ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE, LLC ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE...

ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE, LLC

ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE

Docket Nos. CP15-554-000 &

CP15-554-001

and

DOMINION TRANSMISSION, INC.

SUPPLY HEADER PROJECT

Docket No. CP15-555-000

Response to Environmental Information Request

Dated August 12, 2016

Assembled by

August 23, 2016

Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC and Dominion Transmission, Inc.

Docket Nos. CP15-554-000, CP15-554-001, & CP15-555-000

Response to Environmental Information Request Dated August 12, 2016

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Question Number: 1 .........................................................................................................................1 Question Number: 2 .........................................................................................................................8 Question Number: 3 .........................................................................................................................9 Question Number: 4 .......................................................................................................................11

Question Number: 5 .......................................................................................................................13 Question Number: 6 .......................................................................................................................15 Question Number: 7 .......................................................................................................................16 Question Number: 8 .......................................................................................................................17 Question Number: 9 .......................................................................................................................18

Question Number: 10 .....................................................................................................................21 Question Number: 11 .....................................................................................................................24

Question Number: 12 .....................................................................................................................30

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1 Spruce Creek Route Variation .....................................................................5

Table 6.1-2 Slope Classes Crossed by the Atlantic Coast Pipeline on the

Monongahela National Forest, George Washington National Forest,

and Blue Ridge Parkway ............................................................................11 Table 6.4.2-1 Landslide Incidence and Susceptibility Areas Crossed by the Atlantic

Coast Pipeline on the Monongahela National Forest, George

Washington National Forest, and Blue Ridge Parkway ............................11

Table 5-1 Summary of Existing Land Uses Affected by Construction and

Operation of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline on Federal Land ........................14 Table 6-1 Construction and Operational Impacts on Federal Lands Along

Segment AP-1 on Small, Medium, and Large Trees .................................15 Table 7-1 Miles of Recently Harvested, Early/Mid Seral, and Late Seral Forests

on Federal Lands along Segment AP-1 .....................................................16 Table 2.12-1 U.S. Forest Service System Roads Crossed by the AP-1 Mainline on

U.S. Forest Service Lands ..........................................................................19 Table 2.12-2 U.S. Forest Service System Roads Proposed as Access Roads on U.S.

Forest Service Lands ..................................................................................20

Table 8.7.1-1 Monongahela National Forest and George Washington National

Forest Management Prescription Areas Crossed by the Atlantic Coast

Pipeline ......................................................................................................26 Table 115-1/115-2 Monongahela National Forest and George Washington National

Forest Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Areas Crossed by the

Atlantic Coast Pipeline ..............................................................................27 Table 8.11.2-1a Scenic Class Areas (Crossings by Pipeline Milepost) on the

Monongahela National Forest for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline ..................28 Table 8.11.2-1b Scenic Class Areas (Acres by Scenic Class Area) on the

Monongahela National Forest for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline ..................28


Docket Nos. CP15-554-000 & CP15-554-001


ii

Table 8.11.2-2a Scenic Integrity Objectives (Crossings by Milepost) on the George

Washington National Forest) for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline ...................29 Table 8.11.2-2b Scenic Integrity Objectives (Acres by Scenic Integrity Objective) on

the George Washington National Forest for the Atlantic Coast

Pipeline ......................................................................................................29

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1 Locations of Aboveground Historic Sites in the Vicinity of the

Proposed Route and Spruce Creek Route Variation ....................................4

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Q1 Attachment 1 Landowner List for the Spruce Creek Route Variation (Contains

Privileged Information – Do Not Release)

Q3 Attachment 1 Figures Depicting Occurrences of Bachman’s Sparrow and

Cerulean Warbler Near the Atlantic Coast Pipeline in North

Carolina (Contains Privileged Information – Do Not Release)

Q3 Attachment 2 Desktop Assessment for Bachman’s Sparrow in North Carolina

Q3 Attachment 3 Desktop Assessment for Cerulean Warbler in North Carolina

Q10 Attachment 1 Update to Appendix 8J

Q11 Attachment 1 Updates to Appendices 8Ha and 8Hb

Q12 Attachment 1 Microwave Tower Sites




1

Question Number: 1

Question Subpart: a

Question:

Regarding the Spruce Creek Route Variation that was filed by Atlantic on March 10, 2016:

a. Identify all affected landowners along the Spruce Creek Route Variation as

defined in 18 CFR 157.6(d)(2).

Response:

All affected landowners along the Spruce Creek Route Variation are identified in Q1 Attachment

1. This attachment is labeled “Contains Privileged Information – Do Not Release”.

Response Provided By:

Leighton McCoy

Director Engineering Services

804-775-5527




2

Question Number: 1

Question Subpart: b

Question:


b. Clarify the number and location of historic properties that would be crossed by

the proposed route and Spruce Creek Route Variation. 1 Update the resource

impact comparison table as necessary.

Response:

Atlantic provided updated information on the number and types of previously recorded

aboveground historic sites located along the Spruce Creek Route Variation and corresponding

segment of the proposed route in its supplemental filing on July 29, 2016 (FERC Accession

Number 20160729-5256). 2 The route variation crosses two previously recorded aboveground

historic sites, and the corresponding segment of the proposed route crosses one.

Both routes cross the South Rockfish Valley Rural Historic District (62-5119), which

encompasses historic farmsteads and small crossroads communities within an agricultural

landscape. The district was determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register of

Historic Places (NRHP) in 2010 under Criterion A for its association with the early agricultural

history of the area and Criterion C for its architecture. The district is currently under review for

listing on the NRHP. Because the district is eligible for listing on the NRHP, it is considered a

“historic property”.

