Resource Report 10 Alternatives

Transcription

1 Equitrans Expansion Project Resource Report 10 October 2015

2 Equitrans Expansion Project Resource Report 10 Resource Report 10 Filing Requirements Information Location in Resource Report Minimum Filing Requirements 1. Address the no action alternative (Sec (l)(1)). Section For large projects, address the effect of energy conservation or energy alternatives to the project (Sec (l)(1)). 3. Identify system alternatives considered during the identification of the project and provide the rationale for rejecting each alternative (Sec (l)(1)). 4. Identify major and minor route alternatives considered to avoid impact on sensitive environmental areas (e.g., wetlands, parks, or residences) and provide sufficient comparative data to justify the selection of the proposed route (Sec (l)(2)(ii)). 5. Identify alternative sites considered for the location of major new aboveground facilities and provide sufficient comparative data to justify the selection of the proposed site (Sec (l)(2)(ii)). Not applicable. Section Section Section Data Request No 1 for Resource Report 10 Dated July 2, 2015 Request 1. Revise section 10.3 (System ) as follows. First, list all existing FERC-jurisdictional transmission pipelines by company in Allegheny, Greene, and Washington Counties, Pennsylvania, and Wetzel County, West Virginia, not owned, operated, or controlled by Equitrans or its affiliates. Second, indicate the lengths and diameter of these other jurisdictional pipelines, and their current capacity. Third, illustrate the location of those other existing pipeline facilities on a map in relationship to the proposed EEP facilities. Fourth, discuss if any of those other existing pipeline systems could handle the additional volumes proposed for EEP without major modifications. Fifth, indicate if any other existing pipeline system in Wetzel County, West Virginia could supply substantial volumes of natural gas to the proposed MVP Project. Status Addressed in Section Revise all figures to depict mileposts and starting/ending pipelines. Addressed in all figures containing the proposed and alternative routes. 3. Section states the proposed H-316 pipeline will generally follow the alignment of the existing Texas Eastern Transmission Company pipeline between the proposed Redhook Compressor Station and the existing H-302 pipeline. However, Table in RR 1 states that the H-316 pipeline is only collocated adjacent to the Texas Eastern pipeline for 30 percent of the route (approximately 0.92 miles of 2.99 miles). Clarify the apparent discrepancy. Addressed in Section i October 2015

3 Data Request No 1 for Resource Report 10 Dated July 2, 2015 Request 4. Evaluate these potential route alternatives for H-318: a) From MP 0 head northeast along an existing pipeline right-of-way about 0.5 mile to opposite the power plant in Elrama, cross under the Alleghany River, and follow the existing power line northwest about 2 miles to Lobbs Road, then parallel Lobbs Road for about 1 mile west to MP 4; b) Straight line from MP 0 about 3 miles northwest to MP 4; Status Figure Section Section Section c) Collocation with the existing power line through the Riverview Golf Course; and d) Collocation with a recently constructed pipeline south of the town of Bunola, Pennsylvania, which is depicted on June 2014 Google Earth imagery. 5. Revise section 10.3 to include a map illustrating the locations of existing pipeline systems, existing electric transmission lines, and existing major roads, and explain if the proposed pipeline segments could follow all or portions of those existing rights-of-way as route alternatives. 6. Include a detailed assessment and depiction of at least one viable route or site alternative for all proposed facilities, including the a) Webster Interconnect b) H-158, and M-80 pipelines. Section Section and Figure Section Section Section c) For (non-compressor station) aboveground facilities, such as meter stations and valves, consider their potential for visual impact or noise effects upon residents in comparison to the proposed aboveground facilities locations 7. Include alternatives comparison tables for all pipeline segments and aboveground facilities and ensure that the data categories are consistent across all the tables/alternatives. Include additional data categories for extent of collocation with existing rights-of-way, forest, crop land, waterbodies, wetlands, habitat for listed threatened and endangered species, previously recorded cultural resources, steep side-slopes, shallow bedrock, karst geology, landslides, landowner parcels crossed, and residences within 50 feet of a proposed work area. 8. The boundaries of the proposed Redhook Compressor Station in figure and appendix 1-B page 2 do not match. Resolve the apparent discrepancy. Tables through and Table Figure and Resource Report 1, Appendix 1-B. Revise figure to depict the boundaries of the County Natural Heritage Inventory core habitat. 9. Section 10.4 states the alternative route 2 was chosen as the proposed route for the Redhook Compressor Station to the H-302 pipeline interconnection. However, the route depicted on figure does not match the route identified as proposed in appendix 1B. Resolve the apparent discrepancy. 10. Revise section 10.5 to include a detailed discussion of why the existing Pratt Compressor Station could not be modified and/or expanded as an alternative to the Redhook Compressor Station. No longer used as a comparison factor. Section and Figure Section ii October 2015

4 Data Request No 1 for Resource Report 10 Dated July 2, 2015 Request 11. Section 10.5 states there are seven residences within the preferred siting area for the proposed Redhook Compressor Station and two residences in the East siting area. Revise section 10.5 to describe and assess in detail these residences and discuss the landowner s willingness to sell these residences to Equitrans for both the proposed and alternative sites. Further, report each landowner s willingness to accommodate all other proposed and alternative aboveground facilities, such as pig launchers/receivers, meter stations, MLVs, and communication towers. 12. Include applicable information for all proposed and alternate compressor station sites as described in section 10.4 of our Guidance Manual. Include information on noise-sensitive areas (NSAs) for all four directions (not just the closest), tree size and composition (hardwood or evergreen) for the vegetation buffers as well as the width of vegetative buffers in relation to NSAs, and topographic considerations for noise and visual screening for the NSAs. Include topographic maps as well as aerial photography depicting the above-mentioned features. 13. Include a discussion of the feasibility of using electric-motor-driven compressors at the proposed new compressor station. Include the rate of electricity required and the number of electric motors required. Compare the size of the electric transmission line necessary under the current proposal with what would be required for the electric motors. Compare the sound levels projected for the operational decibels of the electric turbines compared to the proposed gas turbines at NSAs around the Red Hook Compressor Station. Status Section Sections and , Tables and and Figure Section Data Request No 2 for Resource Report 10 Dated September 28, 2015 Request 1. Modify the H-316 Alternative 1 and the H-316 Alternative 2 in section so that they begin at the proposed Redhook Compressor Station and therefore are still fully viable routes. Update all associated comparison data and analyses to reflect these new route alignments. Update this section so that all of the identified alternatives are configured to be currently viable and do not analyze or compare between or back to obsolete routes or obsolete route starting points. Status Section and Figure Ensure that data categories are consistent in all tables for all alternative routes (and aboveground facility sites) considered. Supplement the data categories presented in Table to include forested wetlands (miles and acres affected during both construction and operation), interior forest (miles and acres affected during both construction and operation), major river crossings (number), and streams with drinking water designation (number). All comparison tables have been modified to present the requested data. 10-iii October 2015

5 Data Request No 2 for Resource Report 10 Dated September 28, 2015 Request 3. As previously requested in our comments on the first draft of RRs 1 and 10 dated July 2, 2015, include in sections and a detailed assessment and depiction of at least one viable route (or site) alternative for the Webster Interconnect, H-158, and M-80 pipelines. Also add an alternative analysis for the proposed H-305 and H-319 pipelines and the Mobley Tap. 4. Include in section 10.4 discussion and analyses (as applicable) for potential collocation of project routes with the existing and/or proposed Sunoco Mariner East pipelines, and any other existing rights-of-way that proceed generally from pipeline origination points towards pipeline destination points. 5. Include a table listing any stakeholder-identified rerouting requests. Include data columns for pipeline segment identification, MP, township/county, individual tract/parcel numbers, description of the rerouting request, and Equitrans response. Include a narrative text analysis of the reroute, including its depiction on 7.5-minute USGS topographic quadrangle map, and a table comparing environmental resources along the reroute to the segment of proposed route. 6. In response to a comment received on the Project, include a detailed analysis of an alternative route for the H-318 pipeline which would be located on land already owned by Equitrans rather than privately held land. 7. Revise section to indicate whether streams, wetlands, and other resources located within the East and West Compressor station site alternatives could be avoided via configuration of the workspaces within the parcels. Status to the M-80 and H-158 pipelines are addressed in Section and Figure to the Webster Interconnect are addressed in Section and Figure The reason for not including alternatives for the H-305 and H-319 pipelines and Mobley Tap are addressed in Section Sections , , , and Section , Tables and and Figure Section and Figure Section iv October 2015

6 RESOURCE REPORT 10 ALTERNATIVES TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE REPORT ORGANIZATION NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES Existing Pipeline Systems New Pipeline Systems ROUTE ALTERNATIVES H-316 Pipeline Route Proposed Route Alternative Route Alternative Route Comparison of Proposed and Alternative Routes H-318 Pipeline Route Proposed Route Elrama Alternative Pollocks Knob Alternative Powerline Alternative Bunola Alternative Comparison of Proposed and Alternative Routes M-80 and H-158 Pipeline Route Alternative Webster Interconnect Alternative H-305 and H-319 Pipeline Routes and Mobley Tap Stakeholder Requested Pipeline Variations Headley Variation Cline Variation Aboveground Facility Visual or Noise Effects COMPRESSOR STATION SITE ALTERNATIVES Compressor Station Site Potential Residence Relocations Proposed and Alternative Compressor Station NSA Data Use of Electric-Motor-Driven Compressors REFERENCES LIST OF FIGURES Figure Other Pipeline Systems, Electric Transmission Lines and Major Highways in Allegheny, Greene, & Washington Counties (PA) & Wetzel County (WV) Figure H-316 Pipeline Route v October 2015

