allowed to establish a bond amount, but condemnees do not always
vigorously contest early possession the way they have here. See, e.g., Columbia Gas
Transmission, LLC v. 252.071 Acres, nos. ELH-15-3463, -3560, 2016 WL 1248670, at *7 (D.
Md. Mar. 25, 2016) (valuations on which bond was based were not contested by any landowner).
There are dozens of non-binding and frequently unreported district court cases, but they
establish no clear and consistent rule. The Court should, therefore, follow Sage—which involved
appraisals—rather than try to cobble together coherent law from inconsistent cases from district
courts, most from outside of the Fourth Circuit. The Court should recognize this case for what it
is. Equity cannot allow a private party without the full faith and credit of the U.S. Treasury to
take and cause significant irreparable harm to private property before the proper amount of a
below, MVP has not provided sufficient evidence to establish the amount of money necessary to
compensate landowners for harm from MVP’s early entry, MVP has deprived the Court of the
MVP failed to produce appraisals of each parcel, as a federal agency would pursuant to
43
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD Document 318 Filed 01/20/18 Page 48 of 59 Pageid#: 7587
the Relocation Act, despite having worked on this project for years. Instead, it offered only
inadmissible evidence. MVP hired an appraiser in May 2017, but did not request the preparation
of any appraisals until December 2017. Tr. at 302:2–4, 309:9–11. In 11 days, that firm produced
9 appraisals. Id. at 309:12–20. Mr. Long is not the only appraiser in Virginia. MVP could have
easily obtained admissible appraisals from other qualified appraisers, but chose not to do so.
interrogatories to MVP regarding the bond and MVP’s estimates of just compensation.18 MVP’s
responses stated that it was relying entirely on the opinions and anticipated testimony of Mr.
Long.19 Landowners also took the deposition of MVP pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6),
including on “[f]acts and information relating to the statements contained in the Declaration of
Robert J. Cooper on Access for Construction dated October 27, 2017” (ECF #228-5). The
Declaration of Robert J. Cooper includes the sworn statement that “MVP is prepared to post a
bond equal to its estimate of the just compensation due to the Landowners.” ECF #4-1 at ¶31.
The only evidence MVP identified in discovery was from Mr. Long, whom Landowners also
deposed. When asked about Paragraph 31 of his Declaration, Mr. Cooper stated that Mr. Long
MVP decided that its sole evidence on the amount of the bond would be the estimates of
Mr. Long. It misjudged the credibility and admissibility of that evidence. In U.S. v. Certain
Parcels of Land in Arlington County, 261 F.2d 287 (4th Cir. 1958), the Fourth Circuit clearly
18
Landowners’ Post-Hearing Ex. 1 (Ps’ Responses to Ds’ Common Set of Requests for
Production); Landowner’s Post-Hearing Ex. 2 (Ps’ Responses to Ds’ Common Request for
Answers to Interrogatories).
19
See Landowners’ Post-Hearing Ex. 1 at 6, 7 (Document Request Nos. 12 & 13 and Responses
thereto); Landowners’ Post-Hearing Ex. 2 at 16–17 (Interrogatory No. 18 and response thereto).
44
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD Document 318 Filed 01/20/18 Page 49 of 59 Pageid#: 7588
barred admission of evidence as to assessed value. “We think the sound reason for ruling out
evidence of assessed valuation is that it merely represents the opinion of persons who are not
called as witnesses and not subject to examination as to the factors on which they based their
opinion.” Id. at 290. See also id. (noting assessments to be “notoriously unreliable as a criterion
of true value”). On cross-examination, Mr. Long acknowledged many of the reasons why tax
assessed values may not represent fair market value. Day 1 Tr. at 304–08.
Moreover, Mr. Long’s methodology fails to meet the requirements Federal Rule of
Evidence 702. “Rule 702 imposes a special gatekeeping obligation on the trial judge to ensure
that an opinion offered by an expert is reliable.” Nease v. Ford Motor Co., 848 F.3d 219, 230
(4th Cir. 2017). With respect to reliability, the district court must ensure that the proffered expert
opinion is “based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge and not on belief or
speculation, and inferences must be derived using scientific or other valid methods.” Oglesby v.
Gen. Motors Corp., 190 F.3d 244, 250 (4th Cir. 1999).20
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 permits opinion testimony where the expert grounds his or
her testimony on technical or specialized knowledge that has been found through reliable
“principles and methods” that have been applied in a reliable way. In Daubert v. Merrell Dow
20
As the Court noted at the hearing, the Fourth Circuit has held that preliminary injunction
hearings are governed by “less strict rules of evidence” than would otherwise apply at trial.