The second previously recorded aboveground historic site crossed by the Spruce Creek Route

Variation is the Elk Hill historic house and farm complex (062-0005), which dates from the

nineteenth century. This site has not been evaluated to determine its eligibility for listing on the

NRHP on an individual basis, but is included within the South Rockfish Valley Rural Historic

District. Therefore, the Elk Hill historic house and farm complex is a component of a larger site

which is considered a “historic property”.

1 Atlantic assumes that the reference to “historic property” in this question refers to properties which are listed on or eligible for listing on the

National Register of Historic Places. 2 Atlantic’s comparison of the Spruce Creek Route Variation to the corresponding segment of the proposed route only considered previously

recorded sites. Field survey results for the proposed route, where available, were not included in the analysis to provide for an apples-to-

apples comparison with the route variation, which was not surveyed for cultural resources. Field survey to date along the corresponding

segment of the proposed route identified one new aboveground historic site, a ca. 1900 residence (062-5161), which is located adjacent to, but outside of, the South Rockfish Valley Rural Historic District. The newly recorded site, which is recommended not eligible for listing on

the NRHP, is discussed in Atlantic’s report titled Architectural Reconnaissance Survey of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline Corridor, Highland

Augusta, Nelson, Buckingham, Cumberland, Prince Edward, Nottoway, Dinwiddie, Brunswick, Greensville, and Southampton Counties, and the Cities of Suffolk and Chesapeake, Virginia. A draft of this report was provided with Atlantic’s Application on September 18, 2015

(FERC Accession Number 20150918-5213), and an updated report addressing comments from FERC staff was provided on April 15, 2016

(FERC Accession Number 20160415-5015). The Virginia Department of Historic Resources concurred that the site is not eligible for listing on the NRHP in a letter to Atlantic dated November 2, 2015. A copy of that letter was provided in a supplemental filing on

November 13, 2015 (FERC Accession Number 20151113-5192). Because the newly recorded site is not eligible for listing on the NRHP, it

is not considered a “historic property”. The location of the site is depicted in Figure 1-1.




3

Figure 1-1 depicts the boundaries of the South Rockfish Valley Rural Historic District, Elk Hill

historic house and farm complex, and other nearby historic sites relative to the Spruce Creek

Route Variation and corresponding segment of the proposed route. The boundaries for the sites

as depicted on the figure were obtained from the site files maintained by Virginia Department of

Historic Resources.

Table 1-1 is an updated resource impact comparison table for the Spruce Creek Route Variation

and corresponding segment of the proposed route. The table indicates crossings of two

previously recorded aboveground historic sites for the Spruce Creek Route Variation, and one

previously recorded site for the corresponding segment of the proposed route.


Robert Bisha

Environmental Technical Advisor

804-273-3010

4

Figure 1-1: Locations of Aboveground Historic Sites in the Vicinity of the Proposed Route and Spruce Creek Route Variation.


Docket Nos. CP15-554-000 & CP15-554-001


5

TABLE 1-1

Spruce Creek Route Variation

Features Unit Proposed Route Spruce Creek Route Variation

Length (total) miles 3.0 3.6

Adjacent to existing linear corridor facilities (total) miles 0.0 0.0

Primary U.S. or State/Commonwealth highways crossed number 1 2

Other State/Commonwealth or local roads crossed number 3 3

Property owners affected number 22 15

Residences within 125 feet of the pipeline centerline number 0 0

Residences within 50 feet of the pipeline centerline number 0 0

Wetlands crossed – forested miles 0.0 0.0

Wetlands crossed – shrub miles 0.0 0.0

Wetlands crossed – emergent miles 0.0 0.0

Intermittent waterbodies crossed number 1 2

Perennial waterbodies crossed number 3 2

Land use types crossed - forested miles 2.4 0.7

Land use types crossed - agricultural miles <0.1 0.0

Previously recorded archaeological sites crossed number 0 0

Previously recorded historic architectural sites crossed number 1 2

Battlefields crossed miles 0.0 0.0

Federal lands crossed miles 0.0 0.0

Commonwealth lands crossed miles 0.0 0.0

Recreational trails crossed number 1 1

U.S. Geological Survey karst topography crossed miles 0.0 0.0

U.S. Geological Survey Soil Survey (SSURGO) soils crossed

Hard shallow bedrock a miles 0.5 0.3

Soft shallow bedrock b miles 0.5 0.3

Highly erodible by water c miles 2.0 0.9

Highly erodible by wind d miles 0.0 0.0

Revegetation concerns e miles 2.0 0.9

Length of steep slope crossed (greater than 30 percent) miles 0.6 0.3

Length of side slope crossed (greater than 30 percent) miles 0.0 0.0

Moderate to high landslide incidence/susceptibility areas crossed miles 3.0 3.6

Conservation easements crossed miles 0.0 0.8

VDCR conservation sites crossed

Spruce Creek Conservation Site feet 200 0

Planned developments crossed

Spruce Creek Resort and Market miles 0.3 0.0

_______________ a Includes soils that have bedrock within 60 inches of the soil surface. Hard bedrock refers to lithic bedrock that may require blasting

or other special construction techniques during installation of the proposed pipeline segments. b Includes soils that have bedrock within 60 inches of the soil surface. Soft bedrock refers to paralithic bedrock that will not likely

require blasting during construction. c Includes land in capability subclasses 4E through 8E and soils with an average slope greater than or equal to 9 percent. d Includes soils with Wind Erodibility Group classification of one or two. e Includes coarse-textured soils (sandy loams and coarser) that are moderately well to excessively drained and soils with an average

slope greater than or equal to 9 percent.




