and Response to Environmental Information Request Dated August 12, 2016

Transcription

1 ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE, LLC ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE Docket Nos. CP & CP and DOMINION TRANSMISSION, INC. SUPPLY HEADER PROJECT Docket No. CP Response to Environmental Information Request Dated August 12, 2016 Assembled by August 23, 2016

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Question Number: Question Number: Question Number: Question Number: Question Number: Question Number: Question Number: Question Number: Question Number: Question Number: Question Number: Question Number: LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1 Spruce Creek Route Variation...5 Table Slope Classes Crossed by the Atlantic Coast Pipeline on the Monongahela National Forest, George Washington National Forest, and Blue Ridge Parkway...11 Table 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 Table U.S. Forest Service System Roads Crossed by the AP-1 Mainline on U.S. Forest Service Lands...19 Table U.S. Forest Service System Roads Proposed as Access Roads on U.S. Forest Service Lands...20 Table 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 a Scenic Class Areas (Crossings by Pipeline Milepost) on the Monongahela National Forest for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline...28 Table b Scenic Class Areas (Acres by Scenic Class Area) on the Monongahela National Forest for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline...28 i

3 Docket Nos. CP & CP Table a Table b Scenic Integrity Objectives (Crossings by Milepost) on the George Washington National Forest) for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline...29 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 Q3 Attachment 1 Q3 Attachment 2 Q3 Attachment 3 Q10 Attachment 1 Q11 Attachment 1 Q12 Attachment 1 Landowner List for the Spruce Creek Route Variation (Contains Privileged Information Do Not Release) Figures Depicting Occurrences of Bachman s Sparrow and Cerulean Warbler Near the Atlantic Coast Pipeline in North Carolina (Contains Privileged Information Do Not Release) Desktop Assessment for Bachman s Sparrow in North Carolina Desktop Assessment for Cerulean Warbler in North Carolina Update to Appendix 8J Updates to Appendices 8Ha and 8Hb Microwave Tower Sites ii

4 Question Number: 1 Question Subpart: a Question: Regarding the Spruce Creek Route Variation that was filed by Atlantic on March 10, 2016: Response: a. Identify all affected landowners along the Spruce Creek Route Variation as defined in 18 CFR 157.6(d)(2). 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

5 Question Number: 1 Question Subpart: b Question: Regarding the Spruce Creek Route Variation that was filed by Atlantic on March 10, 2016: Response: 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. 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 ). 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 ( ), 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 ( ), 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 2 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. 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-toapples 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 residence ( ), 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 ), and an updated report addressing comments from FERC staff was provided on April 15, 2016 (FERC Accession Number ). 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, A copy of that letter was provided in a supplemental filing on November 13, 2015 (FERC Accession Number ). 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

6 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. Response Provided By: Robert Bisha Environmental Technical Advisor

7 Figure 1-1: Locations of Aboveground Historic Sites in the Vicinity of the Proposed Route and Spruce Creek Route Variation. 4

8 Docket Nos. CP & CP TABLE 1-1 Spruce Creek Route Variation Features Unit Proposed Route Spruce Creek Route Variation Length (total) miles Adjacent to existing linear corridor facilities (total) miles 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 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 Wetlands crossed shrub miles Wetlands crossed emergent miles Intermittent waterbodies crossed number 1 2 Perennial waterbodies crossed number 3 2 Land use types crossed - forested miles Land use types crossed - agricultural miles < Previously recorded archaeological sites crossed number 0 0 Previously recorded historic architectural sites crossed number 1 2 Battlefields crossed miles Federal lands crossed miles Commonwealth lands crossed miles Recreational trails crossed number 1 1 U.S. Geological Survey karst topography crossed miles U.S. Geological Survey Soil Survey (SSURGO) soils crossed Hard shallow bedrock a miles Soft shallow bedrock b miles Highly erodible by water c miles Highly erodible by wind d miles Revegetation concerns e miles Length of steep slope crossed (greater than 30 percent) miles Length of side slope crossed (greater than 30 percent) miles Moderate to high landslide incidence/susceptibility areas crossed miles Conservation easements crossed miles VDCR conservation sites crossed Spruce Creek Conservation Site feet Planned developments crossed Spruce Creek Resort and Market miles 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. 5

9 Question Number: 1 Question Subpart: c Question: Regarding the Spruce Creek Route Variation that was filed by Atlantic on March 10, 2016: Response: 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. Both the proposed route and Spruce Creek Route Variation cross the South Rockfish Rural Historic District ( ). 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 and ). Blasting is not anticipated in the vicinity of either route where the routes 3 4 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. 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. 6