7 Figure H-318 Pipeline Route Figure M-80 and H-158 Pipeline Alternative Figure Webster Interconnect Alternative Figure Headley and Cline Pipeline Variations Figure Proposed Redhook and Alternative East Compressor Station Sites Figure Proposed Redhook and Alternative East Compressor Station NSA Data LIST OF TABLES Table Existing Natural Gas Pipelines in Allegheny, Greene, and Washington Counties, Pennsylvania, and Wetzel County, West Virginia Table Comparison of Alternative Routes 1 and 2 to the Proposed Route Table Comparison of Elrama Alternative and Proposed Route Table Comparison of Pollocks Knob Alternative and Proposed Route Table Comparison of Powerline Alternative and Proposed Route Table Comparison of Bunola Alternative and Proposed Route Table Comparison of M-80 and H-158 Route Alternative to Proposed Route Table Comparison of Alternative Interconnect to Proposed Webster Interconnect Table Comparison of Headley Variation and Proposed Route Table Comparison of Cline Variation and Proposed Route Table Non-Compressor Station Aboveground Facilities Table Comparison of Alternative East and Proposed Redhook Compressor Station Sites Table Potential Effects on Residents due to Residence Removal Table Characteristics of All Potential Noise Sensitive Areas within One Mile of the Proposed Redhook and Alternative East Sites vi October 2015

8 RESOURCE REPORT 10 ALTERNATIVES LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Columbia EQT Gathering Equitrans FERC or Commission HDD hp MP MVP NSA NWI Plan Procedures Project Tcf Texas Eastern Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC EQT Gathering, LLC Equitrans, L.P. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission horizontal directional drill horsepower milepost Mountain Valley Pipeline noise sensitive area National Wetlands Inventory FERC s May 2013 version of the Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan FERC s May 2013 version of the Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures Equitrans Expansion Project trillion cubic feet Texas Eastern Transmission, LP 10-vii October 2015

9 10.0 RESOURCE REPORT 10 ALTERNATIVES Introduction Equitrans, L.P. (Equitrans) is seeking a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act authorizing it to construct and operate the Equitrans Expansion Project (Project) located in three counties in Pennsylvania and one county in West Virginia. Equitrans plans to construct approximately 7.87 miles of pipeline (at multiple separate locations), a new compressor station, an interconnect with the proposed Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP), and ancillary facilities. In addition, Equitrans is seeking authorization pursuant to Section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act to abandon an existing compressor station following the construction of the new compressor station. The Project is designed to transport natural gas from the northern portion of the Equitrans system south to the new interconnect with MVP, as well as to existing interconnects with Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern), Dominion Transmission, Inc., and Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia). The Project will provide shippers with additional flexibility to transport natural gas produced in the central Appalachian Basin to meet the growing demand by local distribution companies, industrial users, and power generation facilities located in local, northeastern, Mid-Atlantic, and southeastern regions of the United States. The Project will also increase system reliability, efficiency, and operational flexibility for the benefit of all Equitrans customers. The Project is designed to add up to 600,000 dekatherms per day of north-south firm capacity on the Equitrans system. Resource Report 1 provides a complete summary of the Project facilities (see Tables and 1.2-2) and a general location map of the Project facilities (Figure 1.2-1). Environmental Resource Report Organization This resource report contains a discussion of the various alternatives to the Project that could achieve all or some portion of the Project objectives. The range of alternatives considered includes the No Action Alternative (Section 10.1), system alternatives (Section 10.2), route alternatives (Section 10.3), and compressor station site alternatives (Section 10.4). References cited in this report are listed in Section NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE If the Project is not authorized by the FERC, the short-term and long-term environmental impacts resulting from Project activities, to be discussed in other resource reports, will not occur. However, the No Action Alternative will not allow the accomplishment of the Project s stated purpose and need, which is to provide timely, cost-effective access to the growing demand for natural gas for use by local distribution companies, industrial users, and power generation facilities located in local, northeastern, Mid-Atlantic, and southeastern regions of the United States. Under the No Action Alternative, numerous benefits will be foregone. These lost benefits include: economical access of new sources of natural gas supply from the Marcellus and Utica production regions by natural gas markets in northeastern, Mid-Atlantic, and southeastern areas of the United States and potentially the Appalachian region; 10-1 October 2015

10 access for new and existing electricity generation facilities to greater sources of clean-burning natural gas supply to enhance reliability of the electric system; access for new and existing electricity generation facilities to greater sources of clean-burning natural gas supply, which in turn will create opportunities to improve regional air quality; and meeting the demonstrated demand for transportation services identified during the Project open season and continuing discussions with producers in the area. The U.S. Energy Information Agency projects that total natural gas consumption in the United States will increase from 25.6 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) in 2012 to 31.6 Tcf in 2040, with a large portion of this increased demand occurring in the electric generation sector (EIA 2014). A sizable portion of this growth in production is occurring in the Appalachian Basin shale region. Likewise, the increased demand for natural gas is expected to be especially high in the southeastern United States, as new environmental regulations result in coal-fired generation plants being converted or replaced by natural gas-fired generation plants. The infrastructure design of the Project is expected to benefit these regions by connecting the production supply to the market demand. In doing so, the Project will bring clean-burning domestically produced natural gas supplies from the prolific Appalachian Basin shale region and supply it to the demand markets in order to support the growing demand for clean-burning natural gas, provide increased supply diversity, and improve supply reliability to these growing markets. The Project may also support additional uses of natural gas in West Virginia and Pennsylvania by providing infrastructure that can facilitate economic development associated with having access to affordable gas supplies, because these areas currently have limited interstate pipeline capacity SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES System alternatives are alternatives to the proposed action that will make use of other existing, modified, or proposed pipeline systems to meet the stated objectives of the Project. A system alternative will make it unnecessary to construct all or part of the Project, although some modifications or additions to the alternative systems may be required to increase its capacity or provide receipt and delivery capability consistent with that of the Project. These modifications or additions will result in environmental impacts that may be less than, comparable to, or greater than those associated with construction of the Project. System alternatives that will result in significantly less environmental impact might be preferable to the Project. However, a viable system alternative must also be technically and economically feasible and practicable and must satisfy necessary contractual commitments made with shippers supporting the development of the Project Existing Pipeline Systems Equitrans evaluated current system alternatives by looking at the technical and economic feasibility and practicality of the alternatives, the environmental advantage of the alternatives, and the alternatives ability to meet the Project s purpose and need in increased natural gas supplies to the northeastern, Mid-Atlantic, Appalachian, and southeastern markets. Table is a list of all existing FERC-jurisdictional transmission pipelines by company in Allegheny, Greene, and Washington Counties, Pennsylvania, and Wetzel County, West Virginia, not owned, operated, or controlled by Equitrans or its affiliates. Figure shows their location. There are no existing pipelines systems that could handle the volumes proposed for the Project or supply the substantial volumes of natural gas to MVP. The proposed H-316 pipeline will directionally follow and, where feasible, be adjacent to the existing Texas Eastern pipeline between the 10-2 October 2015

11 vicinity of the proposed Redhook Compressor Station and the existing H-302 pipeline. Analyses determined that the Texas Eastern line does not have the capacity or operating pressure to move the planned additional volume of natural gas. The proposed H-318 pipeline will traverse west and connect the existing Applegate Gathering System, which is operated by EQT Gathering, LLC (EQT Gathering), with Equitrans existing H-148 pipeline. There are no existing pipeline systems that will allow for a connection between these two points. The M-80 and H-158 pipelines will re-route gas currently flowing to the to-be-abandoned Pratt Compressor Station to the proposed Redhook Compressor Station. There are no existing pipeline systems that will allow for a connection between these two points. The H-305 pipeline segment is a proposed 24- inch pipeline extension, approximately 550 feet in length that will move gas from the Redhook Compressor Station to Equitrans existing H-305 pipeline located at the Braden Run Interconnect with Texas Eastern. The H-319 pipeline is a proposed 16-inch pipeline approximately 200 feet in length that will connect the Equitrans H-306 pipeline to the Webster Interconnect with MVP. Owner Dominion NiSource Table Existing Natural Gas Pipelines in Allegheny, Greene, and Washington Counties, Pennsylvania, and Wetzel County, West Virginia Counties Crossed Allegheny, Greene, Washington, Wetzel Allegheny, Greene, Washington, Wetzel Size Other existing pipelines systems in Allegheny, Greene, Washington Counties, Pennsylvania, and Wetzel County, West Virginia, that could handle the additional volumes proposed for the Project without major modifications Dominion has existing pipelines in the vicinity of the receipt points into Equitrans. However, Dominion would have to install pipeline laterals and compression infrastructure that would exceed the proposed Project footprint. Additionally, Dominion s Informational Posting website does not indicate that capacity is available in the Project area NiSource has existing pipelines in the vicinity of the receipt points into Equitrans. However, NiSource would have to install pipeline mainline and laterals as well as compression infrastructure that would far exceed the proposed Project footprint. Additionally, NiSource s Informational Posting website does not indicate that capacity is available in the Project area. Other existing pipeline systems in Wetzel County that could supply substantial volumes of natural gas to the proposed MVP Project Dominion has existing pipelines in the vicinity of the delivery point into MVP. However, Dominion would have to install pipeline laterals and compression infrastructure that would exceed the proposed Project footprint. NiSource has existing pipelines in the vicinity of the delivery point into MVP. However, NiSource would have to install pipeline laterals and compression infrastructure that would exceed the proposed Project footprint October 2015