6

Question Number: 1

Question Subpart: c

Question:


c. Describe whether construction of either the proposed route or the Spruce Creek

Route Variation would adversely affect historic properties. When considering the

South Rockfish Valley Rural Historic District, specify which contributing historic

properties would be adversely affected and the possible effects to the District’s

eligibility status.

Response:

Both the proposed route and Spruce Creek Route Variation cross the South Rockfish Rural

Historic District (62-5119). The proposed route crosses approximately 0.6 mile of the district

near the intersection of Rockfish Valley Highway and Glenthorn Loop, passing through

approximately 0.4 mile of forested land and 0.2 mile of agricultural land. The route variation

crosses approximately 1.9 miles of the district on the north side of Beech Grove Road and both

the east and west sides of Rockfish Valley Highway. The route variation mostly crosses

agricultural lands within the district.

Neither the proposed route nor the route variation has been fully surveyed for cultural resources

across the district. 3 Consequently, insufficient information is available at this time to assess

potential effects on the district due to construction of the Project. Based on observations to date

from public roads in the district, as well as information from desktop sources, including the

NRHP nomination form for the district, construction of the pipeline along either route is not

expected to result in the loss of the overall integrity of the district in Atlantic’s view. 4 No

structures within the district would be modified or removed as a result of the Project along either

route. Construction along the proposed route could alter existing viewsheds within the district

due to tree clearing, but no significant impacts on viewsheds from existing historic structures

within the district are anticipated, as discussed in more detail below.

Construction activities along either route could result in visual, auditory, or atmospheric (dust)

impacts due to operation of equipment, but these impacts would be temporary and limited to the

period of construction. Dust impacts would be mitigated through implementation of Atlantic’s

Dust Control Plan, which was filed with Atlantic’s Application on September 18, 2015 and

updated in a supplemental filing on July 18, 2016 (FERC Accession Numbers 20150918-5212

and 20160718-5164). Blasting is not anticipated in the vicinity of either route where the routes

3 To date, landowners along the proposed route where it crosses the district have denied permission to survey. Field surveys along the route

variation are not anticipated. 4 While there are no previously recorded archaeological sites along the routes, it is not known if archaeological remains associated with the

district are present along either route. Atlantic will conduct an archaeological survey along the proposed route across the district as

permission to survey from affected landowners is obtained.




7

cross the district based on review of the Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO). Soils

along the routes across the district either do not contain near surface bedrock, or the near surface

bedrock is classified as paralithic (soft), which would not likely require blasting.

Following installation of the pipeline, the temporary construction corridor would be restored and

the permanent easement maintained as described in Atlantic’s Application, which was filed on

September 18, 2015 (see Resource Report 1; FERC Accession Number 20150918-5212). During

operations, there would be no visual evidence of the pipeline in agricultural areas and limited

visual evidence of the pipeline in forested areas in the maintained permanent easement across the

district.

Potential Visual Effects on Individual Structures within the District near the Proposed Route:

Wintergreen Country Store (62-0117): The proposed corridor crosses Rockfish Valley

Highway (Route 151) approximately 0.16 mile southwest of the Wintergreen Country

Store building, which is listed on the NRHP and is a contributing element of the district.

The proposed pipeline corridor is screened by trees and therefore would not be visible

from the Wintergreen Country Store.

Elk Hill Baptist Church (62-5020): This circa 1900 historically African-American

church is located approximately 0.15 mile from the Project corridor and has an

unobstructed view across fields/pasture towards the proposed route. No visual impacts to

this site are anticipated because the proposed route would be restored to agricultural

production following installation of the pipeline in this area. Information obtained from

the Virginia Department of Historic Resources indicates that this resource is not eligible

for the NRHP.

Potential Visual Effects on Individual Structures within the District near the Route Variation:

River Bluff (62-0088): The Spruce Creek Route Variation passes approximately 0.1 mile

south of River Bluff, a circa 1785 Georgian farmhouse, expanded circa 1805, that is

listed on the NRHP and is a contributing element to the district. The route variation

corridor could be viewed towards the south and southwest from the site. However, the

construction corridor would pass through pasture and cropland and no permanent changes

to the vegetation or landscape would be expected in this area.

Atlantic anticipates filing a complete report on the district, including an assessment of potential

Project effects associated with the proposed route, in October 2016.


Robert Bisha


804-273-3010




8

Question Number: 2

Question Subpart: N/A

Question:

Confirm that Atlantic does not propose to utilize a water storage structure at the Calfpasture

River (AP-1 milepost 111.4).

Response:

Atlantic does not propose a water storage structure at the Calfpasture River near milepost 111.4.

On July 1, 2016 Atlantic filed updated information in response to the June 13, 2016

environmental information request from FERC staff detailing the location, volume, and source of

water storage sites proposed for the ACP (see Q14 Attachment 1; FERC Accession Number

20160701-5255). No additional water storage structures have been identified.


Carole McCoy


804-775-5234




9

Question Number: 3


Question:

Provide the Bachman’s sparrow and Cerulean warbler habitat desktop assessment for North

Carolina.

Response:

Bachman’s Sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis)

Bachman’s sparrow is a nondescript bird species well-known for its elusiveness and distinct,

sweet song (VDGIF, 2015). The sparrow is large, appearing reddish brown overall, but streaked

with grey, brown, and black on its back and lacking wing bars. Its belly is whitish and un-

streaked, and its head has a rusty brown crown stripe and eye line. The species is difficult to

distinguish physically from other sparrows, and is best identified by its habitat and song rather

than appearance (Poston, 2008). The bird often exhibits terrestrial movements, including

hopping and running, rather than flying (USFWS, 2015). Bachman’s sparrow prefers open pine

woodland habitats with open mid-story canopies and dense patches of grassy ground vegetation,

where they can forage for plant seeds and arthropods (Meyer, 2006; USFWS, 2015). In North

Carolina, species abundance is linked to the availability of longleaf pine stands (Poston, 2008;

LeGrand et al., 2015).