G.G.ex rel. Grimm v. Gloucester Cty. Sch. Bd., 822 F.3d 709, 725 (4th Cir. 2016), vacated on
other grounds by Gloucester Cty. Sch. Bd. v. G.G. ex rel. Grimm, ___ U.S. ___, 137 S.Ct. 1239
(2017) (mem.). The reasoning of Grimm, however, does not apply to this proceeding for a
preliminary mandatory injunction. In Grimm, the Fourth Circuit reasoned that loosening the
evidentiary restrictions in preliminary injunction hearings is permissible because the purpose of a
preliminary injunction “is merely to preserve the relative positions of the parties until a trial on
the merits can be held.” Id. (quoting Univ. of Tex. v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981)). The
mandatory injunction sought in this case would not preserve the relative positions of the parties,
however. Rather, it would permanently alter the status quo. That, and the Constitutional nature
of the rights at issue in this proceeding, render it inappropriate to loosen the standards of Rule
702 merely because this is a preliminary injunction proceeding. To allow the evidence would, in
this case, produce the inequitable result of allowing harm to private property without assurance
that the landowner will be compensated.
45
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD Document 318 Filed 01/20/18 Page 50 of 59 Pageid#: 7589
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the Supreme Court explained that “[t]he focus, of course, must be solely
on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions that they generate.” 509 U.S. 579, 594–95
(1993). The Court created an illustrative list of factors to guide courts in evaluating the reliability
of expert testimony. Id. at 592. Those factors include the error rate, peer review or publication of
the methodology, and standards of control of the methodology. Id. The Supreme Court further
explained, in Kuhmo Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, that the trial court’s role is to “make certain
that an expert...employs in the courtroom the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes
the practice of an expert in the relevant field.” 526 U.S. 137, 152 (1999). Mr. Long’s appraisal
and testimony are inherently unreliable because he based his appraisals on tax assessments,
widely considered to be unreliable even in his own field of expertise. 21 Tr. 302–03. His
estimates, therefore, carry none of the intellectual rigor used in his field. Id.
Mr. Long admitted this method was unorthodox and not employed by peers in his field.
Tr. 319. As a result, not only was the basis for the appraisal—tax assessments—unreliable, his
adjustment of the assessments was invented solely for the purposes of this litigation, and it has
no relationship to the way an expert in Mr. Long’s field would practice. As the Seventh Circuit
has held, to admit evidence under Rule 702, the Court must be satisfied that “the expert is being
as careful as he would be in his regular professional work outside his paid litigation consulting.”
Sheehan v. Daily Racing Form, Inc., 104 F.3d 940, 942 (7th Cir. 1997). Mr. Long admitted that
his estimate was not the way that he would normally determine the value of property in a
condemnation proceeding and that he had never estimated the value of property in this way
21
Mr. Long insisted that what he had done was not an “appraisal.” Tr. 331. Notwithstanding, the
professional standards imposed by his own field would consider what he had done as an
appraisal. The USPAP defines an appraisal alternatively as either “[t]he act or process of
developing an opinion of value” or “an opinion of value.” Day 1 Tr. 328. As Mr. Long
explained, he rejiggered the tax assessments somewhat to create the valuation he presented to the
Court. It is undeniable therefore that what he did was an “appraisal” as defined by the USPAP
and, accordingly, Mr. Long should have followed the professional standards of his field.
46
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD Document 318 Filed 01/20/18 Page 51 of 59 Pageid#: 7590
before. Day 1 Tr. at 312:4–10. Mr. Long also admitted that his methodology had never been
subjected to peer review. Id. at 319:16–17. There are, therefore, no standards to apply to Mr.
Long’s methodology to ensure its reliability, and in fact there is evidence from his own field that
casts doubt on the reliability of appraisals of the type performed here. See Cuyuga Indian Nation
v. Pataki, 83 F. Supp. 2d 318, 323 (N.D.N.Y. 2000) (finding novel appraisal method
inadmissible under Daubert). It is MVP’s burden to establish the admissibility of expert opinion,
id. at 322, and MVP has failed to carry its burden. Accordingly, the Court should exclude Mr.
After realizing its error in attempting to offer Mr. Long’s inadmissible opinions, MVP
asked this Court to ignore the rules of discovery and fair play and allow it to offer new and
previously undisclosed testimony from an undisclosed witness at the last minute. The evidence
was presented after Landowners had rested their case and did not rebut any testimony offered by
Landowners. The testimony is inadmissible because MVP failed to disclose it in discovery (or
anywhere else), because it would violate Federal Rule of Evidence 408, and because offers are
To compound the difficulties, MVP called Mr. Wagner at the end of the hearing and
attempted to provide the landowners for the first time, at about 7:00 p.m., a thumb drive of offers
it alleges were sent to the property owners. The Court rightly sustained objection to the
admission of those documents. Although MVP identified Mr. Wagner in its disclosures as a
potential witness, the disclosure only states “Mr. Wagner is in charge of acquiring easements
needed for the project and, in addition, can testify that offers were made to acquire the
easements.” ECF #118 at 3. He was not qualified as an expert witness nor identified as a fact
47
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD Document 318 Filed 01/20/18 Page 52 of 59 Pageid#: 7591
witness who would testify about MVP’s estimate of just compensation in support of the bond or
even about the amount of any offers, merely “that offers were made.”22
In contrast, MVP made it clear both in written discovery answers and during the Rule
30(b)(6) deposition that Mr. Long was its only source of evidence as to the bond sum, expressly
stating that “Mr. Long will testify as to values to assist the court in setting a bond.” ECF #118-1.