12 Owner Texas Eastern Table Existing Natural Gas Pipelines in Allegheny, Greene, and Washington Counties, Pennsylvania, and Wetzel County, West Virginia Counties Crossed Size Other existing pipelines systems in Allegheny, Greene, Washington Counties, Pennsylvania, and Wetzel County, West Virginia, that could handle the additional volumes proposed for the Project without major modifications Greene Texas Eastern has existing pipelines in the vicinity of the Project. However, Texas Eastern would have to install substantial pipeline laterals to provide service to the Project receipt points that would far exceed the proposed Project footprint. Additionally, Texas Eastern would have to install additional compression infrastructure to transport the supplies. Texas Eastern s Informational Posting website does not indicate that the full requested capacity is available in the Project area. a/ See Figure for pipeline system locations. Other existing pipeline systems in Wetzel County that could supply substantial volumes of natural gas to the proposed MVP Project Texas Eastern does not have any pipelines located in the vicinity of the delivery point into MVP. Texas Eastern would have to install a minimum of 25 miles of pipeline and compression infrastructure that would far exceed the proposed Project footprint October 2015

13 H158 /M8 0 TWS 01 H158 /M8 0 TWS 02 Columbiana Carroll Hancock Beaver UV 60 Jefferson (10in (12in 22 (24in UV 60 (20in Allegheny Harrison Ohio UV 7 (10in ( 8in (16in (16in (24in H-318 (20in (16in Brooke (12in (26in (16in (12in Washington 70 (20in (10in (20in (24in Westmoreland (10in (12in (24in (10in (12in Belmont 470 Ohio (10in Pennsylvania (20in ( 8in (10in ( 8in (12in (30in (10in (36in (10in (10in (12in (30in 30in ( (12in Greene (24in H-316 (36in (24in Fayette Monroe Marshall (20in (24in (20in (24in (12in (20in (24in Ritchie (30in Tyler (10in (10in (10in (30in (30in (24in West Virginia Wetzel (20in (30in (20in (16in (18in Mobley Tap ( ( (20in Webster Interconnect Doddridge Equitrans Expansion Project Figure Other Pipeline Systems, Electric Transmission Lines and Major Highways in Allegheny, Greene, & Washington Counties (PA) & Wetzel County (WV) October 2015 Data Sources: ESRI Data, Ventyx ± (24in (24in (18in Legend (24in (14in (24in (24in (24in (20in (24in Harrison (24in Existing Natural Gas Pipeline Systems Dominion Transmission, Inc. Pipeline Columbia Gas Pipeline Marion 1:400,000 Texas Eastern Transmission (TETCO) Pipeline Major Highways Existing Transmission Lines 4kV 69kV 115kV 138kV 345kV 500kV 765kV 79 Sunoco Mariner East Oil Pipeline County Boundary State Boundary Interstate Highway US Highway State/County Highway Monongalia Taylor 68 Preston Miles Document Path: P:\EQT-Equitrans\Equitrans_to_MVP\GIS\Spatial\MXD\ResourceReports\ResourceReport_10\Figure10_2_1_ForeignPipelines.mxd

14 The Webster Interconnect and Mobley Tap are designed to deliver gas into the MVP from the Equitrans Transmission System. Any other location for these facilities would require new pipeline construction to connect to the MVP New Pipeline Systems The Project s pipeline and compressor station facilities are designed to optimize the transport of natural gas from the northern portion of Equitrans system south to a future interconnection with the proposed MVP facilities, as well as to existing interconnects with Columbia, Texas Eastern, and Dominion Transmission, Inc., on the southern portion of Equitrans system. Equitrans did not identify any new or proposed pipeline systems that could conceptually serve as a system alternative when considered in conjunction with the location of MVP. The H-316 pipeline will move gas from the new Redhook Compressor Station to Equitrans existing H-302 pipeline, either for delivery to Texas Eastern or south on Equitrans H-302 pipeline to MVP. The H-318 pipeline will move gas from the Applegate Gathering System, which is operated by EQT Gathering, to Equitrans existing H-148 pipeline for delivery south. There are no new or proposed pipelines that will allow for the proposed interconnections with the MVP or existing interconnects on the southern portion of Equitrans system. Further, any new pipelines would necessarily involve more construction to move gas to the delivery points, with greater environmental impacts than utilizing existing facilities to the extent practicable, as the Project does ROUTE ALTERNATIVES During Project development, Equitrans conducted an extensive review of possible pipeline routes to identify potential pipeline corridors. This analysis consisted of identifying the constraints that characterize the key environmental resources, land uses, and potential restrictions located along each route and route alternative (where applicable) and then comparing them to identify a preferred route. Because the Project s objective is to optimize the flow of natural gas between components of Equitrans system and existing and proposed interconnects, the study area is limited in size. In an information request dated July 2, 2015, FERC asked Equitrans to evaluate alternative locations for several proposed facilities. In the September 28, 2015 data request, FERC asked Equitrans to evaluate several stakeholder-identified re-routing requests. These alternatives and re-routes are discussed below H-316 Pipeline Route The Proposed Route and two alternatives for the H-316 pipeline were identified as feasible to transport gas from the proposed Redhook Compressor Station to Equitrans existing H-302 pipeline for delivery either to Texas Eastern or south on Equitrans H-302 pipeline ultimately connecting with MVP (Figure ). Comparative data for each alternative are shown in Table The initial study phase assumed Alternative Routes 1 and 2 will originate at the existing Pratt Compressor Station. As the study progressed, it was apparent that the Pratt Compressor Station could not be adequately expanded to accommodate the amount of new compressor facilities needed, leading to the identification of the Redhook Compressor Station (see Section 10.4). During the final study phase, Alternative Routes 1 and 2 were extended northward to originate at the proposed Redhook Compressor Station, and a third alternative route (Proposed Route) was identified exiting directly east from the proposed Redhook Compressor Station October 2015

15 Proposed Route The Proposed Route will exit the proposed Redhook Compressor Station in an easterly direction following an existing Texas Eastern natural gas pipeline for 0.5 mile, then through largely open fields until reaching a crossing of South Fork Tenmile Creek at milepost (MP) 2.3. South of the creek, the Proposed Route crosses hilly terrain to a connection with the H-302 pipeline, a total distance of 3.0 miles. The Proposed Route crosses undeveloped land, isolated wetlands totaling approximately 199 feet, and a mix of forest and cropland for 2.7 miles. A little over 800 feet of steep side slopes are crossed. There are two residences located within 50 feet of the edge of the construction right-of-way. Both were purchased by Equitrans, are currently unoccupied, and will be removed from the Project prior to construction. The Proposed Route allows for a well-designed and sited horizontal directional drill (HDD) crossing of the South Fork Tenmile Creek Alternative Route 1 Alternative Route 1 would exit the proposed Redhook Compressor Station to the south and extend approximately 3.3 miles to a termination at the H-302 pipeline. Alternative Route 1 crosses undeveloped land and isolated wetlands totaling approximately 131 feet. Overall, the alternative is 42 percent forested with less than 0.5 mile of slopes greater than 20 percent. There is one residence within 50 feet of the edge of the construction right-of-way. For most of its length. Alternative Route 1 is parallel to several pipelines and would be confined to narrow corridors in many places. It would also require some tight construction along State Highway 21 between the highway and several structures. Exiting the proposed Redhook Compressor Station to the south would likely require an open cut of the South Fork Tenmile Creek due to the tight working space Alternative Route 2 Alternative Route 2 would exit the proposed Redhook Compressor Station following the same alignment as Alternative Route 1 as far as the existing Pratt Compressor Station and then turn east extending to a termination at the H-302 pipeline, a total distance of 3.1 miles. The Proposed Route crosses undeveloped land and isolated wetlands totaling approximately 86 feet. Overall, the alternative is 77 percent forested and crosses approximately 3,577 feet of steep slopes. No residences are located within 50 feet of the edge of the construction right-of-way. During the follow-on study civil survey conducted along Alternative Route 2, five pipelines were identified in the existing corridor intended to be followed. The location of any additional pipeline would have been on severe side slopes, which are already reported to be experiencing active slips between MPs 1.5 and 2.3. Similar to Alternative Route 1, exiting the proposed Redhook Compressor Station to the south would likely require an open cut of the South Fork Tenmile Creek due to the limited workspace October 2015

16 South Fork Tenmile Creek Equitrans Expansion Project Figure H-316 Pipeline Route October 2015 Data Sources: ESRI 10.1, ESRI Streaming Data (2014) ± Legend :24,000 H-316 Proposed Route H-316 Alternative 1 H-316 Alternative 2 H-302 Existing Pratt Compressor Station Site Proposed Redhook Compressor Station (6/17/2015) Redhook Alternative Site East Redhook Alternative Site West Miles Document Path: P:\EQT-Equitrans\Equitrans_to_MVP\GIS\Spatial\MXD\ResourceReports\ResourceReport_10\Figure10_3_1_H316_Route.mxd