Bachman’s sparrow nests are difficult to locate, and little is known about reproduction. Females

build domed or arched, north-facing nests out of grasses on the ground, typically hiding them

under a bush or against a clump of grass or other concealing feature. The sparrows raise two to

three broods of three to five eggs each year, between April and August (Meyer, 2006).

Bachman’s sparrow is found primarily in the southern coastal plain in North Carolina, in an area

dominated by longleaf pine forests, through it was historically also found along the edge of the

Piedmont through the center of the State. Fire suppression along the sparrow’s historical range

has contributed to population declines (USFWS, 2015; Poston, 2008). The potential range for

the species in North Carolina includes the following three Counties crossed by the

Project: Halifax, Sampson, and Cumberland (LeGrand et al, 2015). Bachman’s sparrow was

listed as a Federal Candidate species in 1994 and is considered a Species of Concern in North

Carolina.

According to North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) data (2016), there is one

documented occurrence of Bachman’s Sparrow in vicinity of the Project area in North Carolina

(in Halifax County). The location of the occurrence is depicted in Figure 3-1, which is provided

in Q3 Attachment 1; the figure is marked “Contains Privileged Information – Do Not Release”.

A desktop habitat assessment for Bachman’s sparrow was conducted for the Project in Halifax,

Sampson, and Cumberland Counties. As a part of this assessment, potential habitat within the

Project area was identified using GAP and community vegetation data. Table 3-1, which is




10

provided as Q3 Attachment 2, identifies habitat type, milepost range, and length of habitat

crossed along the Project centerline, and provides centroid mileposts for habitats within

construction workspace that are not crossed by the centerline.

Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica cerulea)

The cerulean warbler is a 4.5 inch long neotropical songbird (USFWS, 2006). Males have a sky-

blue head, back, and breast band; darker gray wings with two white bars; black-streaked backs

and sides; and a white throat and belly. Female coloration is a muted bluish-green above and

white below, with two white wing bars. In North Carolina, the warblers breed in the mountains

during the summer, raising one brood with 3-5 eggs, and then migrate to the tropics for

winter. The birds build small, open cut nests high off the ground and away from the tree trunk,

using materials such as bark, grass, and lichen. Cerulean warblers prefer tall, mature forests with

open understory, often near streams and rivers, and feed on insects high in the canopy (Audubon,

2015; Hamel, 2000).

Cerulean warblers prefer large forest patches and avoid abrupt edges between forests and open

land, which leaves the species particularly vulnerable to forest fragmentation and habitat loss

(USFWS, 2006; Hamel, 2000). The species can be found in the western edge of North Carolina,

but cerulean warblers also have been reported and are assumed to breed in several Counties in

northeastern North Carolina, including two Counties (Halifax and Northampton) which are

crossed by the Project (Audubon, 2015; LeGrand et al., 2016; eBird, 2012). Cerulean warblers

are considered a Special Concern species in North Carolina.

According to NCNHP data (2016), there are two known occurrences of cerulean warbler in or

near the Project area in North Carolina (both in Halifax County). The locations of these

occurrences are depicted in Figure 3-2, which is provided in Q3 Attachment 1; the figure is

marked “Contains Privileged Information – Do Not Release”.

A desktop habitat assessment for cerulean warblers was conducted for the Project in Halifax and

Northampton Counties. As a part of this assessment, potential cerulean warbler habitats within

the Project area were identified using GAP and community vegetation data. Table 3-2, which is

provided as Q3 Attachment 3, identifies habitat type, milepost range, and length of habitat

crossed along the Project centerline, and provides centroid mileposts for habitats within

construction workspace that are not crossed by the centerline.


Robert Bisha


804-273-3010




11

Question Number: 4


Question:

Provide tables (similar to tables 6.1-2 and 6.4.2-1 of Resource Report 6) that identify the length

of slope classes crossed and the length of landslide incidence and susceptibility crossed by the

ACP within the Monongahela National Forest (MNF), George Washington National Forest

(GWNF), and the Blue Ridge Parkway (BRP).

Response:

The requested tables are provided below.

TABLE 6.1-2

Slope Classes Crossed by the Atlantic Coast Pipeline on the Monongahela National Forest,

George Washington National Forest, and Blue Ridge Parkway a

Land Agency Total Crossing

Length (miles)

Slope Class Crossing Length (miles)

0–8 % 8–20 % 20–35 % 35–60 % 60–100 % >100 %

Monongahela National Forest 5.2 0.7 1.9 1.9 0.7 0.0 0.0

George Washington National Forest 16.0 2.2 4.4 5.5 3.5 0.4 <0.1

Blue Ridge Parkway 0.1 0.0 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.0 0.0

TOTAL 21.2 2.9 6.3 7.4 4.2 0.4 <0.1

__________________ a Slope percentages were determined using available digital elevation model raster data and running the slope analysis tool in the GIS

program ArcMap.

TABLE 6.4.2-1

Landslide Incidence and Susceptibility Areas Crossed by the Atlantic Coast Pipeline on the Monongahela National Forest,

George Washington National Forest, and Blue Ridge Parkway a

Land Management Agency

Total Crossing

Length (miles)

Landslide Incidence/Susceptibility

High/

High

Moderate/

High

Moderate/

Moderate

Low/

High

Low/

Moderate

Low/

Low

Monongahela National Forest 5.2 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8

George Washington National Forest 16.0 9.3 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Blue Ridge Parkway 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

TOTAL 21.2 13.7 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8

__________________ a Based on Radbruch-Hall, et al., 1982




12


Robert Bisha


804-273-301




13

Question Number: 5


Question:

Provide separate tables that identify land use impacts resulting from construction and operation

of the ACP specific to the MNF, GWNF, and BRP.