MVP had the opportunity to disclose that Mr. Wagner would testify on the bond issue and
declined to do so, thereby prejudicing the Landowners, who had no reason to depose him to
discover the nature of his testimony. Accordingly, Mr. Wagner’s testimony must be excluded
Mr. Wagner admitted that MVP’s internal studies were prepared to make offers, not to
determine just compensation. The admission of settlement offers to either prove or disprove the
validity or amount of any disputed claim is prohibited. Fed. R. Evid. 408(a)(1). Further, Mr.
Wagner had no personal knowledge of how the offers were calculated, and merely relied on
others who actually calculated the offers. The persons who actually created the offers were not
identified in discovery, not produced for deposition, and did not testify at the hearing. As with
the evidence the court rejected in Certain Parcels of Land in Arlington County, Mr. Wagner’s
testimony relied on hearsay opinions of others not in court to be cross-examined. 261 F.2d at
290. See also Bank of Edenton v. United States, 152 F.2d 251, 253 (4th Cir. 1945) (explaining
that the law is well-settled that testimony regarding offers should be excluded in eminent domain
proceedings, citing Sharp v. United States, 191 U.S. 341, 348 (1903)). This Court should exclude
in its entirety Mr. Wagner’s testimony and any documents MVP sought to introduce through
22
In argument, MVP’s counsel tried to rearrange the words in its disclosure to change its
meaning, insisting that it disclosed that Mr. Wagner would testify “to offers that were made.” Tr.
Day 2 at 352:1-2 (emphasis added).
48
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD Document 318 Filed 01/20/18 Page 53 of 59 Pageid#: 7592
him.23
Under Sage and other cases like it, MVP had alternative means to provide this Court with
evidence of reasonable, certain, and adequate security: by presenting evidence that MVP had
sufficient financial strength to ensure payment. See Sage, 361 F.3d at 824 (finding adequate
assurance of just compensation based on $1.17 billion in revenue by taker in year before taking);
Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth. v. One Parcel of Land, 706 F.2d 1312, 1321 (4th Cir. 1983).
MVP elected not to do that, instead vigorously opposing any inquiry into its financial
circumstances and succeeding in blocking discovery on that issue. At the discovery hearing,
Landowners argued that such evidence was relevant to the determination of the proper security
and the assurance that MVP could actually provide just compensation, in light of evidence in
public filings that MVP does not have sufficient assets to meet its burden. MVP made a tactical
decision to exclude evidence of its financial strength, and must live with the consequences of that
decision.
D. Alternatively, If the Court Were Inclined to Grant the Injunctive Relief Sought, It
Should Require Further Discovery and Proceedings to Determine the Bond
Amount.
Because MVP will not suffer irreparable injury and because the bond amount proffered
by MVP does not meet the standards of the rules or of equity, the Court should not allow early
entry. If, however, the Court were to determine that early entry is appropriate, it should first
require competent evidence on the bond amount. In at least two cases, courts have refused to
allow early possession until competent evidence to support a bond is submitted. See In re
23
Mr. Wagner’s testimony is further deficient because it consists merely of an aggregate, leaving
the Court no ability to determine the security required for early entry on individual parcels. An
average will not suffice.
49
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD Document 318 Filed 01/20/18 Page 54 of 59 Pageid#: 7593
Transcon. Gas Pipeline Company, LLC, No. 1:16-cv-02991-ELR, 2016 WL 8861714, at *11
(N.D. Ga. Nov. 10, 2016) (directing the parties to submit appraisals in the absence of evidence in
the record of the condemned easements’ appraised value); Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC v.
76 Acres More or Less, in Baltimore and Harford Ctys., Md., No. ELH-14-0110, 2014 WL
2960836, at *16 (D. Md. Jun. 27, 2014) aff’d in part, vacated in part, and remanded by, 701 F.
App’x 221 (4th Cir. Jul. 2017) (holding that “Columbia will be required to post a bond in an
amount approximating the value of the easements to be condemned, which will be determined
after additional briefing”). In accordance with those cases, Landowners request that, if the Court
were to determine that MVP has met the Winter factors motion for preliminary injunction, it
prohibit entry until the constitutional requirement of providing adequate security is satisfied
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Landowners respectfully request that the Court deny Plaintiff’s
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Immediate Possession (ECF #4).