17 General Feature Table Comparison of Alternative Routes 1 and 2 to the Proposed Route Alternative Route 1 Alternative Route 2 Proposed Route Constr. Oper. Constr. Oper. Constr. Oper. Total length (miles) Length adjacent to existing ROW (miles) Land disturbed within construction ROW (acres) a/c/ Land Use Populated areas b/ within 0.5 mile (number) NRHP designated or eligible historic properties within 0.5 mile (number) 45.0 N/A 43.6 N/A 34.1 N/A Landowner parcels crossed (number) Residences within 50 feet of construction work space (number) Resources 1 N/A 0 N/A 2 N/A Forested Land crossed (miles) c/d/ Forested Wetlands (miles) c/ Forested Wetlands (acres) c/ Forests (miles) c/ Forests (acres) c/ Cropland crossed (miles) Wetlands (NWI) crossed (feet) Perennial waterbody (source) crossings (number) Streams with drinking water designation (number) e/ Major River crossings (number) Habitat of listed threatened and endangered species crossed (miles) Steep slopes (>20%) crossed (feet) 2, , , , , ,515.2 Shallow bedrock crossed (miles) Karst geology crossed (miles) Landslide-prone soils crossed (miles) a/ Assuming 125-foot-wide construction ROW. b/ City, town, village center, or dense residential development. c/ Does not include area of HDD. d/ Forested Land based on following National Land Cover Dataset Land Use Types: Forested Upland, Deciduous Forest, Evergreen Forest, Mixed Forest, Woody Wetlands, Palustrine Forested Wetland, Estuarine Forested Wetland e/ No data were identified that associate drinking water designations to streams. NRHP = National Register of Historic Places NWI = National Wetland Inventory ROW = right-of-way 10-9 October 2015

18 Comparison of Proposed and Alternative Routes At the end of the final siting phase, the Proposed Route was chosen over Alternative Routes 1 and 2. Based on the data presented in Table , the three routes would affect many resources in a similar way. The key disadvantages of Alternative Route 1 are difficulties associated with construction in congested conditions adjacent to existing pipelines, side-slope construction for a significant run, and an open cut of the South Fork Tenmile Creek. The key disadvantages of Alternative Route 2 are collocation with five pipelines on severe side slope, identification of an existing slip between MPs 1.5 and 2.3, and an open cut of the South Fork Tenmile Creek. The Proposed Route crosses 68 to 113 more feet of wetland than the alternative routes but allows for an HDD of South Fork Tenmile Creek and avoids construction and installation on approximately 884 to 2,064 more feet of steep slope that will be encountered by the alternative routes. Overall, the Proposed Route results in the least adverse environmental impact and presents the least constructability issues October 2015

19 H-318 Pipeline Route The H-318 pipeline will move gas from the Applegate Gathering System, which is operated by EQT Gathering, west to Equitrans existing H-148 pipeline for delivery south. The distance between the gathering system and the connection to the H-148 pipeline is approximately 2.7 miles. The length of the Proposed Route is approximately 4.3 miles. As described below, a more direct route is constrained by a combination of residential, industrial, and recreational developments, river crossing locations, and terrain (see Figure ) Proposed Route From the Applegate Gathering System and heading west, the Proposed Route alignment is immediately pushed south to avoid steep terrain on either side of the Monongahela River as well as the limited availability of adequate HDD set-up locations. Along the southerly location, the route takes advantage of rolling terrain and more moderate slopes on either side of Kelly Run. West of Kelly Run, the route will cross to the south and avoid the Riverview Golf Course. One farm along the Proposed Route is enrolled in the Pennsylvania Agricultural Land Preservation Program, and the state has purchased an easement for protection of land. Near Bunola, between MPs 2.8 to 3.5, HDD will be used to cross the Monongahela River, which avoids the Norfolk Southern Shire Oaks railyard and a more developed area of Elrama. Continuing west, the route generally follows ridge tops to its connection with the existing H-148 pipeline. Table shows resources affected by the Proposed Route. The Proposed Route crosses isolated wetlands totaling approximately 884 feet. There are no residences located within 50 feet of the edge of the construction right-of-way Elrama Alternative FERC asked Equitrans to evaluate an alternative that would begin at MP 0.0 and head northeast along an existing pipeline right-of-way about 0.5 mile to a point opposite the power plant in Elrama, cross under the Monongahela River, and follow the existing power line northwest to Lobbs Road, then parallel Lobbs Road west to MP 4. As described in Table , the Elrama Alternative and Proposed Route would have similar effects for historic resources, forested land, wetlands, water bodies, rivers, threatened and endangered habitat, karst geology, and landslide-prone soils crossed. The Elrama Alternative is 0.7 mile shorter and would result in approximately 5.8 acres less construction disturbance compared to the Proposed Route. It follows a combination of road and powerline rights-of-way for 2.9 miles as compared to 0.8 mile by the Proposed Route, and avoid 0.8 mile more of area with shallow bedrock. Disadvantages of the Elrama Alternative include developing a HDD crossing of the Monongahela River with steep slopes on the eastern side and, on the western side, an area congested with industrial and utility development including rail yard, coal pile, water treatment facilities, and oil storage tanks between MPs 0.9 and 1.2. As the Elrama Alternative leaves the western shore of the river, it would have to be located in an existing right-of-way already accommodating five power lines with abutting residential development to the north and a mix of residential and commercial development to the south for approximately 0.4 mile between MPs 1.2 and 1.6. Between MPs 2.3 and 3.5, the Elrama Alternative would be located in or immediately adjacent to Lobbs Road in a narrowly defined valley, with attendant construction disruption to traffic and residents. In summary, the Elrama Alternative would affect more populated areas, cross 17 more parcels during construction, impact 10 more residences that would be within 50 feet of the edge of the construction rightof-way, and cross 2,141 feet more of terrain with steep slopes than the Proposed Route October 2015

20 H-148 Pipeline $ Dusmal House Washington County 3.6 Existing Pipeline Right-of-Way Existing Powerline Right-of-Way 3.5 Equitrans Expansion Project Figure H-318 Pipeline Route Data Sources: ESRI 10.1, ESRI Streaming Data (2014) $ $ October Allegheny County ± Legend NRHP-Listed Site H H-318 Proposed Route Bunola Alternative Elrama Alternative Monongahela River 2.2 1:24,000 Pollocks Knob Alternative Powerline Alternative Existing ROW Norfolk Southern Sire Oaks Yard Riverview Golf Course County Boundary NWI Wetland Lobb's Cemetery and Yohogania County Courthouse Site Existing Powerline Right-of-Way Existing Pipeline Right-of-Way Miles $ $ Applegate Gathering System Connection Point $ Document Path: P:\EQT-Equitrans\Equitrans_to_MVP\GIS\Spatial\MXD\ResourceReports\ResourceReport_10\Figure10_3_2_H318_Route.mxd

21 General Feature Table Comparison of Elrama Alternative and Proposed Route Elrama Proposed Route Construction Operation Construction Operation Total length (miles) Length adjacent to existing ROW (miles) Land disturbed within construction ROW (acres) a/c/ 37.3 N/A 43.1 N/A Land Use Populated areas b/ within 0.5 mile (number) NRHP designated or eligible historic properties within 0.5 mile (number) Landowner parcels crossed (number) Residences within 50 feet of construction work space (number) Resources 10 N/A 0 N/A Forested Land crossed (miles) c/d/ Forested Wetlands (miles) c/ Forested Wetlands (acres) c/ Forests (miles) c/ Forests (acres) c/ Cropland crossed (miles) Wetlands (NWI) crossed (feet) Perennial waterbody (source) crossings (number) Streams with drinking water designation (number) e/ Major River crossings (number) Habitat of listed threatened and endangered species crossed (miles) Steep slopes (>20%) crossed (feet) 3, , , ,142.6 Shallow bedrock crossed (miles) Karst geology crossed (miles) Landslide-prone soils crossed (miles) a/ Assuming 100-foot-wide construction ROW. b/ City, town, village center, or dense residential development. c/ Crossing is adjacent to existing utility corridor. d/ Forested Land based on following National Land Cover Dataset Land Use Types: Forested Upland, Deciduous Forest, Evergreen Forest, Mixed Forest, Woody Wetlands, Palustrine Forested Wetland, Estuarine Forested Wetland. e/ No data were identified that associate drinking water designations to streams. NRHP = National Register of Historic Places NWI = National Wetland Inventory ROW = right-of-way October 2015

22 Pollocks Knob Alternative FERC asked Equitrans to evaluate an alternative that would begin at MP 0.0 and proceed in a straight line northwest to MP 4. As described in Table , the Pollocks Knob Alternative and Proposed Route would have similar effects for lengths adjacent to existing rights-of-way and proximity to populated areas, cultural resources, parcels crossed, residences within 50 feet of the construction right-of-way, river crossings, threatened and endangered species habitat, depth to bedrock, karst geology, and landslide-prone soils crossed. The Pollocks Knob Alternative would be 1.9 miles shorter and result in 28.8 acres less construction disturbance than the Proposed Route. The significant disadvantage of the Pollocks Knob Alternative is the very low feasibility of a successful HDD crossing of the of the Monongahela River at this location due to steep slopes on either side, increasing the length (MPs 0.1 to 1.3) as much as 0.5 mile as compared to the Proposed Route (MPs 2.8 to 3. 5). Theoretically, the drill rig on the eastern side of the river will be set up on the ridge surrounding the existing Applegate Station due to available space and accommodating terrain. There does not appear to be any other location between the Applegate Station and the river that is large enough to stage a drill rig. Steep slopes northeast of the existing station will require a drill rig to have an entrance angle in excess of 20 degrees to achieve proper clearances in the valley below an angle that is in the upper limits of what is possible and will exceed the capabilities of most machines. The rig will have to be set up even farther back, lengthening the route. Simply finding sufficient terrain for staging given all the hills and valleys behind the proposed staging area would be very difficult. Similar terrain limitations would occur on the theoretical exit side of the drill on the western side of the river. By the time the drill is extended past PA-837, the drill would already have reached over 1 mile. By this point, the steering capability of the drill rig is almost completely gone making it difficult to navigate the terrain and accurately reach any proposed exit point. Given the lack of flat or gently rolling terrain on the western side of the river, there does not appear to be a suitable exit point for the drill that could accommodate pipe stringing and pullback that could possibly be steered at that distance. Additionally, the area west of the river has been significantly affected by coal-mining activities, both room-and-pillar and strip mine. The Pollocks Knob Alternative crosses more of the room-and-pillar mine, which increases the risk of drilling mud, loss of circulation, and, ultimately, inadvertent returns. The strip mine is owned by the power company and was used as a fill site; it was avoided at the request of the power company. The alternative route would also cross the wider portion of the rail yards, a residential area between MPs 1.6 and 2.2, 524 more feet of wetland, and 1,714 more feet of terrain with steep slopes than the Proposed Route. General Feature Table Comparison of Pollocks Knob Alternative and Proposed Route Pollocks Knob Proposed Route Construction Operation Construction Operation Total length (miles) Length adjacent to existing ROW (miles) Land disturbed within construction ROW (acres) a/c/ 14.3 N/A 43.1 N/A October 2015