Response:

Table 5-1 identifies land use impacts due to construction and operation of the ACP specific to the

MNF, GWNF, and BRP.


Robert Bisha


804-273-3010




14

Table 5-1

Summary of Existing Land Uses Affected by Construction and Operation of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline on Federal Land a

Project/Federal Land

Agriculture

(Tree Plantation/ Harvested Forest)

Upland Forest/Woodland

Developed

(Open to Low Intensity) Open Land Wetlands Open Water Total

Constr. Oper. Constr. Oper. Constr. Oper. Constr. Oper. Constr. Oper. Constr. Oper. Constr. Oper.

Monongahela National Forest

Pipeline Right-of-Way 0.0 0.0 74.8 31.9 2.6 1.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 77.7 33.1

Additional Temporary Workspace 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0

Access Roads 0.0 0.0 16.4 16.4 3.8 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 20.4 20.4

Subtotal 0.0 0.0 93.5 48.2 6.4 4.9 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 100.4 53.5

George Washington National Forest



Access Roads 0.3 0.3 40.1 40.1 11.0 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 51.7 51.7

Subtotal 6.4 3.4 274.5 138.6 16.8 13.3 2.5 0.9 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.6 301.3 156.9

Blue Ridge Parkway



Access Roads 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6

____________________ a The numbers in this table have been rounded for presentation purposes. As a result, the totals may not reflect the exact sum of the addends in all cases.




15

Question Number: 6


Question:

Provide a table (similar to table 128-1) that identifies the construction and operational impacts on

small, medium, and large trees within the MNF, GWNF, and BRP.

Response:

Similar to the DR128-1 response, Atlantic based its assessment of the acreages and sizes of trees

that will be cleared within the pipeline construction and permanent rights-of-way on Federal

lands on a desktop analysis using 2015 Project-specific aerial photography and recent satellite

photography. Atlantic measured the length of crossing for stands of large, mature trees, what

appeared to be stands of younger trees (as compared to mature trees), and small trees primarily

found in recently cut-over areas or fields in transition back to forest. Large trees for this analysis

were considered to be anything over roughly 50 feet in height with a mature spreading crown,

while medium trees were considered to be younger trees generally found in previously cut-over

areas exhibiting even-age growth patterns, and in plantation plantings specifically planted by or

for forest products companies. Small trees were those located in fields or tree plantations that

varied in height from small to large saplings. The results of the analysis are presented by

segment in Table 6-1.


Robert Bisha


804-273-3010

TABLE 6-1

Construction and Operational Impacts on Federal Lands Along Segment AP-1

on Small, Medium, and Large Trees

Project Segment Small Trees (acres) Medium Sized Trees (acres) Large Trees (acres)

Construction Operation 1 Construction Operation 1 Construction Operation 1

MNF 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 78.0 33.4

GWNF 3.5 1.5 7.1 3.0 231.3 99.0

BRP 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

____________________

Acronyms: MNF = Monongahela National Forest; GWNF = George Washington National Forest; BRP = Blue Ridge Parkway.

1 Assumes an operational right-of-way measuring 53.5 feet in width. 2 The BRP will be crossed using the horizontal directional drill construction method. No trees will be cleared at this crossing.




16

Question Number: 7


Question:

Provide a table (similar to table 128-2) that identifies the miles of recently harvested, early/mid

seral, and late seral forest within the MNF, GWNF, and BRP.

Response:

Similar to the DR128-2 response, Atlantic based its assessment of the miles of recently harvested

forest, early/mid seral forest, and late seral on Federal lands on a desktop analysis using 2015

Project-specific aerial photography and recent satellite photography. Recently- harvested forest

lands (i.e., cleared within the last few years) and early seral forest lands are not crossed by the

proposed route on Federal lands. Mid-seral stands were identified as generally ranging from

thinner to full stands without evidence of logging roads, but with noticeably shorter and younger

trees. Mid-seral stands were infrequent and only found on the GWNF. The majority of all

Federal lands crossed are composed of late seral forest, which consisted of mature mixed

deciduous and mixed coniferous trees. The results of the analysis are presented in Table 7-1

below.


Robert Bisha


804-273-3010

TABLE 7-1

Miles of Recently Harvested, Early/Mid Seral, and Late Seral Forests on Federal Lands along Segment AP-1

Project Segment Recently Harvested Miles Early/Mid-Seral Miles Late Seral Miles

MNF 0.0 0.0 5.15

GWNF 0.0 0.7 15.27

BRP 0.0 0.0 0.1 1

____________________

Acronyms: MNF = Monongahela National Forest; GWNF = George Washington National Forest; BRP = Blue Ridge Parkway.

1 The BRP will be crossed using the horizontal directional drill construction method. No trees will be cleared at this crossing.




17

Question Number: 8


Question:

Atlantic filed updated tables, figures, and maps on July 18, 2016. In its response to a June 13,

2016 data request (#120, filed on July 1, 2016), Atlantic stated it would reduce its permanent

right-of-way to 53.5 feet on U.S. Forest Service (USFS) lands. Clarify if the tables that were

filed on July 18, 2016 reflect the reduced permanent right-of-way on USFS lands.

Response:

The reduced permanent right-of-way width of 53.5 feet on U.S. Forest Service lands was used to

calculate the impacts in the tables filed on July 18, 2016 and the table provided with the response

to Question 5 of this filing.