50
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD Document 318 Filed 01/20/18 Page 55 of 59 Pageid#: 7594
Roanoke, VA 24011
Telephone: (540) 998-7744
Facsimile: (304) 645-9008
isak@howell-lawoffice.com
Counsel for Law Office of Isak Howell
Defendants
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that, on January 20, 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing with the
Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to counsel
of record. I will serve the foregoing by United States mail, postage prepaid, on January 22,
2018, on the following defendants at the following addresses:
///
///
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ . P. 34, the Court ' s Order ofDecember 8, 2017, Dkt.
No. 205, and the Court's Order of December 29, 2017, Dkt. No. 255 , plaintiff , Mountain
Valley Pipeline , LLC ("MVP"), by counsel , for its Responses to Defendants ' Common
Set of Request s for Production, Dkt. Nos. 227, 228-2 , 229-2 , 230-2 , and 231-2 , states as
follows: 1
hearing on Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment or in support of its request for
Exhibit Maps;
Abingdon: I036204-T
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKDLANDOWNERS' POST-HEARING
Document 318-1 Filed 01/20/18 EX. 1 2 of 10 Pageid#: 7600
Page
".)
identified in its Initial Disclosures and other produced document s, including but not
limited to, documents produced at MVP _0008 192 - MVP _000833 1, MVP_000833 2-
MVP _ 000926 l , MVP_ 0008020 - MVP_ 0008191 , MVP_ 0009262 - MVP _ 0009264, as
well as MVP _0010002 -MVP _0010524 , and MVP_0012520 -MVP _0013350 , whic h
documents have been provided to defendants subject to appropriate redactions and the
Abingdon: I03620A·l
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKDLANDOWNERS' POST-HEARING
Document 318-1 Filed 01/20/18 EX. 1 3 of 10 Pageid#: 7601
Page
4
4. All documents given or received from any expert witness upon whose
testimony Plaintiff intends to rely upon in support of its motion for partial summary
governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(B) and (C). In response , MVP has produced
estimates, surveys, and appraisals of Miller, Long & Associates. In addition, . Mr. Long
documents' ' on this topic. Subject to this objection, MVP has already produced the
applicable alignment sheets and maps showing the easements over defendants ; properties.
available credit.
Abingdon:1036204-1
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKDLANDOWNERS' POST-HEARING
Document 318-1 Filed 01/20/18 EX. 1 4 of 10 Pageid#: 7602
Page
5
and/or other property interests that remain to be acquired for the construction and
construction .
10. All documents evidencing Plaintiffs budget for the acquisition of the
RESPONSE: The Court has sustained MVP ' s objection to Request 10.
all conditions in the Certificate Order, including, but not limited to, the pre-construct ion
conditio ns set forth in Append ix C to the Certifica te order. With regard to Condition 9 in
Appendix to the Certificate Order, respons ive documents include, but are not limited to,
Abingdon: 1036204--l
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKDLANDOWNERS' POST-HEARING
Document 318-1 Filed 01/20/18 EX. 1 5 of 10 Pageid#: 7603
Page
6
correspondence between or among Plaintiff, its consultants, and/or state and/or federal
regulatory authorities related to any federal or state approval required for the Proposed
December 6, 2017 ,
on this topic. Subject to this objection, MVP refers to and incorporates its response to
MVP _00111 32 - MVP _0011151, MVP _0012485 - MVP _0012507 and MVP _ 0009603 -
MVP _ 0009908, MVP_ 0011365 - MVP_ 0012484, and other docutnents being produced
with these Responses. MVP further states that Robert Cooper will be available to testify
due to each Defendant in this action, including, but not limited to, all appraisals and
on thjs topic. Subject to this objection , MVP refers to and incorporates its production of
estimates, surveys, and appraisals of Miller , Long & Associates, which documents have
been provided to defendants subject to the Protective Order entered by the Court (Dkt. No.
Abingdom1036204-1
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKDLANDOWNERS' POST-HEARING
Document 318-1 Filed 01/20/18 EX. 1 6 of 10 Pageid#: 7604
Page
7
13. All documents demonstrating how you have calculated the estimate
above.
14. All contracts or agreements you contend that will be impacted if you
are not granted immediate access to the Defendants ' properties as requested in your
documents have been provided to defendants subject to appropriate redactions and the
15. All agreements MVP has in place to begin shipping in 2018 , as stated
Abingdon; 1036204-l
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKDLANDOWNERS' POST-HEARING
Document 318-1 Filed 01/20/18 EX. 1 7 of 10 Pageid#: 7605
Page
8
document s.
17. All documents that relate to additional costs that may be incurred by
Plaintiff as a result of skipping or jumping a parcel during con struction of the Proposed
Pipeline .