23 Land Use Feature Table Comparison of Pollocks Knob Alternative and Proposed Route Pollocks Knob Proposed Route Construction Operation Construction Operation Populated areas b/ within 0.5 mile (number) NRHP designated or eligible historic properties within 0.5 mile (number) Landowner parcels crossed (number) Residences within 50 feet of construction work space (number) Resources 2 N/A 0 N/A Forested Land crossed (miles) c/d/ Forested Wetlands (miles) c/ Forested Wetlands (acres) c/ Forests (miles) c/ Forests (acres) c/ Cropland crossed (miles) Wetlands (NWI) crossed (feet) 1, , Perennial waterbody (source) crossings (number) Streams with drinking water designation (number) e/ Major River crossings (number) Habitat of listed threatened and endangered species crossed (miles) Steep slopes (>20%) crossed (feet) 2, , , ,142.6 Shallow bedrock crossed (miles) Karst geology crossed (miles) Landslide-prone soils crossed (miles) a/ Assuming 100-foot-wide construction ROW. b/ City, town, village center, or dense residential development. c/ Does not include area of HDD. d/ Forested Land based on following National Land Cover Dataset Land Use Types: Forested Upland, Deciduous Forest, Evergreen Forest, Mixed Forest, Woody Wetlands, Palustrine Forested Wetland, Estuarine Forested Wetland e/ No data was identified that associates drinking water designations to streams. NRHP = National Register of Historic Places NWI = National Wetland Inventory ROW = right-of-way October 2015

24 Powerline Alternative FERC asked Equitrans to evaluate an alternative to the H-318 pipeline that will be collocated with the existing powerline through the Riverview Golf Course. As described in Table , the Powerline Alternative and Proposed Route would have similar effects for length adjacent to existing rights-of-way and proximity to populated areas, cultural resources, parcels crossed, residences within 50 feet of the construction right-of-way, forested land, wetlands, perennial waterbodies, rivers, threatened and endangered species habitat, karst geology, and landslide-prone soils crossed. The Powerline Alternative would be 1.3 miles shorter and result in 14.4 acres less construction disturbance than the Proposed Route. The alternative would have less impact on cropland, and have 0.3 mile less land crossed with shallow depth to bedrock than the Proposed Route. However, there are several disadvantages associated with the Powerline Alternative. Although the shorter distance is accomplished by following a powerline between MPs 0.0 and 1.0, the northern side of the existing transmission line is so steep (approximately 4,000 feet of steep side slope) as to prevent safe construction of a pipeline along the slope. Accordingly, the pipeline could not be constructed to the north of the towers in an acceptable manner. Construction on the southern side, through the Riverview Golf Course, would have required winter construction to not disrupt the operation of the golf course. While potentially feasible, the alternative does pose additional safety concerns with weather. Raccoon Run Road, which is crossed by the Powerline Alternative between MPs 0.3 and 0.4, has a substantial elevation change from one side of the road to the other. The only acceptable construction method across Raccoon Run Road into Riverview Golf Course would be an HDD. Analysis indicates that there were mined-out areas (room and pillar) that would prevent a successful HDD. General Feature Table Comparison of Powerline Alternative and Proposed Route Powerline Proposed Route Construction Operation Construction Operation Total length (miles) Length adjacent to existing ROW (miles) Land disturbed within construction ROW (acres) a/c/ Land Use 28.7 N/A 43.1 N/A Populated areas b/ within 0.5 mile (number) NRHP designated or eligible historic properties within 0.5 mile (number) Landowner parcels crossed (number) Residences within 50 feet of construction work space (number) Resources 2 N/A 0 N/A Forested Land crossed (miles) c/d/ ,7 Forested Wetlands (miles) c/ Forested Wetlands (acres) c/ Forests (miles) c/ , October 2015

25 Feature Table Comparison of Powerline Alternative and Proposed Route Powerline Proposed Route Construction Operation Construction Operation Forests (acres) c/ Cropland crossed (miles) Wetlands (NWI) crossed (feet) Perennial waterbody (source) crossings (number) Streams with drinking water designation (number) e/ Major River crossings (number) Habitat of listed threatened and endangered species crossed (miles) Steep slopes (>20%) crossed (feet) 3, , , ,142.6 Shallow bedrock crossed (miles) Karst geology crossed (miles) Landslide-prone soils crossed (miles) a/ Assuming 100-foot-wide construction ROW. b/ City, town, village center, or dense residential development. c/ Does not include area of HDD. d/ Forested Land based on following National Land Cover Dataset Land Use Types: Forested Upland, Deciduous Forest, Evergreen Forest, Mixed Forest, Woody Wetlands, Palustrine Forested Wetland, Estuarine Forested Wetland. e/ No data were identified that associate drinking water designations to streams. NRHP = National Register of Historic Places NWI = National Wetland Inventory ROW = right-of-way Bunola Alternative FERC asked Equitrans to evaluate an alternative that would be collocated with the recently constructed Sunoco Oil Mariner East Pipeline south of the town of Bunola, Pennsylvania. The Proposed Route is planned to be adjacent to the Mariner East pipeline between MPs 1.2 and 2.1. The Bunola Alternative essentially extends the adjacent segment to the south and east from MP 1.2 and then turns northwest along another existing corridor to Proposed Route MP 0.8. However, following the Mariner East Pipeline corridor farther west (beyond MP 2.1) through Allegheny and into Washington Counties will only add additional pipeline length (see Figure ). As described in Table , the Bunola Alternative and the Proposed Route would have similar effects for proximity to populated areas, cultural resources, parcels crossed, residences within 50 feet of the construction right-of-way, forested land, wetlands, rivers, perennial waterbodies, threatened and endangered species habitat, steep slopes crossed, karst geology, and landslideprone soils crossed. The Bunola Alternative would be adjacent to an existing right-of-way for 0.5 mile more than the Proposed Route but is overall 0.5 mile longer, resulting in approximately 5 more acres of construction disturbance and had two residences within 50 feet of the construction right-of-way, thus offering no environmental advantage for its selection October 2015

26 General Feature Table Comparison of Bunola Alternative and Proposed Route Bunola Proposed Route Construction Operation Construction Operation Total length (miles) Length adjacent to existing ROW (miles) Land disturbed within construction ROW (acres) a/c/ 48.8 N/A 43.1 N/A Land Use Populated areas b/ within 0.5 mile (number) NRHP designated or eligible historic properties within 0.5 mile (number) Landowner parcels crossed (number) Residences within 50 feet of construction work space (number) Resources 2 N/A 0 N/A Forested Land crossed (miles) c/d/ Forested Wetlands (miles) c/ Forested Wetlands (acres) c/ Forests (miles) c/ Forests (acres) c/ Cropland crossed (miles) Wetlands (NWI) crossed (feet) Perennial waterbody (source) crossings (number) Streams with drinking water designation (number) e/ Major River crossings (number) Habitat of listed threatened and endangered species crossed (miles) Steep slopes (>20%) crossed (feet) 1,131 1,131 1, ,142.6 Shallow bedrock crossed (miles) Karst geology crossed (miles) Landslide-prone soils crossed (miles) a/ Assuming 100-foot-wide construction ROW. b/ City, town, village center, or dense residential development. c/ Does not include area of HDD. d/ Forested Land based on following National Land Cover Dataset Land Use Types: Forested Upland, Deciduous Forest, Evergreen Forest, Mixed Forest, Woody Wetlands, Palustrine Forested Wetland, Estuarine Forested Wetland. e/ No data were identified that associate drinking water designations to streams. NRHP = National Register of Historic Places. NWI = National Wetland Inventory ROW = right-of-way October 2015

27 Comparison of Proposed and Alternative Routes The four alternative routes outlined above were evaluated in comparison to the Proposed Route for the H- 318 pipeline. While all have varying degrees of feasibility, each has aspects that make it less preferable than the Proposed Route. As described above, although the Proposed Route is significantly longer than the straight-line distance between the Applegate Gathering System and the existing H-148 pipeline, and although it is longer than three of the alternative routes, it is sited to avoid constraints such as steep side slopes, residential and recreational uses, sites with low HDD feasibility, and sites where construction difficulty can cause additional adverse environmental effects. Based on the data presented in Tables through , the Proposed Route and the four alternative routes would affect many resources in similar ways. However, each alternative has disadvantages that makes them less preferable than the Proposed Route: The Elrama Alternative includes developing an HDD crossing of the Monongahela River, which would have more terrain with steep slopes, siting in an area congested with industrial and utility development, collocation in an existing right-of-way with five powerlines with abutting residential and commercial development, and construction along a roadway within a narrow valley. The Pollocks Knob Alternative has very low feasibility of a successful HDD crossing of the Monongahela River due to steep slopes on either side, proximity to a residential area, more wetlands crossed, and 1,714 feet more terrain with steep side slopes than along the Proposed Route. The Powerline Alternative would be either on the northern side of the existing transmission line, which is so steep an area as to make it unfeasible or, if placed on the southern side, would require winter construction and disruption to the golf course. In addition, the only acceptable construction method across Raccoon Run Road would be an HDD, which is considered not feasible. The key disadvantage of the Bunola Alternative is its increased length, which offers no environmental advantage over the Proposed Route. The Proposed Route is already planned to be adjacent to the Mariner East Pipeline between MPs 1.2 and 2.1. Extending the adjacent location farther to the west would significantly increase the length of any route connecting to the H-148 pipeline. Overall, the Proposed Route results in the least adverse environmental impact October 2015