Robert Bisha


804-273-3010




18

Question Number: 9


Question:

The USFS has previously requested appendix table 8D include a column to cross reference to

USFS road numbers. Atlantic previously provided tables 2.12-1 (U.S. Forest Service System

Roads Crossed by the AP-1 Mainline on U.S. Forest Service Lands) and 2.12-2 (U.S. Forest

Service System Roads Proposed as Access Roads on U.S. Forest Service Lands) in its May 13,

2016 supplemental filing. Provide a revised appendix table 8D and/or revised tables 2.12-1 and

2.12-2 to address the USFS request and that reflects the currently proposed route.

Response:

Updates to Tables 2.12-1 and 2.12-2 are provided below.


Carole McCoy


804-775-5234




19

Table 2.12-1

U.S. Forest Service System Roads Crossed by the AP-1 Mainline on U.S. Forest Service Lands a

USFS Road Name or Number Approximate Milepost


Shock Run/1014 83.2

Upper Shock Run/1017 83.3

Allegheny/55 83.7

Allegheny/55 83.8

Allegheny/55 83.8


281C 96.3

281 96.3

1748 97.1

1748 97.2

309 99.5

348.1 116.5

449 117.0

449 117.1

449A 118.7

449B b 118.8

466A 120.2

466 120.4

1755 c 121.2

1755 c 121.5

1755 c 121.7

1757 d N/A

_______________ a This table does not include crossings of roads which have been assigned a U.S. Forest Service name or number but the crossing

occurs on private lands. b The AP-1 mainline is adjacent to this road for approximately 0.2 mile between Mileposts 118.7 and 118.9 and approximately 0.7 mile

between Mileposts 119.1 and 119.8. c The AP-1 mainline is adjacent to this road for approximately 0.3 mile between Mileposts 121.4 and 121. 7. d This road is not crossed, but the AP-1 mainline is adjacent to the road for approximately 0.2 mile between Mileposts 121.8 and 122.0.




20

Table 2.12-2

U.S. Forest Service System Roads Proposed as Access Roads on U.S. Forest Service Lands a

Access Road Number USFS Name/Identification Number Approximate Milepost


05-001-C009.AR 2 N/A (new road) 71.5

05-001-C009.AR1 Buzzard Ridge/1026 71.7

05-001-E064.AR1 Sugar Camp/1012 and unnumbered connector

road between Road 1012 and right-of-way

81.8

05-001-E064.AR3 Upper Shock Run/1017 83.3


36-014.AR2 124 93.6

36-014.AR3 N/A (new road) 94.1

36-016.AR1 281 96.3

36-016.AR2 309 99.6

07-001.AR1-AR 3 449 and 449A 116.8

07-001.AR1-AR 4 N/A (new road) 117.2

07-001.AR1-AR 8 466A 120.2

07-001.AR1-AR 9 466 120.4

07-001.AR1-AR 7 1755 (new road) 121.2

_______________ a This table does not include roads which have been assigned a U.S. Forest Service name or number but are located on private lands.




21

Question Number: 10

Question Subpart: a

Question:

Regarding revised appendix 8J (Recreation Areas, Scenic Byways, and Special Interest Areas

Crossed by or Within 0.25 Mile of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply Header Project):

a. Based on Atlantic’s project mapping, there are portions of the MNF and GWNF

that are not crossed by the pipeline centerline but would be affected by temporary

construction workspace and/or the permanent right-of-way and are not listed in appendix

8J. For example, between AP-1 mileposts 71.6 and 72.0, the construction workspace

would occur on USFS lands; however, impacts are not disclosed in appendix 8J. Provide

a revised appendix 8J that includes impacts associated with the construction workspace

and/operational right-of-way, even if the centerline does not cross USFS lands.

Response:

Atlantic assumes that FERC’s comment in this question is based on review of the proposed

pipeline route and construction workspace relative to digital data layers for USFS land crossings,

rather than parcel lines, which are more accurate. In some cases, depending on the data set used

for review, it appears that a portion of the construction corridor is located on Federal lands when

the corridor, including associated workspace, is actually located on privately owned parcels

adjacent to Federal lands. With this in mind, Atlantic notes the following:

Between approximate AP-1 mileposts 71.6 and 72.0, the proposed construction

corridor, including associated workspace, crosses a privately owned parcel

(Project Tract ID 05-001-C010) that abuts land within the MNF (Project Tract ID

05-001-C006). The entire construction corridor, including workspace, is located

on private land in this area.



(Project Tract ID 05-001-E036) that abuts land within the MNF (Project Tract ID

05-001-E041). The entire construction corridor, including workspace, is located

on private land in this area.

At approximate AP-1 milepost 101.5, the proposed construction corridor,

including associated workspace, crosses two privately owned parcels (Project

Tract IDs 38-056 and 38-058) that abut land within the GWNF (Project Tract ID

36-016). The entire construction corridor, including workspace, is located on

private land in this area.




22



(Project Tract ID 36-070) that abuts land within the GWNF (Project Tract ID 36-

015). The entire construction corridor, including workspace, is located on private

land in this area.

At approximate AP-1 milepost 116.4, the proposed construction corridor,

including associated workspace, crosses two privately owned parcels (Project

Tract IDs 07-001-A009 and 07-001-A010) that abut land within the GWNF

(Project Tract ID 07-001-AR1). The entire construction corridor, including

workspace, is located on private land in this area.

The proposed construction corridor relative to parcel boundaries is depicted on the set of updated

construction alignment sheets that Atlantic filed on July 29, 2016 (FERC Accession Number

20160729-5108). The following alignment sheet numbers correspond to the areas referenced in

the bullet points above: 93 and 94, 100, 138 and 139, 139 and 140, and 157.