10 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 ). 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 ( ): 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 ( ): 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 ( ): 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 Response Provided By: Robert Bisha Environmental Technical Advisor

11 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 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 ). No additional water storage structures have been identified. Response Provided By: Carole McCoy Director Engineering Services

12 Question Number: 3 Question Subpart: N/A 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 unstreaked, 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 9

13 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 skyblue 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. Response Provided By: Robert Bisha Environmental Technical Advisor

14 Question Number: 4 Question Subpart: N/A Question: Provide tables (similar to tables and 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. Land Agency TABLE Slope Classes Crossed by the Atlantic Coast Pipeline on the Monongahela National Forest, George Washington National Forest, and Blue Ridge Parkway a Total Crossing Length (miles) Slope Class Crossing Length (miles) 0 8 % 8 20 % % % % >100 % Monongahela National Forest George Washington National Forest <0.1 Blue Ridge Parkway <0.1 <0.1 < TOTAL <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 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) High/ High Moderate/ High Landslide Incidence/Susceptibility Moderate/ Moderate Low/ High Low/ Moderate Monongahela National Forest George Washington National Forest Blue Ridge Parkway TOTAL a Based on Radbruch-Hall, et al., 1982 Low/ Low 11

15 Response Provided By: Robert Bisha Environmental Technical Advisor

16 Question Number: 5 Question Subpart: N/A 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. Response Provided By: Robert Bisha Environmental Technical Advisor

17 Project/Federal Land Monongahela National Forest Table 5-1 Summary of Existing Land Uses Affected by Construction and Operation of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline on Federal Land a 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. Pipeline Right-of-Way Additional Temporary Workspace Access Roads George Washington National Forest Subtotal Pipeline Right-of-Way Additional Temporary Workspace Access Roads Blue Ridge Parkway Subtotal Pipeline Right-of-Way Additional Temporary Workspace Access Roads Subtotal 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. 14

18 Question Number: 6 Question Subpart: N/A 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. Response Provided By: Robert Bisha Environmental Technical Advisor 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 GWNF BRP Acronyms: MNF = Monongahela National Forest; GWNF = George Washington National Forest; BRP = Blue Ridge Parkway. 1 2 Assumes an operational right-of-way measuring 53.5 feet in width. The BRP will be crossed using the horizontal directional drill construction method. No trees will be cleared at this crossing. 15

19 Question Number: 7 Question Subpart: N/A 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. Response Provided By: Robert Bisha Environmental Technical Advisor 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 GWNF BRP 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. 16

20 Question Number: 8 Question Subpart: N/A Question: Atlantic filed updated tables, figures, and maps on July 18, 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. Response Provided By: Robert Bisha Environmental Technical Advisor

21 Question Number: 9 Question Subpart: N/A Question: The USFS has previously requested appendix table 8D include a column to cross reference to USFS road numbers. Atlantic previously provided tables (U.S. Forest Service System Roads Crossed by the AP-1 Mainline on U.S. Forest Service Lands) and (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 and to address the USFS request and that reflects the currently proposed route. Response: Updates to Tables and are provided below. Response Provided By: Carole McCoy Director Engineering Services

22 USFS Road Name or Number Monongahela National Forest Table U.S. Forest Service System Roads Crossed by the AP-1 Mainline on U.S. Forest Service Lands a Approximate Milepost Shock Run/ Upper Shock Run/ Allegheny/ Allegheny/ Allegheny/ George Washington National Forest 281C A B b A c c c 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 and and approximately 0.7 mile between Mileposts and c The AP-1 mainline is adjacent to this road for approximately 0.3 mile between Mileposts and d This road is not crossed, but the AP-1 mainline is adjacent to the road for approximately 0.2 mile between Mileposts and

23 Table 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 Monongahela National Forest C009.AR 2 N/A (new road) C009.AR1 Buzzard Ridge/ E064.AR1 Sugar Camp/1012 and unnumbered connector road between Road 1012 and right-of-way E064.AR3 Upper Shock Run/ George Washington National Forest AR AR3 N/A (new road) AR AR AR1-AR and 449A AR1-AR 4 N/A (new road) AR1-AR 8 466A AR1-AR AR1-AR (new road) 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

24 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): Response: 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. 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 C010) that abuts land within the MNF (Project Tract ID C006). The entire construction corridor, including workspace, is located on private land in this area. Between approximate AP-1 mileposts 76.1 and 76.2, the proposed construction corridor, including associated workspace, crosses a privately owned parcel (Project Tract ID E036) that abuts land within the MNF (Project Tract ID 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 and ) that abut land within the GWNF (Project Tract ID ). The entire construction corridor, including workspace, is located on private land in this area. 21

25 Between approximate AP-1 mileposts and 102.5, the proposed construction corridor, including associated workspace, crosses a privately owned parcel (Project Tract ID ) that abuts land within the GWNF (Project Tract ID ). 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 A009 and A010) that abut land within the GWNF (Project Tract ID 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 ). 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. Response Provided By: Robert Bisha Environmental Technical Advisor

26 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): Response: b. Provide an updated appendix 8J that includes a column identifying the crossing method proposed at each feature. 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 ); 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 , , , , and ). 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 ). Response Provided By: Robert Bisha Environmental Technical Advisor

27 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. Response: 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). a. An update to Table 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 a, b, a and b. Table a identifies crossings of Scenic Class areas in the MNF by mileposts and crossing length, while Table b summarizes acreage impacts (construction and operations) by Scenic Class area. Table a identifies crossings of Scenic Integrity 24

28 Objective areas in the GWNF by mileposts and crossing length, while Table b summarizes acreage impacts (construction and operations) by Scenic Class area. Response Provided By: Robert Bisha Environmental Technical Advisor

29 Begin Milepost Table Monongahela National Forest and George Washington National Forest Management Prescription Areas Crossed by the Atlantic Coast Pipeline a, b End Miles Management Management Prescription Title Construction Milepost Crossed Prescription Code (acres) Operations (acres) MONONGAHELA NATIONAL FOREST Vegetation diversity Wildlife habitat emphasis Wildlife habitat emphasis Wildlife habitat emphasis GEORGE WASHINGTON NATIONAL FOREST Mosaics of wildlife habitat Mosaics of wildlife habitat Mosaics of wildlife habitat Mosaics of wildlife habitat Mosaics of wildlife habitat Mosaics of wildlife habitat Mosaics of wildlife habitat Mosaics of wildlife habitat < Mosaics of wildlife habitat < Mosaics of wildlife habitat Mosaics of wildlife habitat Mosaics of wildlife habitat Mosaics of wildlife habitat Mosaics of wildlife habitat E1 Dispersed recreation A Appalachian Trail corridor 0.9 c 0.9 c a b c The mileposts used in the FERC Application, which was filed on September 18, 2015 (FERC Accession Number ), 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. The table includes the permanent easement, temporary workspace, and additional temporary workspace. The table does not include access roads. This segment will be crossed by HDD. 26

30 Begin Milepost 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 End Milepost Miles Crossed Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Areas Construction (acres) Operations (acres) MONONGAHELA NATIONAL FOREST Roaded natural Roaded natural Roaded natural Roaded natural Semi-primitive motorized Roaded natural GEORGE WASHINGTON NATIONAL FOREST Roaded natural Semi-primitive motorized Roaded natural Roaded natural Roaded natural Roaded natural Semi-primitive motorized Semi-primitive motorized Roaded natural Roaded natural Roaded natural Roaded natural <0.1 Roaded natural <0.1 Roaded natural Roaded natural Roaded natural Roaded natural Semi-primitive motorized Roaded natural Roaded natural Roaded natural Roaded natural 0.9 c 0.9 c a b c The mileposts used in the FERC Application, which was filed on September 18, 2015 (FERC Accession Number ), 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. The table includes the permanent easement, temporary workspace, and additional temporary workspace. The table does not include access roads. This segment will be crossed by HDD. 27

31 TABLE a 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 High High High High Medium-High High Medium-High High Medium-High High <0.1 Medium-High High a The mileposts used in the FERC Application, which was filed on September 18, 2015 (FERC Accession Number ), 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. TABLE b 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 High Medium-High Medium Medium-Low Low Very Low Total a Construction impacts include permanent pipeline right-of-way, temporary construction right-of-way, and additional temporary workspace. 28

32 TABLE a 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 Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate <0.1 Moderate <0.1 Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate High Moderate Moderate High a The mileposts used in the FERC Application, which was filed on September 18, 2015 (FERC Accession Number ), 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. Scenic Integrity Objective TABLE b Scenic Integrity Objective Areas (Acres by Scenic Integrity Objective) on the George Washington National Forest for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline Pipeline Access Roads Construction (acres) a Operations (acres) Construction (acres) Operations (acres) High Moderate Low Total a Construction impacts include permanent pipeline right-of-way, temporary construction right-of-way, and additional temporary workspace. 29

33 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: Response: 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. The requested information is provided in Q12 Attachment 1. Response Provided By: Carole McCoy Director Engineering Services