RESPONSE: MVP reserves its objection to production of " [a]ll documents "
on this topic . Subject to this objection, MVP states that Robert Cooper will be available to
testify regarding costs resulting from "skipping or jumping a parcel dwing construction "
at his depos ition. MVP further states that the actua l costs depend on the location and
number of properties skipped. MVP further refers to and incorporates docume nts
produced at MVP_ 00 I 0002 - MVP_ 0010524, which documents have been provided to
defendants subject to appropriate redactions and the Protective Order entered by the Court
(Dkt. No . 254).
for the Proposed Pipeline , including , but not limited to, all documents related to Plaintiff's
contingency plans and/or schedules in the event that Plaintiff is unable to complete
required tree clearing by March 31, 2018 and all documents related to or setting forth
constru ction schedule s in which tree clearing , felling , and/or cutting begin s after
Abingdon: 1036204-l
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKDLANDOWNERS' POST-HEARING
Document 318-1 Filed 01/20/18 EX. 1 8 of 10 Pageid#: 7606
Page
9
on this topic. Subject to this objection , MVP refers to and incorporates MVP_ 0009262 -
MVP _ 0009264 and other documents being produced with these Responses. MVP further
By Counsel
Stephen M. Hodges
VSB No. 1220
Wade W. Massie
VSB No. 16616
MarkE. Frye
VSB No. 32258
SethM. Land
VSB No. 75101
PENN , STUART & ESKRIDGE
P. 0. Box 2288
Abingdon, VA 24212
Telephone : 276-628-5151
Facsimi le: 276-628-5621
shodges@,pennstuart.com
wmassie@pen nstuart.com
mfrye@pennstua1t.com
sland@pe nnstuart.com
~w,~
By_--C.---~-------
Wade W. Massie
Abingdon: 1036204- 1
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKDLANDOWNERS' POST-HEARING
Document 318-1 Filed 01/20/18 EX. 1 9 of 10 Pageid#: 7607
Page
10
CERTIFICATE OF SERV1CE
I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing has been mailed and
emailed to counsel of record and mailed to the following parties who have appeared pro
se:
Derek T. Hanes
Marion C. Hanes
7681 Grassy Hill Road
Boones Mill, VA 24065
Elijah Howard
Kri stin Howard
2219 Willis Hollow Road
Shawsville , VA 24162
Wade W . Massie
Abingdon: 1036204-l
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD LANDOWNERS'
Document 318-1POST-HEARING
Filed 01/20/18 EX. 1 10 of 10 Pageid#: 7608
Page
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33, the Court's Order of December 8, 2017, Dkt .
No. 205, and the Court's Order of December 29, 2017, Dkt. No. 255, plaintiff, Mountain
Valley Pipeline, LLC ("MVP"), by counsel, for its Responses to Defendants' Common
Request for Answers to Interrogatories, Dkt. Nos. 227-1, 228-1, 229-1, and 230-1, states
as follows:
proposed pipeline, including, but not limited to, Plaintiff's capitalization and financing
structure; its assets, liabilities, and available credit; and its estimates of pipeline
Abin_gdon,:
103620;!-1
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKDLANDOWNERS' POST-HEARING
Document 318-2 Filed 01/20/18 EX. 2 1 of 19 Pageid#: 7609
Page
2
construction costs , including, but not limited to, its costs associated with acquiring the
Plaintiff's efforts to satisfy each and every condition placed by FERC in the Certificate
Order , including , but not limited to , the pre-construction conditions set forth in Appendix
C to the Certificate Order. For Plaintiffs efforts to obtain "all applicab le authorizations
Certificate Order , describing such a required authorization as "pending " will not be
9: MVPhas All applicable authorizations required under federa l law have been
received all received or waived
federal
authorizations
13: MVP to file Nearly complete - MVP is awaiting final approval from the Virginia
revised E&S plans state agency for its temporary and perma nen t seed mixes and will file
that contain only this approval with FERC when rece ived
native species
Abingdon: 1036202,-l
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKDLANDOWNERS' POST-HEARING
Document 318-2 Filed 01/20/18 EX. 2 2 of 19 Pageid#: 7610
Page
3
15: Cultural Partially comp lete - MVP will file with FERC additional letters as
reviews and they are received from SHPOs
authorizations
comp leted before
construction of
facilities and/or
use staging,
storage, or
temporary work
areas and access
roads
16: Variation 250 Nearly Complete - awaiting SHPO concurrence on 1 cultura l report
and all associated
environmental
reports
18: Landowner- Nearly comp lete - 6 of 7 issues have been deemed complete ,
specific crossing attempting to work with landowne r on remaining issue
plans shall be
prepared in
relation to the
draft EIS
comments in the
specified
accession numbers
24: Water supp ly Nearly Complete - all plans have been developed. 7 of 10 have been
contingency plans signed off on, awaiting signature on final 3
prepared in
coordination with
PSDs
Abingdon: 1036202, 1
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKDLANDOWNERS' POST-HEARING
Document 318-2 Filed 01/20/18 EX. 2 3 of 19 Pageid#: 7611
Page
4
2 8 : Facilities: Nearly Complete- on November 21, 2017, United States Fish and
comp letion of all Wildlife Service transmitted its Biologica l Opinion to FERC. MVP
required will conduct and file outstanding portal surveys as additional land
biological surveys access is granted.
as well as Section
7 consultation
MVP further refers to and incorporates documents produced at MVP_ 0009265 - 9276,
MVP _0011132 - MVP _00 11151, MVP _0012485 - MVP_00 12507 andMVP_0009603 -
and/or cutting constitute "construction " for purposes of the pre -construction conditions set
RESPONSE: MVP states that the FERC has found non-mechanized tree-
felling to be a pre -construction activity for other similar projects. In order to begin non-
Abingdon~ I036202-i
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKDLANDOWNERS' POST-HEARING
Document 318-2 Filed 01/20/18 EX. 2 4 of 19 Pageid#: 7612
Page
5
mechanized tree-felling, MVP would need to request a limited notice to proceed from the
FERC for that activity, including a description of the.areas where MVP requests to cut
trees. Ultimately, it is up to the FERC to decide the certificate conditions that must be met
to allow tree-felling to occur in tho se areas. For other projects , FERC has allowed non-
whic h Plaintiffs tree clearing , felling, and/or cutting are subject to time restrictions
related to animal species, including , but not limited to bats, and please identify those time
restrictions.
RESPONSE: MVP states that for any properties that are identified as
containing known-use summer habitat or spring staging /fall swarming habitat for Indiana
bats, trees must be cleared between November 15 and March 31, when bats are
hibernating. For areas of unknown use summer habitat, trees may not be cleared between
June l and July 31, when young bats cannot fly. For areas of unknown use spring
staging /fall swarming habitat , trees must be removed between November 15 and March
31, or potentially in April, May, August, and September. With regard to areas of
unknown use, in order to minimize impact to the species, the preference is to complete
clearing during the winter months. MVP further refers to and incorporates MVP_ 0012508
identifying the properties where tree clearing , felling , or cutting , whic h will occur within
the easement area on the properties, are subject to time restrictions related to animal
Abingdon: 1036202-1
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKDLANDOWNERS' POST-HEARING
Document 318-2 Filed 01/20/18 EX. 2 5 of 19 Pageid#: 7613
Page
6
species. MVP continues to do surveying and additional properties may be added once that
surveying is complete . MVP also refers to and incorporates MVP MVP 0012509 ,
- -
MVP _0011152 - MVP_OOI 1364, and MVP _0010920-MVP _00l 1003. Mr. Cooper will
surveys remain outstanding and (2) any time restrictions as to when such surveys can be
outstanding surveys to be conducted and any related time restrictions . MVP further
incorporates MVP _0012509. By way of further answer , MVP states that with respect to
bat portals , for example , it is critical to complete biological searches along the MVP
Project easement area, access roads , and aboveground and ancillary facilities during the
winter clearing window so that a biologist could access these locations to determine if bats
are hibernating, or if trees could be cleared in the v icinity of potential hibemacula prior to
March 31, 2018. These searches are conducting by walking along the proposed project
path and searching not only for holes in the ground , but also tailings , slag, benches , high-
walls, seams , vents, drainage , abandoned structures , and areas of auger activity that could
indicate the potential presence of open mine portals . If searche s are not conducted during
the winter and a potential portal is identified in the spring or summer months , MVP would
then have to wait for portal trapping , which can be conducted between September 15 -
Abingdon: 1036202-1
delayed from clearing trees within the buffer area until at least November 15, 2018. It is
also beneficial to begin the process of identifying potentially suitable habitat for bog
turtles as soon as possib le so that , if such habitat is located , MVP can begin discussions
with the relevant agencies regarding a plan for additional surveying , which is required to
be conducted from April to June, and determine whether , to the extent bog turtles are
identified, they need to be avoided or relocated, which has significant potential to delay
construction in those areas. With respect to plants, to the extent certain species are
identified in the project area, MVP may be required to reinitiate the time -int ensive process
of formal consultation with the United States Fish and Wi ldlif e Service to amend the
those spec ies. MVP ' s ability to 1ule out certain areas from consi deration for particular
species through an early habitat assessment greatly facilitates MVP's project planning for
contemp lated by P laintiff account for the possibility that Plaintiff may be unable to
comp lete tree clearing , fell ing, and/or cutting in sensitive areas before March 3 1, 2018.
sensitive environme ntal areas prior to March 31, 2018 . MVP states, however, that any
Abingdon: I036202,I
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKDLANDOWNERS' POST-HEARING
Document 318-2 Filed 01/20/18 EX. 2 7 of 19 Pageid#: 7615
Page
8
alternative constru ction schedules other than the one proposed will jeopardize its ability to
meet the requirements of its FERC Certificate and give rise to additional environmental
risk and substantial harm to MVP , whic h Mr. Cooper can exp lain further at his deposition .
MVP further states that if it is unable to complete tree-clearing by March 3 1, 2018 , and
must instead begin tree-clearing on November 15, 20 18, MVP's entire construction
schedule will be delayed and MVP will be impeded from safe ly and effective ly
accomplishing the MVP Project on schedule du e to issues including , but not limited to ,
workforce availability , safety issues, and other delays arising from having to perform
construction activities during winter weather cond ition s. MVP further refers to and
Plaintiff that would re sult if Plaintiff were unable to obtain an order in this civil action
allowing immediate pos session , including an inability to complete tree clearing , felling ,
and/or cutting in sensitive areas before March 31 , 20 18. In your response, please provide a
MVP_ 00105 24, which documents have been pro vided to defendants subject to appropriate
redactions and the Protective Order entered by the Court (Dkt . No. 2 54), and which
contain provisions relat ing to delay damages. By way of example , see MVP _ 00 I 0082 -
Abingdon; I036202-1
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKDLANDOWNERS' POST-HEARING
Document 318-2 Filed 01/20/18 EX. 2 8 of 19 Pageid#: 7616
Page
9
MVP _0010085. MVP further states that for every month that the MVP Project is delayed,
MVP wou ld lose $40-50 million in revenue. 1 IfMVP is unable to obtain possession of the
properties at issue and begin pre-construction and construction activities on the requested
timeline, it will also sustain construction delay and cancellation fees of up to $200 million.
MVP_ 00 11131. In addition, MVP will incur an additional $45 million in costs relating to
project administration if work is delayed from April 1, 2018, to November 15, 2018 .
8. Please describe in detail the project schedule showing how MVP will
be able to complete the pipeline project between February 2018 and December 2018, as
MVP_ 0009262 - MVP_ 0009264. MVP further states that it expects to request permission
from the FERC to bring the pipeline into service, prior to completion of reclamat ion, by
December 20 18.
9. Please list all the natural gas pipeline projects MVP or any of its
Affiliates has undertaken requiring the issuance of an injunction for immediate possession
Abingdon: 1036202-1
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKDLANDOWNERS' POST-HEARING
Document 318-2 Filed 01/20/18 EX. 2 9 of 19 Pageid#: 7617
Page
IO
10. Please list all the natura l gas pipeline projects MVP or any of its
Affiliates has undertaken not requiring the issuance of an injunction for immediate
RESPONSE: The Court has sustained MVP 's objection to Interrogatory 10.
identified in Paragraph 3 of the Cooper Declaration, and for each such regulation , pennit
RESPONSE: MVP states that the MVP Project will be designed and
constructed in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations,
Regulations
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 49, Part 192: Department of Transportation
(PHMSA/DOT) , Transportation of Natural and Other Gas by Pipeline; Minimum Safety
Standards
ASTM A694/A694M- Standard Specifications for Carbon and Alloy Steel Forgings for
Pipe Flanges, Fittings , Valves, and Parts for High-Pressure Transmission Service
ANSI/NFP A 70 - National Electrical Code
Abingdon: 1036202•1
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD LANDOWNERS'
Document 318-2POST-HEARING
Filed 01/20/18 EX. 2 10 of 19 Pageid#: 7618
Page
11
Permits
Abingdon: 1036202-1
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD LANDOWNERS'
Document 318-2POST-HEARING
Filed 01/20/18 EX. 2 11 of 19 Pageid#: 7619
Page
12
Construction Activities
WVDEP, Division of Water and Section 402 CWA NPDES Hydrostatic Test
Waste Management Di scharge Permit
WVDEP, Division of Water and Natural Streams Preservation Act
Waste Management
Virginia Department of Section 401 CWA - Water Quality Certification /
Env ironmental Quality (VDEQ) - Virginia Water Protection Permit
Water Division
Virginia Department of Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Program /
Environmental Quality (VDEQ) - Virginia Stormwater Management Program -
Water Division Pro ject-Specific Standards and Specifications
Virginia Department of Virginia Erosion and Sedimen t Control Program /
Environmental Quality (VDEQ) - Virginia Stonnwater Management Program - by
Water Division mileage breakdown
Virginia Department of Section 402 CWA NPDES Hydrostatic Test
Environmental Quality (VDEQ) - Discharge Permit (General Permit VAG83)
Water Division
Virg inia Department of Historic Section 106 NHPA Consultations and comments on
Resources cultural resource investigations
MVP's activities in connection with the above include, but are not limited to, applying for
permits and conducting surveying activities where access has been permitted. MVP
further refers to and incorporate s documents produced at, including , but not limited to,
well as MVP_ 00 I 0002 - MVP_ 0010524, which documents have been provided to
defendants subject to appropriate redactions and the Protective Order entered by the Court
Abingdo~ 1036202.-l
12. Please state all facts in support of the claim , in Paragraph 12 of the
Cooper Declaration , that "MVP needs access to the permanent and exclusive rights-of-
workspace rights -of-way across the Landowners' properties by February 1, 2018 to begin
construction activities in order to safely and effectively accomplish the MVP Project on
schedule.'·
March 31 , 2018, and must instead begin tree-clearing on November 15, 2018, MVP 's
entire construction schedule will be delayed and MVP will be impeded from safely and
effectively accomplishing the MVP Project on schedule due to issues including , but not
limited to, workforce availability, safety issues , and other delays arising from having to
construction schedule is predicated on completing work so that the pipeline is brought into
service as of December 2018, including the comp letion of initial restoration work prior to
the onset of winter conditions , which impedes MVP from ensuring installation of adequate
environmental stabi lization and restorat ion measures for exposed areas of the easement.
MVP also refers to and incorporates its responses to Interrogatory Nos. 4-6. MVP refers
documents have been provided to defendants subject to appropriate redactions and the
Abingdon: 1036202-1
Cooper Declaration which are owned by any of the Defendants in this litigation , and for
each property so identified , state whether Plaintiff seeks to fell and clear trees for service
facilities and access roads , and/or whether the property is impacted by endangered specie s,
the Cooper Declaration , that "MVP 's construction schedule is designed to protect a
number of environrnentaUy sensitive species of bats and migratory birds along dozens of
MVP _0012509 identifying the mechanisms by which MVP ' s construction schedul e will
Cooper Declaration , and for each property so identified, identify the species of protected
Abtngdon: I 036102-1
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD LANDOWNERS'
Document 318-2POST-HEARING
Filed 01/20/18 EX. 2 14 of 19 Pageid#: 7622
Page
15
outstanding surveys to be conducted and the protected species that may exist on those
ptoperties. MVP continues to do surveying and additional properties may be added once
Paragraph 22 of the Cooper Declaration, and for each such restrict ion so identified, state
the factual basis for the assertion that such restrictions "require the tree clearing to be
complete prior to March 3 1, 20 18, for locations with protected bats, and prior to May 31,
activities in February 2018" and that "MVP also has [sic] must comply with
administrative agency regulations of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service requiring
that certain clearing be complete by March 31, 2018, and that construction of roads be
complete by March 31, 2018." In your answer, please identify with particular ity the
"fines" to which the Plaintiff may be subject to and/or the "damages " which the Plaintiff
Abingdon: 1036202-1
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD LANDOWNERS'
Document 318-2POST-HEARING
Filed 01/20/18 EX. 2 15 of 19 Pageid#: 7623
Page
16
RESPONSE: MVP states that the entire MVP Project risks being subjected
to the FERC's "stop work authori ty" if MVP fails to comply with applicable
environmental regulations. Certificate Order , Doc. No. 1-2, at App. C. MVP further
refers to and incorporates its responses to Interrogatory Nos. 4-5, and 7 and the FBRC
MVP_ 0010080 - MVP _ 0010524 , which documents have been provided to defendants
subject to appropriate redactions and the Protective Order entered by the Court (Dkt. No .
254).
referred to in Paragraph 31 of the Cooper Declaration, including how it was calculated and
in the fair market value of the property as measured by looking at the fair market value
before and after the taking. 2 MVP further refers to and incorporates its surveys of land
Abingdon; 1036202· 1
values, MVP _0012520-MVP _0 013350, and other documents produced with these
redactions and the Protective Order entered by the Court (Dkt. No. 254), for purpo ses of
19. Please identify and describe the effect on the easements sought to be
acquired by contract or condemned in this action of FERC 's requirement that P laintiff
adopt the route variation in Montgomery County, Virginia, referred to as Alternate 250 or
Variation 250.
RESPONSE: See Amendments to Paragraphs 82, 83, 84, 101, and 102 of
By Counse l
Abingdon: !036202· 1
Case 7:17-cv-00492-EKD LANDOWNERS'
Document 318-2POST-HEARING
Filed 01/20/18 EX. 2 17 of 19 Pageid#: 7625
Page
18
Stephen M. Hodges
VSB No. 1220
Wade W. Massie
VSB No. 16616
MarkE. Frye
VSB No. 32258
SethM . Land
VSB No. 75101
PENN, STUART & ESKRIDGE
P. 0 . Box 2288
Abingdon , VA 24212
Telephone: 276-628 -5151
Facsimile: 276-628-5621
shodges @pcnnsturut.com
wmassie@pennstuart.com
mfrve @pe nnstuart.com
sland@ pennsturut.com
By ~}'V,~
Wade W. Massie
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing has been mailed and
emailed to counsel of record and mailed to the following parties who have appeared pro
se:
Derek T. Hanes
Marion C. Hanes
7681 Grassy Hill Road
Boones Mill , VA 24065
Elijah Howard
Kristin Howard
2219 Willis Hollow Road
Shaws ville, VA 24162
Abingdon: 1036202- 1
Wade W. Massie
Abingdon: 1036202-1