Robert Bisha


804-273-3010




23

Question Number: 10

Question Subpart: b

Question:

Regarding revised appendix 8J (Recreation Areas, Scenic Byways, and Special Interest Areas

Crossed by or Within 0.25 Mile of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply Header Project):

b. Provide an updated appendix 8J that includes a column identifying the crossing

method proposed at each feature.

Response:

An update to Appendix 8J, which identifies crossing methods for features crossed by the ACP

and SHP, is provided as Q10 Attachment 1.

Atlantic and DTI propose to construct the ACP and SHP utilizing the general and special

construction methods identified and described in Resource Report 1, which was filed with the

FERC Application on September 18, 2015 (FERC Accession Number 20150918-5212); as well

as the various construction, restoration, and mitigation plans prepared for the Projects, which

were initially filed as Appendix 1F to Resource Report 1, with various plan updates filed on

April 15, June 17, July 18, July 29, and August 15, 2016 (FERC Accession Numbers 20160415-

5014, 20160617-5151, 20160718-5164, 20160729-5108, and 20160816-5051). For crossings of

USFS lands, Atlantic provided a map set depicting construction methods in the MNF and GWNF

in its supplemental filing on July 29, 2016 (FERC Accession Number 20160729-5256).


Robert Bisha


804-273-3010




24

Question Number: 11

Question Subpart: a-c

Question:

Ensure that lands identified in the revised appendix 8J match the crossing locations and/or

impacts identified in other tables such as the following, and provide updated tables as necessary.

a. MNF and GWNF Management Prescription areas crossed – by prescription,

mileposts, acreage impacts (construction and operation).

b. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Areas crossed – by class, mileposts, acreage

impacts (construction and operation).

c. Appendix 8H (Special Management Areas Crossed by or Within 0.25 Mile of the

Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply Header Project).

Response:

a. An update to Table 8.7.1-1 identifying MNF and GWNF Management

Prescription areas crossed – by prescription, mileposts, crossing length, and

acreage impacts (construction and operations) – is provided below. This table is

consistent with the update to Appendix 8J, which is provided as Q10 Attachment

1.

b. An update to Table 115-1/115-2 identifying MNF and GWNF Recreation

Opportunity Spectrum areas crossed – by class, mileposts, crossing length, and

acreage impacts (construction and operations) – is provided below. This table is

consistent with the update to Appendix 8J, which is provided as Q10 Attachment

1.

c. Updated versions of Appendices 8Ha and 8Hb are provided as Q11 Attachment 1.

Appendix 8Ha identifies special management areas (i.e., Federal and

State/Commonwealth lands) crossed by or within 0.25 mile of the Projects. This

appendix identifies the owning or managing agency, beginning and ending

mileposts, crossing length (where applicable), County/City and

State/Commonwealth, and name of each area crossed. Appendix 8Hb sums the

construction and operational impacts on Federal and State/Commonwealth lands

crossed by the Projects. The updated appendices are consistent with the update to

Appendix 8J, which is provided as Q10 Attachment 1.

Atlantic additionally prepared updated versions of Tables 8.11.2-1a, 8.11.2-1b, 8.11.2-2a and

8.11.2-2b. Table 8.11.2-1a identifies crossings of Scenic Class areas in the MNF by mileposts

and crossing length, while Table 8.11.2-1b summarizes acreage impacts (construction and

operations) by Scenic Class area. Table 8.11.2-2a identifies crossings of Scenic Integrity




25

Objective areas in the GWNF by mileposts and crossing length, while Table 8.11.2-2b

summarizes acreage impacts (construction and operations) by Scenic Class area.


Robert Bisha


804-273-3010




26

Table 8.7.1-1

Monongahela National Forest and George Washington National Forest Management Prescription Areas

Crossed by the Atlantic Coast Pipeline a, b

Begin Milepost

End Milepost

Miles Crossed

Management Prescription Code

Management Prescription Title Construction

(acres)

Operations

(acres)

MONONGAHELA NATIONAL FOREST

73.1 73.6 0.8 3.0 Vegetation diversity 12.2 4.9

80.4 80.6 0.3 6.1 Wildlife habitat emphasis 4.3 1.8



GEORGE WASHINGTON NATIONAL FOREST

83.9 86.9 4.0 13 Mosaics of wildlife habitat 63.4 26.0








113.0 113.0 <0.1 13 Mosaics of wildlife habitat 1.1 0.9

113.2 113.2 <0.1 13 Mosaics of wildlife habitat 0.1 0.1





154.0 155.1 1.2 7E1 Dispersed recreation 20.4 7.6

158.0 158.1 0.1 4A Appalachian Trail corridor 0.9 c 0.9 c

a The mileposts used in the FERC Application, which was filed on September 18, 2015 (FERC Accession Number 20150918-5212),

were based on three-dimensional changes in topography along the proposed pipeline routes. In areas where a pipeline route has changed due to the adoption of an alternative, the mileposts in the affected area have been scaled to account for the resulting

difference in the length of the route. The straight-line distance between consecutive mileposts as indicated or depicted in tables and

figures in this filing may be greater than or less than 5,280 feet. The mileposts should be considered as reference points only. b The table includes the permanent easement, temporary workspace, and additional temporary workspace. The table does not include

access roads.

c This segment will be crossed by HDD.