28 M-80 and H-158 Pipeline Route Alternative FERC asked Equitrans to include a detailed assessment and depiction of at least one viable route alternative for the M-80 and H-158 pipelines. The 6-inch M-80 and 12-inch H-158 pipelines currently move gas to the Pratt Compressor Station, but will require modification to move gas to the Redhook Compressor Station once it is commissioned. As proposed, the collocated pipelines will be realigned for a distance of approximately 0.2 mile to connect the existing pipelines to the proposed compressor station. Equitrans evaluated an alternative collocated route for the M-80 and H-158 pipelines that begins the realignment of the existing pipelines at a point approximately 2,600 feet west of the current proposed realignment point. The location of the M-80 and H-158 pipeline alternative route is shown on Figure Beginning at MP 0.0, the alternative route would proceed approximately 1,900 feet adjacent to a Texas Eastern pipeline rightof-way to MP 0.4 on steep slopes. From that point, the alternative route would be located in or adjacent to Braden Run Road to MP 0.6. At that point, the alternative route would turn north along the same alignment as the proposed routes to MP 0.6, a total length of approximately 0.7 mile October 2015

29 Texas Eastern Pipeline Corridor BRADEN RUN RD Equitrans Expansion Project Figure M-80 and H-158 Pipeline October 2015 Data Sources: ESRI 10.1, ESRI Streaming Data (2014) STROPE RD ± Legend M-80 Alternative H-158 Alternative 1:6,000 M-80 Proposed Route H-158 Proposed Route Proposed Redhook Compressor Station Site Road Parcel Boundary JEFFERSON RD Miles Document Path: P:\EQT-Equitrans\Equitrans_to_MVP\GIS\Spatial\MXD\ResourceReports\ResourceReport_10\Figure10_3_3_H158_M80_Route.mxd

30 Table compares the proposed and alternative routes for the M-80 and H-158 pipelines. While the alternative route maximizes the paralleling of existing corridors, the additional 0.5-mile length would cause 4.6 acres of additional construction disturbance and result in substantially more side slopes. In addition, residents along Braden Run Road would incur traffic delays and access disruption. The Proposed Route avoids most resource concerns and is the shortest distance feasible. General Table Comparison of M-80 and H-158 Route Alternative to Proposed Route Feature M-80 and H-158 Route e/ M-80 and H-158 Proposed Route e/ Construction Operation Construction Operation Total length (miles) Length adjacent to existing ROW (miles) Land disturbed within construction ROW (acres) a/ 8.4 N/A 3.8 N/A Land Use Populated areas b/ within 0.5 mile (number) NRHP designated or eligible historic properties within 0.5 mile (number) Landowner parcels crossed (number) Residences within 50 feet of construction work space (number) Resources 2 N/A 0 N/A Forested Land crossed (miles) c/ Forested Wetlands (miles) Forested Wetlands (acres) Forests (miles) Forests (acres) Cropland crossed (miles) Wetlands (NWI) crossed (feet) Perennial waterbody (source) crossings (number) Streams with drinking water designation (number) d/ Major River crossings (number) Habitat of listed threatened and endangered species crossed (miles) Steep slopes (>20%) crossed (feet) Shallow bedrock crossed (miles) Karst geology crossed (miles) Landslide-prone soils crossed (miles) a/ Assuming 100-foot-wide construction ROW. b/ City, town, village center, or dense residential development October 2015

31 Table Comparison of M-80 and H-158 Route Alternative to Proposed Route Feature M-80 and H-158 Route e/ M-80 and H-158 Proposed Route e/ Construction Operation Construction Operation c/ Forested Land based on following National Land Cover Dataset Land Use Types: Forested Upland, Deciduous Forest, Evergreen Forest, Mixed Forest, Woody Wetlands, Palustrine Forested Wetland, Estuarine Forested Wetland. d/ No data were identified that associate drinking water designations to streams. e/ Based on H-158 pipeline route, which is slightly longer than M-80 route. NRHP = National Register of Historic Places NWI = National Wetland Inventory ROW = right-of-way Webster Interconnect Alternative FERC asked Equitrans to include a detailed assessment and depiction of at least one site alternative for the Webster Interconnect. The Webster Interconnect will allow delivery of natural gas into MVP from the Equitrans Transmission System. The Webster Interconnect will be located near the point where the Equitrans H-306 is crossed by MVP. This general location is the only option available to supply MVP from Equitrans without running long sections of pipeline from Equitrans to MVP. In selecting the location for the proposed Webster Interconnect, an alternative nearby site was identified. Figure shows the location of the proposed and alternative interconnect sites. Table compares the environmental resources at each site. The alternative site would be an adjoining parcel that the proposed alignment of the MVP pipeline would cross. To accommodate both the Webster Interconnect and MVP facilities, the alternative site boundary would likely have to be expanded into the steep wooded slope to the west, thereby resulting in more cutting into the slope to avoid the floodplain. Additionally, the working side of the proposed site is more favorable, because it will avoid having to cross MVP October 2015

32 Equitrans Expansion Project Figure Webster Interconnect October 2015 Data Sources: ESRI 10.1, ESRI Streaming Data (2014) ± 1:6,000 Legend Webster Interconnect Webster Interconnect Alternative Miles Document Path: P:\EQT-Equitrans\Equitrans_to_MVP\GIS\Spatial\MXD\ResourceReports\ResourceReport_10\Figure10_3_4_WebsterIC_Sites.mxd

33 General Table Comparison of Alternative Interconnect to Proposed Webster Interconnect Feature Alternative Webster Interconnect Proposed Webster Interconnect Construction Operation Construction Operation Total area (acres) Land disturbed within site (acres) Land Use Populated areas a/ within 0.5 mile (number) NRHP designated or eligible properties within 0.5 mile (number) Landowner parcels affected (number) Residences located within site boundary (number) Residences within 50 feet of site boundary (number) Resources Forested Land affected (acres) b/ Forested wetlands (acres) Forest (acres) Open land (acres) Wetlands (NWI) affected (acres) Perennial waterbody affected (number) Streams with drinking water designation within site (number) c/ Major rivers crossing site (number) Habitat of listed threatened and endangered species affected (acres) Slopes greater than 8% (acres) Steep slopes >20% (acres) Shallow bedrock encountered (acres) Karst geology encountered (acres) Landslide-prone soils encountered (acres) a/ City, town, village center, or dense residential development. b/ Forested Land based on following National Land Cover Dataset Land Use Types: Forested Upland, Deciduous Forest, Evergreen Forest, Mixed Forest, Woody Wetlands, Palustrine Forested Wetland, Estuarine Forested Wetland. c/ No data were identified that associate drinking water designations to streams. NRHP = National Register of Historic Places NWI = National Wetland Inventory H-305 and H-319 Pipeline Routes and Mobley Tap The H-305 pipeline is a proposed 24-inch pipeline extension, approximately 550 feet in length that will move gas from the Redhook Compressor Station to Equitrans existing H-305 pipeline located at the Braden October 2015

34 Run Interconnect with Texas Eastern. The H-319 pipeline is a new 16-inch pipeline, approximately 200 feet in length that will connect the Equitrans H-306 pipeline to the Webster Interconnect with MVP. The Mobley Tap is designed to deliver gas into MVP from the Equitrans Transmission System. Any other location for these facilities will require new pipeline construction to connect to MVP. Given the specific geographic connection requirements and the short distances for these facilities, no alternative locations were considered Stakeholder Requested Pipeline Variations FERC asked Equitrans to evaluate several stakeholder-identified re-routing requests. Equitrans identified two re-routes related to the H-318 pipeline in Forward Township, Alleghany County, Pennsylvania, between MPs 0.0 and 1.8 of the Proposed Route based on scoping comments received from Mr. and Mrs. Thomas and Dennis Headley regarding the Headley Variation and from Mrs. Betty Jane Cline regarding the Cline Variation. Figure shows the applicable parcels on an aerial base. Topographic data are shown below on Figure October 2015

35 0 ( 0.1 ( 0.2 ( 0.3 ( 0.4 ( 0.5 ( 2.1 ( 2 ( 1.9 ( 1.8 ( 1.7 ( Equitrans Expansion Project Figure Headley and Cline Pipeline Variations October 2015 Data Sources: ESRI Streaming Data (2014), PASDA 1.6 ( ± 1.5 ( Legend H ( 1.3 ( 1.2 ( 1.1 ( 1 ( Route Variation (Cline Property) 1:10,000 Route Variation (Headley Property) Equitrans, LP Property Parcel Boundary 0.9 ( 0.6 ( 0.7 ( 0.8 ( 0 1,000 2,000 Feet Document Path: P:\EQT-Equitrans\Equitrans_to_MVP\GIS\Spatial\MXD\ResourceReports\ResourceReport_10\Figure10_3_5_ClineHeadley.mxd

36 Headley Variation The Headleys commented that a re-route to the Proposed Route should be considered that would avoid: a Pennsylvania Agricultural Land Preservation Program easement and Forward Township s Agricultural Security Area; the only reliable, ever-flowing spring on the farm; potential for muddy, silt laden water to pollute a spring and contaminate the farm pond with mud causing a fish kill; conditions leading to uncontrolled water runoff causing erosion on a steep slope through the woods; and preventing access to, or use of a large portion of, their farm fields for a significant period of time. The Headleys also stated that Equitrans and/or associated EQT companies currently own hundreds of acres of property bordering their farm on both the northern and western sides and that EQT Gathering has plans for a gathering line across the Equitrans property that the proposed H-318 could also follow. The Headley Variation shown on Figure responds to their comments by locating the re-route off of their property and onto Equitrans property and follows the same path as EQT Gathering, LLC s planned NIAP-S001 gathering line, which part of the Applegate Gathering System currently in the planning stages. Table compares the environmental impacts of the Headley Variation and Proposed Route. Both routes would be similar for cultural resources, proximity to populated areas, parcels crossed, residences within 50 feet of the construction right-of-way, cropland, wetlands, perennial waterbodies, rivers, threatened and endangered species habitat, karst geology, and landslide-prone soils crossed. The Headley Variation would have the disadvantage of being 0.2 mile longer, requiring 0.4 mile more of clearing and crossing 1,677 more feet of steep slope than the Proposed Route. The Proposed Route traverses an open field. The Headley Variation is located as close as possible to the top of the severe side slope leading down to Raccoon Run Road and outside the Headley property. Even in this location, the variation would cross significant side slopes resulting in more earth disturbance (top of cut to toe of fill) to create a safe work area during construction. Following the Headley Variation would also result in a large-diameter pipeline being installed upslope of a smaller gathering line, which could further contribute to slope instability/failure. From an environmental standpoint, extensive side slope construction along the Headley Variation increases the potential for soil erosion and causes changes to local drainage and area hydrology increasing the chances for potential slides during and after construction. These conditions will be avoided by following the Proposed Route, which will be collocated with existing Equitrans pipelines in an area of minimal steep slope. Equitrans will develop an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan in accordance with the FERC s Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan (Plan) and the FERC s Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures (Procedures) and that meets state regulations. It is reasonable to assume that application of FERC erosion control and water crossing measures will minimize impact to agriculture productivity and operations as well as soil and water resources including springs. Equitrans will maintain the landowner s access to fields and agricultural facilities during construction. After construction, agricultural lands will be restored to pre-construction conditions according to FERC s Plan, any agreements with landowners, or in compliance with requirements identified by state or federal agencies with regard to agricultural lands. The conservation protection goals of the Agricultural Land Preservation Program easement will not be affected. Overall, the Proposed Route will have less impact than the Headley re-route October 2015

37 General Feature Table Comparison of Headley Variation and Proposed Route Headley Variation Proposed Route Construction Operation Construction Operation Total length (miles) Length adjacent to existing ROW (miles) Land disturbed within construction ROW (acres) a/c/ 7.8 N/A 5.7 N/A Land Use Populated areas b/ within 0.5 mile (number) NRHP designated or eligible historic properties within 0.5 mile (number) Landowner parcels crossed (number) Residences within 50 feet of construction work space (number) Resources 0 N/A 0 N/A Forested Land crossed (miles) c/d/ Forested Wetlands (miles) c/ Forested Wetlands (acres) c/ Forests (miles) c/ Forests (acres) c/ Cropland crossed (miles) Wetlands (NWI) crossed (feet) Perennial waterbody (source) crossings (number) Streams with drinking water designation (number) e/ Major River crossings (number) Habitat of listed threatened and endangered species crossed (miles) Steep slopes (>20%) crossed (feet) Shallow bedrock crossed (miles) Karst geology crossed (miles) Landslide-prone soils crossed (miles) a/ Assuming 100-foot-wide construction ROW. b/ City, town, village center, or dense residential development. c/ Does not include area of HDD. d/ Forested Land based on following National Land Cover Dataset Land Use Types: Forested Upland, Deciduous Forest, Evergreen Forest, Mixed Forest, Woody Wetlands, Palustrine Forested Wetland, Estuarine Forested Wetland. e/ No data were identified that associate drinking water designations to streams. NRHP = National Register of Historic Places. NWI = National Wetland Inventory ROW = right-of-way October 2015

38 Cline Variation Mrs. Cline commented that a re-route to the Proposed Route should be considered because the Project will: be in an area of steep side slopes and slip-prone soil types, occur over active and reclaimed mine lands, and impact streams and potential wetlands. The Cline Variation shown on Figure responds to the Mrs. Cline s comments by locating the pipeline off the Cline property. Table compares environmental impacts of the Cline Variation and the Proposed Route. Both routes are similar for cultural resources, proximity to populated areas, residences within 50 feet of the construction right-of-way, cropland, wetlands, perennial waterbodies, rivers, threatened and endangered species habitat, steep slopes, karst geology, and landslide-prone soils crossed. The Cline Variation has the advantage of being 0.5 mile shorter and requiring 3.2 acres less clearing. However, the 0.5-mile shorter Cline Variation would result in a new right-of-way, while the Proposed Route will be adjacent to an existing right-of-way for its entire length, thereby avoiding creation of a new corridor in an area already occupied by several pipelines. Further, the issues raised by Mrs. Cline about the presence of wetland and mining activities are as likely to be present on the Cline Variation as on the Proposed Route. Issues associated with soil erosion, impacts to streams and wetlands, and contamination by coal or some other pollutant have been managed successfully by Equitrans on other FERC-certificated projects, and could be successfully managed on the Proposed Route. Areas of steep slopes and potential landslide concerns along the pipeline alignment are addressed in Section in Resource Report 6. Avoidance, minimization, and mitigation for such hazards are discussed in Section in Resource Report 6 with industry-accepted soil and slope stabilization methods employed. The collocation of this section of the pipeline alignment with the recently constructed Mariner East Pipeline right-of-way will minimize impacts to slope stability. As detailed in Section in Resource Report 6, Equitrans will minimize impacts by restoring contours to pre-construction conditions to the maximum extent practicable, in accordance with the FERC Plan and Procedures. Sunoco is responsible for mitigation of existing drainage and slope stability hazards related to the construction of the Mariner East Pipeline. The potential for subsidence related to coal-mining operations and possible encounters with water within the mine voids is addressed in Section of Resource Report 6. Avoidance, minimization, and mitigation for such hazards are discussed in Equitrans Mine Subsidence Plan and Procedure in Appendix 6-B in Resource Report 6, and are summarized in Section Table describes the closed status of mines on the Cline property (approximate MPs 1.4 to 1.7). Figures through in Appendix 6-A provide an overview and detailed locations of active and closed mining. In addition, based on the abandoned status of the mining operations on the Cline property and the surrounding area, any remaining coal is not be considered recoverable. Given the narrow construction footprint of the pipeline alignment, the shallow depth of installation, and the collocation with the existing Mariner East pipeline, impacts on the recovery of aggregates and coal (to the extent they are recoverable) will be minimal. The potential for stream and wetlands impacts is addressed in Resource Report 2, Section 2.3 and Appendix 2-B. Impacts to streams and wetlands as well as minimization and mitigation for impacts are discussed in Sections 2.2 and October 2015

39 General Feature Table Comparison of Cline Variation and Proposed Route Cline Variation Proposed Route Construction Operation Construction Operation Total length (miles) Length adjacent to existing ROW (miles) Land disturbed within construction ROW (acres) a/c/ 9.7 N/A 16.1 N/A Land Use Populated areas b/ within 0.5 mile (number) NRHP designated or eligible historic properties within 0.5 mile (number) Landowner parcels crossed (number) Residences within 50 feet of construction work space (number) Resources 0 N/A 0 N/A Forested Land crossed (miles) c/d/ Forested Wetlands (miles) c/ Forested Wetlands (acres) c/ Forests (miles) c/ Forests (acres) c/ Cropland crossed (miles) Wetlands (NWI) crossed (feet) Perennial waterbody (source) crossings (number) Streams with drinking water designation (number) e/ Major River crossings (number) Habitat of listed threatened and endangered species crossed (miles) Steep slopes (>20%) crossed (feet) Shallow bedrock crossed (miles) Karst geology crossed (miles) Landslide-prone soils crossed (miles) a/ Assuming 100-foot-wide construction ROW. b/ City, town, village center, or dense residential development. c/ Does not include area of HDD. d/ Forested Land based on following National Land Cover Dataset Land Use Types: Forested Upland, Deciduous Forest, Evergreen Forest, Mixed Forest, Woody Wetlands, Palustrine Forested Wetland, Estuarine Forested Wetland. e/ No data were identified that associate drinking water designations to streams. NRHP = National Register of Historic Places. NWI = National Wetland Inventory ROW = right-of-way October 2015

40 Aboveground Facility Visual or Noise Effects FERC asked Equitrans to consider the potential for visual impact or noise effects upon residents for (noncompressor station) aboveground facilities, such as meter stations and valves, in comparison to the proposed aboveground facilities locations. Table lists non-compressor station aboveground facilities proposed for the Project. The addition of non-compressor station ancillary facilities, such as taps and launchers and receivers, will add minor, new, low vertical and horizontal visual elements into the landscape. These facilities will be the source of minor incremental noise associated with pipeline and compressor station construction and operation. None of the proposed sites warranted consideration of alternative locations for the ancillary facilities. Table Associated Pipeline Aboveground Facility Type Non-Compressor Station Aboveground Facilities Milepost H-302 Mobley Tap site 0.6 H-319 H-318 H-318 Webster Interconnect site and H-319 Tap site Applegate launcher/receiver site Hartson launcher/receiver site Alternative Site Considered No. Determined by pipeline location. Yes (see Webster Interconnect Alternative discussion above). No significant difference in visual or noise features. No. Determined by pipeline location. No. Determined by pipeline location. Visual Characteristics Entirely graded, stoned, and fenced. On-site equipment ranges from 2.5 to 7 feet high. Entirely graded, stoned, and fenced. On-site equipment ranges from 4 feet to 18 feet high. Entirely graded, stoned, and fenced. On-site launcher/receiver equipment ranges from 2.5 to 7 feet high Entirely graded, stoned, and fenced. Entirely graded, stoned, and fenced. On-site launcher/ receiver equipment ranges from 2.5 to 7 feet high Proximity to Noise Sensitive Areas Residence 0.2 mile north Residence 0.15 mile southwest Several residences 50 feet and 130 feet southwest Residence 0.25 mile south Residence 900 feet northeast. Residence 0.58 mile south Residence 0.66 mile southwest Residence 0.8 mile southwest Residence 0.54 mile northeast Located at proposed Redhook Compressor station involving same NSAs October 2015

41 Associated Pipeline H-316 Aboveground Facility Type H-302 Tap launcher/receiver site Table Non-Compressor Station Aboveground Facilities Milepost 3.0 Alternative Site Considered No. Determined by pipeline location Visual Characteristics Entirely graded, stoned, and fenced. On-site launcher/ receiver equipment ranges from 2.5 to 7 feet high Proximity to Noise Sensitive Areas Residence 0.25 mile southeast Residence 0.2 mile west Residence 0.31 mile southwest Residence 0.32 mile northwest 10.4 COMPRESSOR STATION SITE ALTERNATIVES In the initial study phase, it was determined that the existing 4,800 horsepower (hp) Pratt Compressor Station will not meet the Project purpose and need. The existing station cannot be taken out of service because existing gas supply contracts require gas to flow during the 14- to 18-month construction window of the Project. The site footprint of the existing Pratt Compressor Station is too small to accommodate the approximately 31,300 hp of compression provided by the two Taurus 70 units and two CAT 3616 units needed for the Project. There is a large wetland to the north of the existing Pratt Compressor Station site, making it difficult to expand the footprint. The existing station is also located in a floodplain adjacent to a creek, which can be avoided by selecting a new site. Finally, the old units should be removed as a means of improving efficiency and reducing air emissions. Once the proposed compressor station, at a new site, is operational, these units can be removed from service. Therefore, alternative sites were identified and evaluated. Two alternative sites near the Pratt Compressor Station the East Alternative Compressor Station site (East Site) and Proposed Redhook Compressor Station site (Redhook Site) were identified and analyzed to determine a preferred site (see Figure ). As discussed below, the Redhook Site was determined to be the preferable location Compressor Station Site As described in Table , the East Site and Redhook Site will have similar effects for proximity to populated areas, cultural resources, parcels affected, residences within 50 feet of the construction right-ofway, wetlands, rivers, perennial waterbodies, threatened and endangered species habitat, steep slopes slope, shallow bedrock, karst geology, and landslide-prone soils. The East Site is approximately 23.9 acres in area, of which 18 acres would be cleared. Although design work did not advance on the East Site, the entire site would be disturbed during construction. Two residences are located within the siting area and three within 50 feet of the construction work area. There are 58 feet of perennial steam and 154 feet of ephemeral stream located within the East Site. Based on broad landscapelevel data, all of the site is within landslide-prone area. The proposed Redhook Site is approximately 17.7 acres in size, of which 4.5 acres will be cleared. The 13.2-acre balance of the Redhook Site consists of residences, open lands associated with residential development, or former agricultural fields. The entire Redhook Site will be modified to include a gravel pad, 20-foot-wide permanent access road, permanent stormwater basin, and vegetated slopes constructed October 2015

42 for the pad. Four residences are located within the station boundary and five are located within 50 feet of the construction work area. The only water feature within the Redhook Site is approximately 219 feet of ephemeral stream, which will be avoided. Similar to the East Site, the Redhook Site is considered to have landslide-prone soils but only 0.5 acres of the site involve slopes greater than 20 percent and 10.6 acres greater than 8 percent. On the other hand, the East Site has 1.9 acres of slope greater than 20 percent and 22.9 acres greater than 8 percent. The Redhook Site requires less cutting and filling based on slopes present. The East Site is much steeper and would require more grading to construct the compressor pad, possibly undercutting a portion of Route 188, Jefferson Road. Finally, the southern side of the East Site abuts the South Fork Tenmile Creek, and the site may even be within that stream s floodplain. Section provides more information on the effects of home relocations due to development of either site. The Redhook Site does not require many existing pipelines to be realigned to the site or modified. As described in Section , the M-80 and H-158 pipelines will be realigned for 0.22 mile. On the other hand, the M-80 and H-158 pipelines will require extensions to build on the East Site. The East Site thus requires more modification and extension of existing pipelines and results in potentially more impacts. Based on environmental resource constraints, the East Site would involve more impacts. On balance, the Redhook Site was chosen as the preferred location for the station October 2015

43 1 ( 2 3 ( ( ( 4 1 ( 2 ( ( 3 1 ( ( 2 ( 4 ( 1 2 ( Equitrans Expansion Project Figure Proposed Redhook and Alternative East Compressor Station Sites October 2015 Data Sources: ESRI 10.1, ESRI Streaming Data (2014) ± Legend 1:12,000 ( Residences (Redhook West Site) ( Residences (Redhook East Site) Proposed Redhook Compressor Station Site Redhook Compressor Station East Alternative Existing Pratt Compressor Station Site Miles Document Path: P:\EQT-Equitrans\Equitrans_to_MVP\GIS\Spatial\MXD\ResourceReports\ResourceReport_10\Figure10_4-1_RedhookCS_Sites.mxd

44 General Table Comparison of Alternative East and Proposed Redhook Compressor Station Sites Feature Alternative East Compressor Station Site Proposed Redhook Compressor Station Site Construction Operation Construction Operation Total area (acres) Land disturbed within site (acres) Land Use Populated areas a/ within 0.5 mile (number) NRHP designated or eligible properties within 0.5 mile (number) Landowner parcels affected (number) Residences located within site boundary (number) Residences within 50 feet of site boundary (number) Resources Forested Land affected (acres) b/ Forested wetlands (acres) Forest (acres) Open land (acres) Wetlands (NWI) affected (acres) Perennial waterbody affected (number) Streams with drinking water designation within site (number) c/ Major rivers crossing site (number) Habitat of listed threatened and endangered species affected (acres) Slopes greater than 8% (acres) Steep slopes >20% (acres) Shallow bedrock encountered (acres) Karst geology encountered (acres) Landslide-prone soils encountered (acres) a/ City, town, village center, or dense residential development. b/ Forested Land based on following National Land Cover Dataset Land Use Types: Forested Upland, Deciduous Forest, Evergreen Forest, Mixed Forest, Woody Wetlands, Palustrine Forested Wetland, Estuarine Forested Wetland. c/ No data were identified that associate drinking water designations to streams. NRHP = National Register of Historic Places NWI = National Wetland Inventory October 2015

45 Potential Residence Relocations FERC asked Equitrans to describe and assess the effects of seven residences at the Redhook Site and two residences at the East Site that may require relocation. Based on final investigation of information regarding the residences, there are four residences at the Redhook Site that will be affected. Figure shows the location of the four residences to be removed at the proposed Redhook Site and two residences that would have been removed had the East Site been selected. Table summarizes the effects on residents. Residence No. a/ Table Potential Effects on Residents due to Residence Removal Potential Effects Proposed Redhook Compressor Station Site Status 1 None willing seller Purchase complete 2 None willing seller Purchase in process 3 None willing seller Purchase in process 4 None seller Negotiating Alternative East Compressor Station Site 1 Unknown None 2 Unknown None a/ See Figure for residence locations. Equitrans is confident it will be able to finalize the purchase of all necessary properties at the Redhook Compressor Station site on mutually agreeable terms October 2015

46 Proposed and Alternative Compressor Station NSA Data FERC asked for additional information on noise-sensitive areas (NSAs) for all four directions, tree size and composition for the vegetation buffers as well as the width of vegetative buffers in relation to NSAs, and topographic considerations for noise and visual screening for the NSAs. Table shows all potential NSAs and includes pertinent information. Figure shows the locations of NSAs and topographic features. General vegetation in the area includes mostly hardwood and some evergreen trees October 2015

47 P-14 NSA-3 P-13 P-12 P-10 P-9 P-8 P-11 P-1 P-2 RED HOOK C.S. NSA-1 NSA-2 P-3 P-4 P-7 P-6 P-5 P-14 NSA-3 P-13 P-12 P-10 P-9 P-8 P-11 Equitrans Expansion Project Figure NSA Information October 2015 Data Sources: ESRI 10.1, ESRI Streaming Data (2014) P-1 P-2 Legend RED HOOK C.S. NSA-1 NSA-2 P-3 P-4 1:36,000 P-7 P-6 P-5 P - Potential Noise Sensitive Area Not Monitored (1 mile) NSA - Monitored Noise Sensitive Area Redhook Compressor Station East Alternative Proposed Redhook Compressor Station Site Miles Document Path: P:\EQT-Equitrans\Equitrans_to_MVP\GIS\Spatial\MXD\ResourceReports\ResourceReport_10\Figure10_4-2_NSA_Information.mxd