27

Table 115-1/115-2

Monongahela National Forest and George Washington National Forest Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Areas

Crossed by the Atlantic Coast Pipeline a, b

Begin Milepost

End Milepost

Miles Crossed

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Areas Construction

(acres)

Operations

(acres)

MONONGAHELA NATIONAL FOREST

73.1 73.6 0.8 Roaded natural 12.9 4.9

80.4 80.6 0.3 Roaded natural 4.3 1.8

80.7 80.9 0.2 Roaded natural 3.5 1.4

81.2 81.6 0.5 Roaded natural 8.6 3.4

81.6 82.9 1.9 Semi-primitive motorized 29.5 12.3

82.9 83.9 1.5 Roaded natural 21.9 9.2

GEORGE WASHINGTON NATIONAL FOREST

83.9 85.6 2.3 Roaded natural 37.0 14.6


86.1 86.9 1.0 Roaded natural 15.5 6.6

93.7 94.3 0.7 Roaded natural 12.1 4.9

96.1 96.3 0.4 Roaded natural 5.5 2.5

96.5 96.6 0.1 Roaded natural 1.4 0.7



96.9 96.4 0.1 Roaded natural 1.2 0.5

98.3 99.0 1.3 Roaded natural 20.0 8.9

99.3 99.7 0.5 Roaded natural 7.6 3.4

105.9 106.1 0.2 Roaded natural 2.6 1.4

113.0 113.0 <0.1 Roaded natural 1.1 0.9

113.2 113.2 <0.1 Roaded natural 0.1 0.1

115.8 116.2 0.4 Roaded natural 5.8 3.2

116.4 116.5 0.1 Roaded natural 1.0 0.6

116.7 117.4 0.7 Roaded natural 11.1 4.2


118.8 120.6 1.7 Roaded natural 27.5 11.1

121.1 123.2 2.1 Roaded natural 34.6 14.4

154.0 155.1 1.2 Roaded natural 20.4 7.6

158.0 158.1 0.1 Roaded natural 0.9 c 0.9 c




figures in this filing may be greater than or less than 5,280 feet. The mileposts should be considered as reference points only.

b The table includes the permanent easement, temporary workspace, and additional temporary workspace. The table does not include

access roads.

c This segment will be crossed by HDD.




28

TABLE 8.11.2-1a

Scenic Class Areas (Crossings by Pipeline Milepost) on the Monongahela National Forest for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline

Begin Milepost a End Milepost Miles Crossed Scenic Class Areas

73.1 73.6 0.8 High

80.4 80.6 0.3 High

80.7 80.9 0.2 High

81.2 81.3 0.1 High

81.3 81.4 0.1 Medium-High

81.4 81.5 0.2 High


81.8 83.2 2.0 High


83.3 83.6 0.5 High

83.6 83.7 <0.1 Medium-High

83.7 83.9 0.4 High

____________________





TABLE 8.11.2-1b

Scenic Class Areas (Acres by Scenic Class Area) on the Monongahela National Forest for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline

Scenic Class Area Pipeline Access Roads

Construction (acres) a Operations (acres) Construction (acres) Permanent (acres)

Very High 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4

High 68.8 28.4 15.4 15.4

Medium-High 11.2 4.7 4.6 4.6

Medium 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Medium-Low 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Low 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Very Low 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 80.0 33.1 20.4 20.4

____________________

a Construction impacts include permanent pipeline right-of-way, temporary construction right-of-way, and additional temporary

workspace.




29

TABLE 8.11.2-2a

Scenic Integrity Objective Areas (Crossings by Milepost) on the George Washington National Forest for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline

Begin Milepost a End Milepost Miles Crossed Scenic Integrity Objective Area

83.9 86.9 4.0 Moderate

93.7 94.3 0.7 Moderate

96.1 96.3 0.4 Moderate

96.5 96.6 0.2 Moderate

96.9 97.4 0.8 Moderate

98.3 99.0 1.3 Moderate

99.3 99.7 0.5 Moderate

105.9 106.1 0.2 Moderate

113.0 113.0 <0.1 Moderate

113.2 113.2 <0.1 Moderate

115.8 116.2 0.4 Moderate

116.4 116.5 0.1 Moderate

116.7 120.6 3.8 Moderate

121.1 122.4 1.3 Moderate

122.4 122.7 0.3 High

122.7 123.2 0.5 Moderate

154.0 155.1 1.1 Moderate

158.0 158.1 0.1 High

____________________





TABLE 8.11.2-2b

Scenic Integrity Objective Areas (Acres by Scenic Integrity Objective) on the George Washington National Forest

for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline

Scenic Integrity Objective

Pipeline Access Roads

Construction (acres) a Operations (acres) Construction (acres) Operations (acres)

High 5.3 2.8 4.1 4.1

Moderate 244.3 102.4 47.3 47.3

Low 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3

Total 249.6 105.2 51.7 51.7

____________________

a Construction impacts include permanent pipeline right-of-way, temporary construction right-of-way, and additional temporary

workspace.




30

Question Number: 12

Question Subpart: a-d

Question:

With respect to the use of existing, replacement of existing, or construction of new microwave

towers, please address the following:

a. While general locations have been provided (#99, January 29, 2015 supplemental

filing), provide the locations based on distance and direction to the nearest project

milepost or the location and distance to the nearest above ground project facility;

b. While the need for modifications have been identified for most sites (#130, July 1,

2016 supplemental filing), verify the types of modifications needed for all final

sites;

c. Identify the construction and operational impacts, by land use type, resulting from

use, replacement, or construction of microwave towers; and

d. Identify if any special interest areas (conservation easements, forests, parks,

scenic byways, wetlands, cultural sites, etc.) would be affected and how Atlantic

would avoid, reduce, or mitigate for these impacts.

Response:

The requested information is provided in Q12 Attachment 1.


Carole McCoy


804-775-5234

ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE, LLC ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE...

Documents

Transcript of ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE, LLC ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE...