20181638 Ver 1_Alternatives Report_20181130

V�� Mounta�nVa"".ear
� viveuNe
MVP Southgate Project
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
Resource Report 10 — Alternatives
November 2018

MVP Southgate Project
Resource Report 10 — Alternatives
10-i November 2018
Resource Report 10 — Filing Requirements
Information
Location in
Resource Report
Minimum Filing Requirements
1.
Address the "no action" alternative (Sec. 380.12(1)(1)).
Section 10.2
2.
For large projects, address the effect of energy conservation or energy alternatives to the
project (Sec. 380.12(1)(1)).
Section 10.3
3.
Identify system alternatives considered during the identification of the project and provide
the rationale for rejecting each alternative (Sec. 380.12(1)(1)).
Section 10.4
4.
Identify major and minor route alternatives considered to avoid impact on sensitive
environmental areas (e.g., wetlands, parks, or residences) and provide sufficient
Section 10.5 and 10.6
comparative data to justify the selection of the proposed route (Sec. 380.12(1)(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.
Section 10.7
380.12(I)(2)(ii)).
Additional Information Often Missing and Resulting in Data Requests
6.
Ensure that project objectives that serve as the basis for evaluating alternatives are
consistent with the purpose and need discussion in Resource Report 1.
Section 10.1.2
7.
Identify and evaluate alternatives identified by stakeholders.
Section 10.5.3
8.
Clearly identify and compare the corresponding segments of route alternatives and route
variations to the segments of the proposed route that they would replace if adopted.
Section 10.5
10-i November 2018

RESOURCE REPORT 10
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
10.1
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................10-1
10.1.1
Environmental Resource Report Organization...........................................................10-1
10.1.2
Purpose and Need.......................................................................................................10-1
10.2
NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE..................................................................................................10-1
10.3
ENERGY
ALTERNATIVES.....................................................................................................10-2
10.3.1
Renewable Energy Sources........................................................................................10-2
10.3.2
Energy Conservation..................................................................................................10-2
10.3.3
Alternative Fossil Fuels, Nuclear, and Fuel Cells......................................................10-2
10.4
SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES......................................................................................................10-3
10.4.1
Surface Transportation System Alternatives..............................................................10-3
10.4.2
Transco Pipeline System and Cardinal Pipeline.........................................................10-4
10.4.3
Atlantic Coast Pipeline Project...................................................................................10-5
10.4.4
East Tennessee Natural Gas System...........................................................................10-5
10.4.5
Piedmont Natural Gas.................................................................................................10-6
10.4.6
PSNC Distribution System.........................................................................................10-6
10.5
ROUTE
ALTERNATIVES........................................................................................................10-6
10.5.1
Pipeline Routing.........................................................................................................10-6
10.5.2
Major Pipeline Route Alternatives.............................................................................10-7
10.5.2.1 Route Alternative 1....................................................................................10-9
10.5.2.2 Route Alternative 2..................................................................................10-11
10.5.2.3 Route Alternative 3..................................................................................10-14
10.5.3
FERC Requested Route Alternatives........................................................................10-16
10.5.4
Mystic Valley Reroute (Preferred Route).................................................................10-25
10.6
ROUTE
VARIATIONS............................................................................................................10-27
10.6.1
Robert Pollock -Hill View Farms Variation..............................................................10-28
10.6.2
MP 40.0 to MP 41.4 Variation.................................................................................10-32
10.6.3
MP 69.5 to MP 69.7 Variation (Preferred Route)....................................................10-35
10.6.4
Route Variations Incorporated into the Project Pipeline..........................................10-38
10.7
ABOVEGROUND FACILITY ALTERNATIVES..................................................................10-38
10.7.1
Compressor Station Alternatives..............................................................................10-38
10.7.1.1 Lambert Compressor Station Alternative.................................................10-38
10.7.2
Electric Driven Compressor Units............................................................................10-41
10.7.3
Meter Station Alternatives........................................................................................10-41
10.8
REFERENCES.........................................................................................................................10-41
10 -ii November 2018

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 10.5-1: Major Route Alternatives...............................................................................................10-8
Figure 10.6-1: Robert Pollock -Hill Farms Variation...........................................................................10-30
Figure 10.6-1a: Robert Pollock -Hill Farms Variation — Aerial.............................................................10-31
Figure 10.6-2: MP 40.0 to MP 41.4 Variation.....................................................................................10-34
Figure 10.6-3: MP 69.5 to MP 69.7 Variation (Preferred Route)........................................................10-37
Figure 10.7-1: Lambert Compressor Station Alternative....................................................................10-39
LIST OF TABLES
Table 10.5-1
Comparison of the Preferred Route and Route Alternative 1 ..........................................10-10
Table 10.5-4
Comparison of the Preferred Route and FERC Alternative 1 .........................................10-17
Table 10.5-5
Comparison of the Preferred Route and FERC Alternative 2 .........................................10-19
Table 10.5-6
Comparison of the Preferred Route and FERC Alternative 3 .........................................10-20
Table 10.5-7
Comparison of the Preferred Route and FERC Alternative 4 .........................................10-22
Table 10.5-8
Comparison of the Preferred Route and FERC Alternative 5 .........................................10-23
Table 10.5-9
Comparison of the Preferred Route and FERC Alternative 6 .........................................10-24
Table 10.5-10 Comparison of the Original Route and Mystic Valley Reroute (Preferred Route)........
10-26
Table 10.6-1
Comparison of the Preferred Route and Robert Pollok -Hill View Farms Variation .......
10-28
Table 10.6-2
Comparison of the Preferred Route and MP 40.0 to MP 41.4 Variation .........................10-32
Table 10.6-3
Comparison of the Original Route and MP 69.5 to MP 69.7 Variation (Preferred
Route)..........................................................................................................................10-35
Table 10.7-1
Comparison of the Proposed Lambert Compressor Station Site and Alternative 1 .........
10-40
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 10-A FERC Requested Route Alternative Figures
Appendix 10-B Route Variations Incorporated into the MVP Southgate Project Pipeline
10 -iii November 2018

RESOURCE REPORT 10
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ACP
Bcf/d
Certificate
East Tennessee
EIA
FERC or Commission
LNG
MMcf/d
MMDth/d
Mountain Valley
MW
NWI
Piedmont
PSNC Energy
Project or Southgate Project
Transco
U.S.
Atlantic Coast Pipeline
billion cubic feet per day
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity
East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC
U.S. Energy Information Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
liquefied natural gas
million cubic feet per day
million dekatherms per day
Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC
megawatt
National Wetland Inventory
Piedmont Natural Gas Company
PSNC Energy, a wholly owned subsidiary of SCANA
Corporation
MVP Southgate Project
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC
United States
10 -iv November 2018

Ir Mountain Valley Resource Report 10
PIPELINE Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
RESOURCE REPORT 10
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
10.1 INTRODUCTION
Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC ("Mountain Valley") 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 to construct and operate the MVP Southgate Project ("Southgate
Project" or "Project"). The Southgate Project facilities will be located in Pittsylvania County, Virginia and
Rockingham and Alamance counties, North Carolina. See Resource Report 1 (General Project Description)
for additional Project information.
10.1.1 Environmental Resource Report Organization
Resource Report 10 is prepared and organized according to the FERC Guidance Manual for Environmental
Report Preparation (February 2017). This report describes the no action alternative (Section 10.2), other
energy alternatives (Section 10.3), system alternatives (Section 10.4), route alternatives (Section 10.5),
route variations (Section 10.6), aboveground facility alternatives (Section 10.7), and presents references
(Section 10.8).
10.1.2 Purpose and Need
See Resource Report 1 (General Project Description) for additional information on the Project purpose and
need.
10.2 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
The No Action Alternative for the Project would avoid the temporary and permanent environmental impacts
associated with construction and operation of the Project. However, the No Action Alternative would not
achieve the Project's purpose and need as stated in Resource Report 1 (General Project Description). Under
the No Action Alternative, North Carolina and southern Virginia will not receive the significant benefits
associated with the Project. In addition, the Project's anchor shipper, PSNC Energy, a wholly owned
subsidiary of SCANA Corporation ("PSNC Energy") would experience a capacity shortfall as projected in
its annual filing with the North Carolina Public Utilities Commission.
The Project would not be able to meet the specific transportation needs for natural gas as contracted by
PSNC Energy if the Project is not constructed. On a broader scale, implementing the No Action Alternative
would not support the goal of increasing consumer access to stable and reliable natural gas supplies in the
southeastern U.S.
In recent years, the North American natural gas market has seen enormous growth in production and
demand. The U.S. Energy Information Administration ("EIA") estimates that total natural gas consumption
in the U.S will increase from 27.6 trillion cubic feet in 2017 to 35.6 trillion cubic feet in 2050, with a large
portion of this increased demand occurring in the electric generation sector (EIA, 2018a). A sizable portion
of growth in natural gas production is occurring in the Appalachian Basin, with Marcellus Shale production
alone increasing from 10 billion cubic feet per day (`Bcf/d") in 2013 to approximately 20 Bcf/d in October
2017 (EIA, 2018b). The increased demand for natural gas is expected to be especially high in the
southeastern U.S., and in particular, North Carolina, as its population continues to grow. The Project will
10-1 November 2018

Ir Mountain Valley Resource Report 10
PIPELINE Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
benefit North Carolina and southern Virginia by connecting the additional supply to the increased market
demand. In doing so, the Project will bring clean -burning, domestically -produced natural gas supplies to
support the growing demand for natural gas, provide increased supply diversity, and improve supply
reliability.
If the purpose and need of the Project are to be met without construction of the Project facilities, other
projects and activities would be needed resulting in their own environmental impacts. This would result in
the transfer of environmental impacts from one project to another, but would not necessarily eliminate or
reduce impacts. The No Action Alternative is not considered a viable option because it does not meet the
objectives of the Project or its anchor shipper.
10.3 ENERGY ALTERNATIVES
Use of certain alternative fuels to supply the needs of the market served by the Project are not alternatives
to the Project. As described below, renewable energy, energy conservation, alternative fossil fuels, nuclear,
and fuel cells do not meet the Southgate Project purpose.
10.3.1 Renewable Energy Sources
Renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass are increasing in capacity and
benefit the energy market by diversifying the fuels used to generate electricity. However, these sources are
not interchangeable with natural gas. Renewable energy sources cannot meet the objectives of the Project
or its anchor shipper to provide natural gas for typical local distribution uses (e.g., home heating, cooking
and industrial uses). In addition, renewable energy does not meet the purpose of the Project to provide new
natural gas transmission pipeline capacity that will increase competition and enhance the reliability and
resiliency of the existing pipeline infrastructure in North Carolina and southern Virginia.
10.3.2 Energy Conservation
Energy conservation measures have an increasing role in reducing future energy demand in the U.S. The
Energy Policy Act of 2005 provides guidelines to: (1) diversify America's energy supply and reduce
dependence on foreign sources of energy; (2) increase residential and business' energy efficiency and
conservation (e.g., Energy Star Program); (3) improve vehicular energy efficiency; and (4) modernize the
domestic energy infrastructure.
Energy conservation reduces the demand or growth in demand for natural gas and other energy sources. It
is possible that the development and implementation of additional cost-effective conservation measures
could have some effect on the demand for natural gas. However, substantial new advances in technology
would be needed before the magnitude of such energy conservation measures necessary to equal the amount
of energy transported by the Project could be implemented. PSNC Energy already participates in energy
conservation programs for its customers, as approved by the North Carolina Utilities Commission.
Programs include discount rates and rebates on energy efficient equipment. Because PSNC Energy already
participates in these programs, and the Southgate Project is designed to meet PSNC Energy's additional
projected need, energy efficiency programs are not an alternative to the Project.
10.3.3 Alternative Fossil Fuels, Nuclear, and Fuel Cells
While other fossil fuels (e.g., coal and oil), nuclear power, and fuel cells can be viable alternatives to natural
gas in generating electricity, these sources are not interchangeable with natural gas. These alternative
10-2 November 2018

Ir Mountain Valley Resource Report 10
PIPELINE Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
energy sources cannot meet the objectives of the Project or its anchor shipper to provide natural gas for
typical local distribution uses (e.g., home heating, cooking and industrial uses). In addition, these
alternative energy sources do not meet the purpose of the Project to provide new natural gas transmission
pipeline capacity that will increase competition and enhance the reliability and resiliency of the existing
pipeline infrastructure in North Carolina and southern Virginia.
10.4 SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
System alternatives are alternatives to the proposed action that would make use of other existing, modified,
or proposed pipeline systems to meet the purpose and need of the Project. If available as a viable alternative,
a system alternative could make it unnecessary to construct all or part of the Project, although some
modifications or additions to the alternative systems would be required to increase their capacity or provide
receipt and delivery capability consistent with that of the Project. These modifications or additions would
result in environmental impacts that may be less than, comparable to, or greater than those associated with
construction of the Project. System alternatives that would 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 (including
timing) made with shippers supporting the development of the Project. The systems evaluated as potential
alternatives to the Project are discussed below.
10.4.1 Surface Transportation System Alternatives
A surface transportation system alternative would involve the liquefaction of natural gas at the receipt points
along the pipeline and transportation of the liquefied natural gas ("LNG") volumes to the delivery points
where regasification facilities would be installed. To liquefy and transport natural gas, the temperature and
pressure design points are -260 degrees Fahrenheit and 4 pounds per square inch gauge. Converting the
300 million cubic feet per day ("MM&d") of natural gas volumes that the Project will deliver to PSNC in
North Carolina to LNG would require a production and transportation of approximately 3.7 million gallons
per day. Transportation of the LNG would involve trucking on local and interstate highways to a centralized
delivery point and transporting to regasification facilities at the delivery points along the pipeline. Given a
truck tanker capacity of 10,850 gallons, it would take approximately 345 trucks per day to transport this
volume with a truck limiting load rate of approximately 300 gallons per minute. To transport the LNG
volumes, a 24-hour per day, simultaneous loading operations of approximately nine trucks would be
required. Any additional natural gas volume increase would result in an incremental increase in the number
of trucks per day.
Truck transportation options are not as safe and reliable as pipelines, as discussed and demonstrated
statistically in Resource Report 11 (Reliability and Safety). Installation of processing facilities to liquefy
and subsequently re -gasify natural gas would require extensive permitting; require large tracts of land for
a regasification facility, and result in associated air emissions from the liquefaction/regasification process
and the truck or rail traffic. In addition, the development or improvement of the transportation network
would be necessary to transport LNG gas would be required. Transporting LNG by rail is also not a viable
option. Currently, there are no approved LNG rail tankers, and shipment of LNG in International
Organization for Standardization containers by rail is very limited due to regulatory constraints. Therefore,
new regulatory processes and approvals would be required before LNG rail shipments would be possible.
Since the LNG by rail alternative would not be available to meet the timeframe required for energy demands
by the market, use of this alternative is not a viable alternative to the Project. Therefore, transporting the
10-3 November 2018

Ir Mountain Valley Resource Report 10
PIPELINE Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
Project's natural gas volumes as LNG by trucks and rail/or is not considered a viable alternative to the
Project pipeline facilities and was eliminated from further consideration.
10.4.2 Transco Pipeline System and Cardinal Pipeline
Transco Pipeline Svstem
The Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC ("Transco") system encompasses approximately
10,200 miles from South Texas to New York City with a system peak design capacity of approximately 15
million dekatherms per day ("MMDth/d"). The Project's pipeline would be located adjacent to or in close
proximity to Transco's system for approximately 23.0 miles, between approximate MP 0.4 and MP 32.9,
in Virginia and North Carolina.
On April 11, 2018 Transco's filed an application with FERC for its proposed Southeastern Trail Expansion
Project (Docket No. CP18-186). According to Transco, its Southeastern Trail Expansion Project would
provide 296.4 MMcf/ of natural gas per day of additional firm transportation to serve markets in the Mid -
Atlantic and Southeastern states by November 2020. Transco states that the project would provide
additional reliable service to utility and local distribution companies in the southeast including Virginia and
North Carolina. Customers served by the Southeastern Trail Expansion Project include: PSNC Energy (60
MMcf/d), South Carolina Electric and Gas (215 MMcf/d), Virginia Natural Gas (14.6 MMcf/d), and the
Cities of Buford (3.8 MMcf/d) and LaGrange (3 MMcf/d) in Georgia. The project would involve
construction and operation of approximately 7.7 miles of new natural gas pipeline (Manassas Loop) located
along the existing Transco Mainline in Fauquier and Prince William Counties, Virginia; expansion of three
existing compressor stations in Virginia (Stations 185, 175, and 165), and modification of 21 existing
facilities in South Carolina, Georgia, and Louisiana. The project also includes the retirement and
abandonment of 10 compressor units and related buildings and ancillary equipment at Transco's existing
Compressor Station 165 in Pittsylvania County, Virginia. Transco's Compressor Station 165 is located
approximately 3.0 miles west of the Project's proposed Lambert Compressor Station. No facilities
associated with the Southeastern Trail Expansion Project are proposed in North Carolina.
Currently, Transco's pipeline system does not have the long-term firm capacity to serve the Project's anchor
shipper (PSNC Energy) contracted amount. In addition, use of a Transco system alternative would require
additional gas delivery infrastructure. To meet the needs of PSNC Energy, approximately 40 miles of new
pipeline from the existing Transco system to the PSNC's Haw River Interconnect, as well as any necessary
compressor station facilities and mainline pipeline upgrades, would need to be constructed. The Project
provides a primary receipt and delivery forward haul transportation path that offers improved reliability as
compared to the secondary -firm backhaul deliveries PSNC Energy currently receives from Transco. In
addition, PSNC Energy considered other existing and proposed interstate pipeline providers, including
Transco, to meet its needs. Finally, PSNC Energy committed to the firm transportation service of the
Project to diversify its gas transportation supply. Therefore, the Project does not consider Transco's system
to be a reasonable alternative to the Project.
Cardinal Pipeline System
The Cardinal Pipeline Company is a 105 -mile, 24 -inch intrastate pipeline that extends from Rockingham
County, North Carolina to a point southeast of Raleigh, North Carolina, with a design capacity of 279,000
dekatherms per day. The Cardinal Pipeline System receives all its gas from Transco in North Carolina and
redelivers this gas to Piedmont and PSNC Energy.
10-4 November 2018

Ir Mountain Valley Resource Report 10
PIPELINE Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
At its closest point, the Cardinal Pipeline System is approximately 2.0 miles west of MP 71.0 of the pipeline
near Graham, North Carolina. To meet the objectives of the Southgate Project, this pipeline system would
require additional gas delivery infrastructure in North Carolina and Virginia that would result in
environmental impacts similar to those that would occur as proposed by the Project. In addition, PSNC
Energy considered other existing and proposed interstate pipeline providers, including the Cardinal Pipeline
System; however, PSNC Energy committed to firm transportation service associated with the Project and
entered into binding long-term agreements that made PSNC Energy an anchor shipper for the Project.
Therefore, the Southgate Project does not consider the Cardinal Pipeline System to be a reasonable
alternative to the Project.
10.4.3 Atlantic Coast Pipeline Project
The Atlantic Coast Pipeline Project, which is currently under construction, is expected to be in service in
late 2019. The project consists of approximately 600 miles of pipeline that originates in West Virginia,
crosses Virginia, and then continues south into eastern North Carolina, ending in Robeson County. It also
includes three new compressor stations. The Atlantic Coast Pipeline Project is designed to provide up to
1.5 MMDth/d of natural gas transportation service to consumers in Virginia and North Carolina including
Dominion Energy, Duke Energy, Piedmont, Virginia Natural Gas, and PSNC Energy. This pipeline system
is located approximately 100 miles east of the Southgate Project. To meet the objectives of the Southgate
Project, and deliver additional volumes at the Dan River and Haw River interconnects, this pipeline system
would require over 100 miles of new pipeline infrastructure in North Carolina and/or Virginia that would
result in environmental impacts greater than those that would occur as a result of the Project. In addition,
PSNC Energy considered other existing and proposed interstate pipeline providers, including Atlantic Coast
Pipeline to meet its gas transportation demand. PSNC Energy committed to firm transportation service
associated with the Project and entered into binding long-term agreements that made PSNC Energy an
anchor shipper for the Project. Therefore, the Project does not consider the Atlantic Coast Pipeline to be a
reasonable alternative to the Project.
10.4.4 East Tennessee Natural Gas System
The East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC ("East Tennessee") pipeline system consists of approximately 1,536
miles of pipeline in the Southeast and Mid -Atlantic. The system begins in Tennessee and extends to an
area just south of Roanoke, Virginia. A segment of the system extends into southwest Virginia and northern
North Carolina through a 95 -mile natural gas pipeline that interconnects with the Transco system near Eden,
North Carolina. East Tennessee interconnects with Texas Eastern Transmission, Tennessee Gas Pipeline,
Columbia Gulf, Southern Natural Gas and Midwestern Gas Transmission. The East Tennessee system
currently provides direct access to natural gas producers in the Appalachian region through multiple
pipeline interconnections on its mainline.
While East Tennessee interconnects with the Southgate Project at the LN 3600 Interconnect (approximately
1.1 miles west of MP 27.4) it cannot be considered a viable system alternative as it would need to build
similar facilities as proposed by the Project to meet the Project objectives. Significant modifications to the
East Tennessee system (and the existing pipelines interconnected to East Tennessee), including the
construction of new pipeline facilities, would be needed to provide the necessary design pressure and
capacity to serve the Project's anchor shipper (PSNC Energy). Therefore, the Project does not consider
this pipeline system to be a reasonable alternative to the Project.
10-5 November 2018

Ir Mountain Valley
PIPELINE
10.4.5 Piedmont Natural Gas
Resource Report 10
Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
Piedmont Natural Gas is a local distribution company operating in North Carolina. The anchor shipper for
the Project (PSNC Energy) is also a local distribution company operating in North Carolina. Transporting
gas volumes from one local distribution company to another does not meet the purpose and need for the
Project. Local distribution systems are designed to meet the needs of their customers, not the needs of other
distribution systems. It would also not provide the incremental volumes that PSNC Energy needs to meet
growing system demand, as discussed in the purpose and need section in Resource Report 1. Further,
Piedmont's system could not satisfy any of the other reasons cited by PSNC Energy for becoming a Project
shipper, including transportation cost, supply cost, supply diversity, reliability/resiliency, and operational
efficiencies. Therefore, Piedmont's system is not a viable alternative for the Project.
10.4.6 PSNC Distribution System
The anchor shipper for the Project (PSNC Energy) is a local distribution company operating in three non-
contiguous regions in North Carolina. As discussed in the purpose and need section in Resource Report 1,
PSNC Energy solicited interest from existing and proposed interstate pipelines, and ultimately signed a
long-term agreement with Mountain Valley for the Project, because it needs incremental volumes to meet
growing system demand. PSNC Energy's existing pipelines are not a viable system alterative because they
would not provide the incremental volumes PSNC Energy needs for its customers. In addition, as it is
currently designed, during high demand times (i.e., peak winter demand scenarios) PSNC Energy's
distribution system does not have the ability to serve all of its current customers through the Dan River
Interconnect only. Due to current pipeline size and existing horsepower limitations, PSNC Energy requires
supply of natural gas from both the Dan River Interconnect as well as the Haw River Interconnect to reliably
serve its customers. Further, PSNC Energy's existing system could not satisfy any of the other reasons for
becoming a Project shipper, including transportation cost, supply cost, supply diversity,
reliability/resiliency, and operational efficiencies. Therefore, PSNC Energy's own distribution system is
not a viable alternative for the Project.
10.5 ROUTE ALTERNATIVES
10.5.1 Pipeline Routing
During the route development of the Southgate Project an extensive desktop and field review of potential
pipeline routes to identify viable pipeline corridors was conducted; and then further refined the review to
determine the most feasible route within the most favorable corridor. One of the Project's primary
objectives with respect to pipeline routing was to avoid or minimize, to the extent possible, crossings of
major population centers and significant environmental resources. The Project also attempted to route its
pipeline adjacent to existing rights-of-way, where feasible. The Project used field reconnaissance, aerial
photography, topographic maps from the U.S. Geological Survey, and National Wetland Inventory maps
during the route identification and evaluation processes.
The Southgate Project includes the installation of approximately 73 miles of natural gas pipeline and
appurtenant facilities (e.g., compressor station, meter stations, valve settings and launcher/ receiver
equipment) within a new permanent right-of-way. As discussed further below, the Project has evaluated
major and minor route alternatives to maximize constructability, minimize impacts to sensitive resources
and avoid encroachments. Mountain Valley is committed to further refinement of the pipeline alignment,
10-6 November 2018

Mountain Valley Resource Report 10
PIPELINE Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
as necessary, to ensure minimization of Project -related impacts on affected landowners and the
environment.
10.5.2 Major Pipeline Route Alternatives
Mountain Valley evaluated major pipeline route alternatives as part of the planning and design process for
the Project, and based the evaluation on environmental and land use impacts, as well as permanent easement
acquisitions and overall Project costs. The primary objective in performing this analysis is to develop the
most direct route that could connect customers to the available supply system while avoiding or minimizing
potential adverse environmental impacts and engineering constraints to the greatest extent practicable. The
Project evaluated pipeline routing options based on potential adverse environmental impacts, existing land
usage, constructability, safety, and feasibility considerations.
The selection of the major route alternatives involves several steps.
• Development of routing criteria;
• Identification of potential routing alternatives;
• Collection of data relative to each alternative;
• Evaluation of potential environmental and land use impacts;
• Evaluation of routing alternatives against routing criteria; and
• Determination of the most cost-effective technical solution
This section describes and evaluates the major route alternatives identified during the initial planning stage
of the Project. The major route alternatives are shown on Figure 10.5-1 and summarized in Tables 10.5-1
through 10.5-3 below.
10-7 November 2018

,_____!State Boundary
L-_ County Boundary
1 inch = 8 miles
When Printed 8.5x11
17 Mountain Valley
P'IPER.INE
Figure 10.5-1
Major Route Alternatives
600 Willowbrook Ln
10LTRC
West Chester, PA 19382
- October 2018

Ir Mountain Valley
PIPELINE
10.5.2.1 Route Alternative 1
Resource Report 10
Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
The Project evaluated Route Alternative 1 between MP 23.7 and MP 53.6 (see Figure 10.5-1). This
alternative begins in Pittsylvania County, Virginia at MP 23.7 and extends in a southeasterly direction for
approximately 1.9 miles to the North Carolina border. Within this segment, this alternative crosses Berry
Hill Road/U.S. Highway 311, a railroad track, the Dan River, South River Road, and mixed forested and
agricultural/open land. At the North Carolina border in Rockingham County, Route Alternative 1 continues
in a south -southeasterly direction for approximately 21.7 miles. It crosses mixed forested and
agricultural/open land; Berry Hill Ridge, Gravel Hill, and Dix roads; State Highway 700; Guerrant Springs
Road; Worsham Mill Road; Quaqua Hill and Estes roads; U.S. Highway 29 -BR, a railroad track, Benton
Road, and U.S. Highway 29; and three existing utility easements. From this point, Route Alternative 1
continues in a south -southeasterly direction crossing U.S. Highway 58, Grooms Road, Tate Road,
Rockingham Lake Road, and the Colonel Heritage Byway/State Route 150. Within this section, this
alternative would be approximately 0.05 mile east of Williamsburg Wildlife Lake. From Colonel Heritage
Byway/State Route 150, Route Alternative 1 continues to cross mixed forested and agricultural/open land;
and County Line Creek; Trails End Road; State Route 87; Zeb, Kernodle, and Parkdale roads. Route
Alternative 1 then extends south into Guilford County for approximately 0.6 mile and southeast into
Alamance County for approximately 0.5 mile to rejoin the preferred route at MP 53.6. Route Alternative
1 includes an approximate 5.4 -mile long lateral from the alternative route south of Guerrant Springs Road
to an interconnect with PSNC Energy, east of Eden, North Carolina.
As shown in Table 10.5-1, the primary advantages of Route Alternative 1 are:
• crosses fewer miles of environmental justice communities;
• crosses fewer waterbodies and wetlands; and
• crosses slightly fewer areas with potential for shallow depth to bedrock.
The primary disadvantages of Route Alternative 1 are:
• greater length and associated land disturbance;
• collocates with existing rights-of-way for approximately 10.1 fewer miles;
• crosses more parcels and affects more residences within 50 feet of workspace; and
• affects significantly more forest land.
The presence of existing infrastructure must be considered when evaluating route alternatives and
comparing relevant impacts, including environmental justice. When collocated with existing infrastructure
or utility corridors, the incremental impacts of an additional pipeline are significantly less compared to
routing through a greenfield area. Collocation minimizes potential impacts on the general population and
environmental justice communities alike. Mountain Valley developed the Southgate Project preferred route
to collocate to the maximum extent practicable and avoid unnecessary greenfield impacts. Overall, the
preferred route is collocated for 6.9 miles of the 21.6 miles within environmental justice communities,
resulting in significantly fewer greenfield impacts, including greenfield impacts on environmental justice
communities. Considering all relevant impacts, the Southgate Project preferred route would not cause
significant impacts or disproportionate impacts on environmental justice communities and is advantageous
to the alternative route. Because the primary disadvantages outweigh the primary advantages, the Project
eliminated this alternative from further consideration as its preferred pipeline route.
10-9 November 2018

Q Mountain Valle
PIPELINE
Resource Report 10
Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
Table 10.5-1
Comparison of the Preferred Route and Route Alternative 1
Feature Preferred Route Route Alternative 1 Difference
General
Total length (miles) a/ 29.8 30.1
+0.3
Length adjacent to existing ROW (miles) 14.7 4.6
-10.1
Land affected during construction (acres) a/ 361.7 364.7
+3.0
Land affected during operation (acres) a/ 180.9 182.4
+1.5
Land Use
Populated areas within Y2 mile (number)
0
0
0
National Forest System lands crossed (miles)
0
0
0
National Forest Wilderness crossed (miles)
0
0
0
State lands crossed (forests, parks, wildlife
management areas) (miles)
0
0
0
Scenic Trail crossings (number)
0
0
0
Designated Natural and Scenic Rivers, Nationwide
Rivers Inventory, significant fisheries, ponds/lakes
(number)
1
0
-1
NRHP designated or eligible historic districts crossed
(miles)
0
0
0
Landowner parcels crossed (number)
148
154
+6
Residences within 50 feet of construction work space
(number)
5
11
+6
Environmental Justice Areas (miles)
21.6
10.1
-11.5
Resources
Agricultural land crossed (miles) c/
8.2
9.2
+1.0
Open land crossed (miles)
14.8
13.2
-1.6
Developed land crossed (miles)
0.3
0.2
-0.1
Forested land crossed (miles)
14.5
16.3
+1.8
Forested land affected during construction (acres)
175
198.6
+23.6
Forested land affected during operation (acres)
87.8
99.2
+11.4
Total Wetlands (NWI) crossed (feet)
1240
726
-514
PEM NWI wetlands affected by construction (acres)
b/
0.2
0
-0.2
PEM NWI wetlands affected by operation (acres) a/
0.1
0
-0.1
PSS NWI wetlands affected by construction (acres)
b/
0.7
0.6
-0.1
PSS NWI wetlands affected by operation (acres) a/
0.5
0.4
-0.1
PFO NWI wetlands crossed (feet)
755
391
-364
PFO NWI wetlands affected by construction (acres)
b/
1.3
0.8
-0.5
PFO NWI wetlands affected by operation (acres) a/
0.9
0.5
-0.4
Perennial waterbody crossings (number)
16
14
-2
Crossings of major waterbodies (>100 feet) (number)
0
0
0
10-10 November 2018

Ir Mountain Valley
PIPELINE
Resource Report 10
Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
Table 10.5-1
Comparison of the Preferred Route and Route Alternative 1
Feature
Preferred Route
Route Alternative 1
Difference
Presence of critical habitat or federally endangered
No/0
No/0
0
or threatened species (Yes/No). Number of species.
Shallow bedrock crossed (miles)
4.0
3.8
-0.2
Karst area crossed (miles)
10
10
10
a/ Assuming 100 -foot -wide construction ROW and 50 -foot -wide permanent ROW. Includes a 5.4 -mile long lateral from
Alternative 1 to an interconnect with PSNC Energy, east of Eden, North Carolina.
b/ Assuming 75 -foot -wide construction ROW.
c/ Includes pasture/hay and cultivated crops.
Populated Areas = census designated places, consolidated cites, and incorporated places.
ROW = right-of-way. NWI = National Wetland Inventory. NRHP = National Register of Historic Places.
PEM = Palustrine Emergent Wetland; PSS = Palustrine Scrub -Shrub Wetland; PFO = Palustrine Forested Wetland.
Information Sources:
GIS — Analysis based on Geodatabase layers and shapefiles.
NC Parcel Boundaries and Standard Fields - http://data.nconemap.gov/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.page
VA Parcel Boundaries and Standard Fields -
https://www.arcgis.com/home/item. html?id=f1 dccafl f42e4Ocbba791 feae2e23690
NLCD — 2006 National Land Cover Data - http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd-2006.html
NWI — National Wetlands Inventory - http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
USGS — U.S. Geological Survey - http://www.usgs.gov/
NHD — National Hydrography Dataset - http://nhd.usgs.gov/
USDA - https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/edw/datasets.php
NRHP - National Register of Historic Places - https://www.nps.gov/nr/research/data—downloads.htm
ESRI - GIS Mapping - hftp://www.esri.com/
10.5.2.2 Route Alternative 2
The Project evaluated Route Alternative 2 between MP 23.7 and MP 66.1 (see Figure 10.5-1). This
alternative begins in Pittsylvania County, Virginia at MP 23.7 and extends in a southeasterly direction for
approximately 2.0 miles to the North Carolina border. Within this segment, this alternative crosses Berry
Hill Road/U.S. Highway 311, a railroad track, the Dan River, South River Road, and mixed forested and
agricultural/open land. At the North Carolina border, Route Alternative 2 continues in a south -southeasterly
direction for approximately 7.0 miles within Rockingham County. It crosses mixed forested and
agricultural/open land; Gravel Hill Road, Goose Pond Road, State Highway 700, an unnamed road, Service
Road, U.S. Highway 29, a railroad track, and Old Highway 29. It then traverses Caswell County for
approximately 17.3 miles and crosses mixed forested and agricultural/open land. It crosses several
roadways including Anderson and Chapman roads, Hogans Creek, Park Springs Road, Allison Grove Road,
and U.S. Highway 158. From this point, it continues in a south -southeasterly direction and crosses Bethesda
Church Road twice, Holster Branch, Colonel Heritage Byway/State Route 150, Cherry Grove Road, Stadler
Road, Milesville Road, Kerrs Chapel Road, and Old Stoney Mountain Road. Route Alternative 2 then
continues in Alamance County for approximately 8.7 miles and rejoins the at MP 66.1. Within this section,
this alternative crosses Toms Creek, Union Ridge Road, Jefferies Cross Road, State Route 63, and mixed
forested and agricultural/open land. It continues in a southerly direction and crosses McCray Road, Deep
Creek Church Road, North Fonville Road, Sandy Cross Road, and rejoins the preferred route at MP 66.1.
Route Alternative 2 includes an approximate 8.8 -mile long lateral from the alternative route north of U.S.
Route 29 to an interconnect with PSNC Energy, east of Eden, North Carolina.
10-11 November 2018

17 Mountain Valle
PIPELINE
As shown in Table 10.5-2, the primary advantages of Route Alternative 2 are:
• crosses fewer miles of environmental justice communities;
• crosses fewer parcels;
• affects less open and developed land;
• affects fewer designated waterbodies; and
• crosses one less major waterbody.
The primary disadvantages of Route Alternative 2 are:
Resource Report 10
Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
• greater length and land disturbance;
• collocates with existing rights-of-way for approximately 5.4 fewer miles;
• affects more residences within 50 feet of workspace;
• affects significantly more forested land;
• crosses significantly more wetlands including 3.5 acres of forested wetlands; and
• crosses more shallow bedrock areas.
As described in Section 10.5.2.1 above, the presence of existing infrastructure must be considered when
evaluating route alternatives and comparing relevant impacts, including environmental justice. Overall, the
preferred route is collocated for 6.9 miles of the 21.6 miles within environmental justice communities,
resulting in significantly fewer greenfield impacts, including greenfield impacts on environmental justice
communities. Considering all relevant impacts, the Southgate Project preferred route would not cause
significant impacts or disproportionate impacts on environmental justice communities and is advantageous
to the alternative route. Because the primary disadvantages outweigh the primary advantages, the Project
eliminated this alternative from further consideration as its preferred pipeline route.
Table 10.5-2
Comparison of the Preferred Route and Route Alternative 2
Feature
Preferred Route
Route Alternative 2
Difference
General
Total length (miles) a/
42.3
43.4
+1.2
Length adjacent to existing ROW (miles)
20.0
14.6
-5.4
Land affected during construction (acres) a/
513.3
525.5
+12.2
Land affected during operation (acres) a/
256.6
262.7
+6.1
Land Use
Populated areas within 1/2 mile (number)
0
0
0
National Forest System lands crossed (miles)
0
0
0
National Forest Wilderness crossed (miles)
0
0
0
State lands crossed (forests, parks, wildlife management
areas) (miles)
0
0
0
Scenic Trail crossings (number)
0
0
0
Designated Natural and Scenic Rivers, Nationwide Rivers
Inventory, significant fisheries, ponds/lakes (number)
2
0
-2
NRHP designated or eligible historic districts crossed
(miles)
0
0
0
10-12 November 2018

17 Mountain Valle
PIPELINE
Resource Report 10
Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
Table 10.5-2
Comparison of the Preferred Route and Route Alternative 2
Feature
Preferred Route
Route Alternative 2
Difference
Landowner parcels crossed (number)
220
191
-29
Residences within 50 feet of construction work space
7
11
+4
(number)
Environmental Justice Areas (miles)
21.6
3.7
-17.9
Resources
Agricultural land crossed (miles) c/ 14.2
13.3
-0.9
Open land crossed (miles) 21.7
21.5
-0.2
Developed land crossed (miles) 0.6
0.4
-0.2
Forested land crossed (miles) 19.6
21.1
+1.5
Forested land affected during construction (acres) 237.4
256.1
+18.7
Forested land affected during operation (acres) 118.9
128
+9.1
Total Wetlands (NWI) crossed (feet) 1,972
3,047
+1,075
PEM NWI wetlands affected by construction (acres) b/ 0.8
0
-0.8
PEM NWI wetlands affected by operation (acres) a/ 0.6
0
-0.6
PSS NWI wetlands affected by construction (acres) b/ 0.7
0.5
-0.2
PSS NWI wetlands affected by operation (acres) a/ 0.5
0.4
-0.1
PFO NWI wetlands crossed (feet) 790
2,763
+1,973
PFO NWI wetlands affected by construction (acres) b/ 1.4
4.9
+3.5
PFO NWI wetlands affected by operation (acres) a/ 0.9
3.3
+2.4
Perennial waterbody crossings (number) 18
19
+1
Crossings of major waterbodies (>100 feet) (number) 1
0
-1
Presence of critical habitat or federally endangered or No / 0
No / 0
0
threatened species (Yes/No). Number of species.
Shallow bedrock crossed (miles) 4.0
4.3
+0.3
Karst area crossed (miles) 0
0
10
a/ Assuming 100 -foot -wide construction ROW and 50 -foot -wide permanent ROW. Includes
an 8.8 -mile long lateral from
Alternative 2 to an interconnect with PSNC Energy, east of Eden, North Carolina.
b/ Assuming 75 -foot -wide construction ROW.
c/ Includes pasture/hay and cultivated crops.
Populated Areas = census designated places, consolidated cites, and incorporated places.
ROW = right-of-way. NWI = National Wetland Inventory. NRHP = National Register of Historic
Places.
PEM = Palustrine Emergent Wetland; PSS = Palustrine Scrub -Shrub Wetland; PFO = Palustrine Forested Wetland.
Information Sources:
GIS -Analysis based on Geodatabase layers and shapefiles.
NC Parcel Boundaries and Standard Fields - http://data.nconemap.gov/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.page
VA Parcel Boundaries and Standard Fields - https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=fldccaflf42e4Ocbba791feae2e23690
NLCD - 2006 National Land Cover Data - http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd-2006.html
NWI - National Wetlands Inventory - http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
USGS - U.S. Geological Survey - http://www.usgs.gov/
NHD - National Hydrography Dataset - http://nhd.usgs.gov/
USDA - https:Hdata.fs.usda.gov/geodata/edw/datasets.php
NRHP - National Register of Historic Places - https://www.nps.gov/nr/research/data-downloads.htm
ESRI - GIS Mapping - http://www.esri.com/
10-13 November 2018

Ir Mountain Valley
PIPELINE
10.5.2.3 Route Alternative 3
Resource Report 10
Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
The Project evaluated Route Alternative 3 between MP 6.1 and MP 66.1 (see Figure 10.5-1). This
alternative begins in Pittsylvania County, Virginia at MP 6.1 and extends in a southerly direction for
approximately 16.7 miles to the North Carolina border where it crosses mixed forested and
agricultural/open land. Within this segment, this alternative primarily parallels an existing Duke Energy
electric transmission easement and crosses White Oak Creek, Dry Fork Road, Hither Land and Court, R
and L Smith Road, and Mountain View Road. Near Mountain View Road, this alternative deviates from
the electric transmission easement to the west to minimize loss of vegetative buffer between the easement
and nearby residences. Approximately 0.2 mile south of this location, this alternative deviates to the west
to avoid utility congestion in the neighborhoods along Springlake Place, Springdale Drive, and Deerwood
Drive. From this point, Route Alternative 3 continues in a southerly direction and crosses County Road
946, East Witt Road, Railroad Lane, and U.S. Highway 29 -BR. Between Railroad Lane and U.S. Highway
29 -BR, this alternative makes another deviation from the electric transmission easement to the west to avoid
multiple utility easements on a residential property. From this point, this alternative crosses Landrum Road,
U.S. Highway 29, Twin Arch Drive, and Old Richmond Road/State Route 30.
Route Alternative 3 then crosses the Danville City limits including residential, commercial, and industrial
areas; several roadways, and mixed forested and agricultural/open land. Once south of Danville, this
alternative enters Caswell County, North Carolina for approximately 21.9 miles where it crosses mixed
forested and agricultural/open land. It crosses Walter's Mill Road twice, Hogan's Creek, an unnamed road,
Moon Creek Lane, and Old State Highway 86 -North. It continues in a south -southwesterly direction and
crosses State Route 86, Foster Road, East Prong Moon Creek, Hodges Dairy Road, and Colonel Heritage
Byway/State Route 150. Route Alternative 3 would be approximately 0.2 mile west of the Caswell Airpark.
It crosses County Road, County Line Creek, Cherry Gove Road, Senior Alfred Road, Byrd's Sawmill Road,
Kerr's Chapel Road, and two Duke Energy electric transmission easements. Route Alternative 3 then
continues in Alamance County for approximately 8.7 miles and rejoins the at MP 66.1. Within this section,
this alternative crosses Roscoe Road, Toms Creek, Union Ridge Road, Jefferies Cross Road, State Route
63, and mixed forested and agricultural/open land. It continues in a southerly direction and crosses McCray
Road, Deep Creek Church Road, North Fonville Road, Sandy Cross Road, and rejoins the preferred route
at MP 66.1. Route Alternative 3 includes an approximate 16.6 -mile long lateral from the alternative route,
approximately 2.3 miles south of Foster Road, to an interconnect with PSNC Energy, east of Eden, North
Carolina.
As shown in Table 10.5-3, the primary advantage of Route Alternative 3 is:
• crosses fewer miles of environmental justice communities;
• affects fewer designated waterbodies;
• crosses fewer mile of agricultural land and one less major waterbody; and
• crosses fewer miles of potential karst.
The primary disadvantages of Route Alternative 3 are:
• greater length and land disturbance;
• collocates with existing rights-of-way for approximately 1.5 fewer miles;
• crosses more parcels and affects more residences within 50 feet of workspace;
• affects significantly more forested land;
10-14 November 2018

IT Mountain Valley PIPELI L,
• crosses more wetlands including forested wetlands; and waterbodies;
• crosses one more major waterbody; and
• crosses more shallow bedrock areas.
Resource Report 10
Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
As described in Section 10.5.2.1 above, the presence of existing infrastructure must be considered when
evaluating route alternatives and comparing relevant impacts, including environmental justice. Overall, the
preferred route is collocated for 6.9 miles of the 21.6 miles within environmental justice communities while
Route Alternative 3 is collocated for 7.8 miles of the 19.1 miles within environmental justice communities,
resulting in fewer greenfield impacts, including greenfield impacts on environmental justice communities.
Considering all relevant impacts, the Southgate Project preferred route would not cause significant impacts
or disproportionate impacts on environmental justice communities and is advantageous to the alternative
route. Because the primary disadvantages outweigh the primary advantages, the Project eliminated this
alternative from further consideration as its preferred pipeline route.
Table 10.5-3
Comparison of the Preferred Route and Route Alternative 3
Feature
Preferred Route
Route Alternative 3
Difference
General
Total length (miles) a/
60.0
63.4
+3.4
Length adjacent to existing ROW (miles)
26.9
25.4
-1.5
Land affected during construction (acres) a/
726.7
769.0
+42.3
Land affected during operation (acres) a/
363.4
384.5
+21.1
Land Use
Populated areas within Y2 mile (number)
0
1
+1
National Forest System lands crossed (miles)
0
0
0
National Forest Wilderness crossed (miles)
0
0
0
State lands crossed (forests, parks, wildlife management
areas) (miles)
0
0
0
Scenic Trail crossings (number)
0
0
0
Designated Natural and Scenic Rivers, Nationwide
Rivers Inventory, significant fisheries, ponds/lakes
(number)
2
0
-2
NRHP designated or eligible historic districts crossed
(miles)
0
0
0
Landowner parcels crossed (number)
309
369
+60
Residences within 50 feet of construction work space
(number)
13
23
+10
Environmental Justice Areas (miles)
21.6
19.1
-2.5
Resources
Agricultural land crossed (miles) c/
0.5
0.4
-0.1
Open land crossed (miles)
31.9
27.3
-4.6
Developed land crossed (miles)
0.6
1
+0.4
Forested land crossed (miles)
26.9
34.7
+7.8
Forested land affected during construction (acres)
324.6
422.1
+97.5
Forested land affected during operation (acres)
162.8
210.6
+47.8
Total Wetlands (NWI) crossed (feet)
2,196
3,159
+963
10-15 November 2018

IT Mountain Valle
PIPELINE
Resource Report 10
Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
Table 10.5-3
Comparison of the Preferred Route and Route Alternative 3
Feature
Preferred Route Route Alternative 3
Difference
PEM NWI wetlands affected by construction (acres) b/
1.1 0.6
-0.5
PEM NWI wetlands affected by operation (acres) a/
0.8 0.4
-0.4
PSS NWI wetlands affected by construction (acres) b/
0.7 2.1
+1.4
Total PSS NWI wetlands affected by operation (acres) a/
0.5 1.2
+0.7
PFO NWI wetlands crossed (feet)
790 1,614
+824
PFO NWI wetlands affected by construction (acres) b/
1.4 2.8
+1.4
PFO NWI wetlands affected by operation (acres) a/
0.9 1.9
+1.0
Perennial waterbody crossings (number)
28 31
+3
Crossings of major waterbodies (>100 feet) (number)
1 0
-1
Presence of critical habitat or federally endangered or
No / 0 No / 0
0
threatened species (Yes/No). Number of species.
Shallow bedrock crossed (miles)
4.8 10.4
+5.6
Karst area crossed (miles)
12.0 10.6
1-1.4
a/ Assuming 100 -foot -wide construction ROW and 50 -foot -wide permanent ROW. Includes a 16.6 -mile long
lateral from
Alternative 3 to an interconnect with PSNC Energy, east of Eden, North Carolina.
b/ Assuming 75 -foot -wide construction ROW.
c/ Includes pasture/hay and cultivated crops.
Populated Areas = census designated places, consolidated cites, and incorporated places.
ROW = right-of-way. NWI = National Wetland Inventory. NRHP = National Register of Historic Places
PEM = Palustrine Emergent Wetland; PSS = Palustrine Scrub -Shrub Wetland; PFO = Palustrine Forested Wetland.
Information Sources:
GIS — Analysis based on Geodatabase layers and shapefiles.
NC Parcel Boundaries and Standard Fields - http://data.nconemap.gov/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.page
VA Parcel Boundaries and Standard Fields -
https://www.arcgis.com/home/item. html?id=f1 dccafl f42e4Ocbba791 feae2e23690
NLCD — 2006 National Land Cover Data - http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd-2006.htmi
NWI — National Wetlands Inventory - http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
USGS — U.S. Geological Survey - http://www.usgs.gov/
NHD — National Hydrography Dataset - http://nhd.usgs.gov/
USDA - https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/edw/datasets.php
NRHP - National Register of Historic Places - https://www.npa.gov/nr/research/data—downloads.htm
ESRI - GIS Mapping - hftp://www.esri.com/
10.5.3 FERC Requested Route Alternatives
The FERC requested that Mountain Valley evaluate six route alternatives to avoid or reduce impacts along
its preferred pipeline route. The desktop analysis included: length of pipeline; acreage of permanent and
temporary rights-of-way; number of parcels crossed; number of residences within 25 and 50 feet of the
edge of the construction right-of-way; number of waterbodies and wetlands crossed, and the length of each
crossing; acres of agricultural and forested land affected; and the miles of right-of-way that would be
parallel or adjacent to existing rights-of-way. The desktop analyses of these alternatives are presented
below.
10-16 November 2018

IT Mountain Valley
PIPELINE
FERC Alternative 1 (MP 63.9 to MP 72.9)
Resource Report 10
Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
The Project evaluated FERC Alternative 1 between MP 63.9 and MP 72.9 (see Figure 10.5-2, Appendix
10-A). At MP 63.9, FERC Alternative 1 extends in a southerly direction for approximately 4.69 miles to
MP 68.6 of the preferred route. Within this section, the alternative crosses agricultural and forested land,
Deep Creek Church Road, Sandy Cross Road, and Meeting Ground Road. It then collocates with the
existing Cardinal Pipeline Company, LLC ("Cardinal Pipeline") on the east side of the Haw River for
approximately 2.2 miles. At MP 68.6 of the preferred route, FERC Alternative 1 extends southwest for
approximately 0.1 mile and crosses agricultural land and the Haw River. At this point, the alternative
remains on the west side of the Haw River and turns in a more southerly direction continuing to be
collocated with the existing Cardinal Pipeline for approximately 3.4 miles. Within this segment, the
alternative crosses mixed forested and agricultural land, West Main Street, parallels the eastern boundary
of the Challenge Golf Club for approximately 1.3 miles, and crosses Interstate 40/85. FERC Alternative 1
turns west, southwest, south, and southeast and crosses forested and agricultural land, State Highway 54/E.
Harden Street, Cooper Road, and the Haw River to rejoin the preferred route at MP 72.9.
As shown in Table 10.5-4, the primary advantages of FERC Alternative 1 are:
• less length and land disturbance;
• crosses fewer parcels and affects fewer residences within 50 feet of workspace;
• collocates with existing rights-of-way for approximately 5.7 more miles; and
• affects fewer acres of forested agricultural land.
The primary disadvantages of FERC Alternative 1 are:
• crosses more waterbodies and eight more wetlands; and
• affects significantly more acres of wetlands.
Constructability concerns of FERC Alternative 1 are:
• two crossings of the Haw River;
• limited area for workspace layout at the Haw River crossings and along the alternative route due to
an existing golf course, existing utility infrastructure and residential areas;
• new temporary access road to the alternative route.
Because the primary disadvantages, coupled with the constructability concerns, outweigh the primary
advantages, the Project eliminated this alternative from further consideration as its preferred pipeline route.
Table 10.5-4
Comparison of the Preferred Route and FERC Alternative 1
Feature
Preferred Route
FERC Alternative 1
Difference
Total length (miles)
9.1
8.7
-0.4
Construction right-of-way (acres) a/
110.1
105.6
-4.5
Permanent right-of-way (acres) a/
55.0
52.8
-2.2
Total number of parcels crossed
103
58
-45
Number of residences within 25 and 50 feet of the
edge of the construction ROW (and associated
additional temporary workspace)
1/3
1 / 1
0/-2
10-17 November 2018

IT Mountain Valley
PIPELINE
Resource Report 10
Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
Table 10.5-4
Comparison of the Preferred Route and FERC Alternative 1
Feature Preferred Route FERC Alternative 1
Difference
Number of waterbodies crossed 18
23
+5
Number of NWI wetlands crossed 1
9
+8
Total NWI wetland crossing length (feet) 25
3,990
+3,965
NWI wetlands within construction ROW (acres) b/ 0.2
6.8
+6.6
Agricultural land within construction ROW (acres) c/ 29.2
20.5
-8.7
Forested land within construction ROW (acres) 57.7
55.1
-2.6
Length parallel or adjacent to existing ROW (miles) 0.25
5.95
+5.7
a/ Assuming 100 -foot -wide construction ROW and 50 -foot -wide permanent ROW.
b/ Assuming 75 -foot -wide construction ROW.
c/ Includes pasture/hay and cultivated crops.
ROW = right-of-way. NWI = National Wetland Inventory
Information Sources:
GIS —Analysis based on Geodatabase layers and shapefiles.
NC Parcel Boundaries and Standard Fields - http://data.nconemap.gov/geoportal/cataloq/search/resource/details.page
NLCD — 2006 National Land Cover Data - http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd-2006.html
NWI — National Wetlands Inventory - http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
USGS — U.S. Geological Survey - http://www.usgs.gov/
NHD — National Hydrography Dataset - http://nhd.usgs.gov/
ESRI - GIS Mapping - http://www.esri.com/
FERC Alternative 2 (MP 69.1 to MP 73.0)
The Project evaluated FERC Alternative 2 between MP 69.1 and MP 73.0 (see Figure 10.5-3, Appendix
10-A). This portion of FERC Alternative 2 is the same as FERC Alternative 1 from MP 69.1 and MP 72.5
described above. At MP 68.6, FERC Alternative 2 turns southwest for approximately 0.1 mile and crosses
agricultural land and the Haw River. It then turns in a more southerly direction and is collocated with the
existing Cardinal Pipeline for approximately 3.4 miles and crosses mixed forested and agricultural land,
West Main Street, parallels the eastern boundary of the Challenge Golf Club for approximately 1.3 miles,
and crosses Interstate 40/85. FERC Alternative 2 then turns west, southwest, south, and southeast and
crosses forested and agricultural land, State Highway 54/E. Harden Street, Cooper Road, and the Haw River
to rejoin the preferred route at MP 73.0.
As shown in Table 10.5-5, the primary advantages of FERC Alternative 2 are:
• crosses 17 fewer parcels,
• affects fewer residences within 25 and 50 feet of workspace;
• collocates with existing rights-of-way for approximately 3.4 more miles; and
• affects 1.5 fewer acres of forested land.
The primary disadvantages of FERC Alternative 2 are:
greater length and land disturbance;
crosses four more waterbodies and nine more wetlands; and
• affects significantly more acres of wetlands and 0.9 more acre of agricultural land.
10-18 November 2018

Mountain Valle
PIPELINE
Constructability concerns of FERC Alternative 2 are:
Resource Report 10
Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
• two crossings of the Haw River; and
• limited area for workspace layout at the Haw River crossings and along the alternative route due to
an existing golf course, existing utility infrastructure and residential areas.
Because the primary disadvantages, along with the potential constructability concerns, outweigh the
primary advantages, the Project eliminated this alternative from further consideration as its preferred
pipeline route.
Table 10.5-5
Comparison of the Preferred Route and FERC Alternative 2
Feature
Preferred Route
FERC Alternative 2
Difference
Total length (miles)
3.8
4.0
+0.2
Construction right-of-way (acres) a/
46.5
48.8
+2.3
Permanent right-of-way (acres) a/
23.2
24.4
+1.2
Total number of parcels crossed
51
34
-17
Number of residences within 25 and 50 feet of the
edge of the construction ROW (and associated
1/3
0/0
-1/-3
additional temporary workspace)
Number of waterbodies crossed
8
12
+4
Number of NWI wetlands crossed
0
9
+9
Total NWI wetland crossing length (feet)
0
4,163
+4,163
NWI wetlands within construction ROW (acres) b/
0.1
6.9
+6.8
Agricultural land within construction ROW (acres) c/
6.6
7.5
+0.9
Forested land within construction ROW (acres)
23.4
21.9
-1.5
Length parallel or adjacent to existing ROW (miles)
0.2
3.6
+3.4
a/ Assuming 100 -foot -wide construction ROW and 50 -foot -wide permanent ROW.
b/ Assuming 75 -foot -wide construction ROW.
c/ Includes pasture/hay and cultivated crops.
ROW = right-of-way. NWI = National Wetland Inventory
Information Sources:
GIS -Analysis based on Geodatabase layers and shapefiles.
NC Parcel Boundaries and Standard Fields - http://data.nconemap.gov/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.page
NLCD - 2006 National Land Cover Data - http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd-2006.html
NWI - National Wetlands Inventory - http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
USGS - U.S. Geological Survey - http://www.usgs.gov/
NHD - National Hydrography Dataset - http://nhd.usgs.gov/
ESRI - GIS Mapping - http://www.esri.com/
FERC Alternative 3 (MP 65.8 to MP 67.5)
The Project evaluated FERC Alternative 3 between MP 65.8 and MP 67.5 (see Figure 10.5-4, Appendix
10-A). The FERC Alternative 3 deviates from the original route at MP 65.45 and extends east-southeast
for approximately 0.4 mile. At MP 65.8 of the preferred route, the FERC Alternative 3 extends southeast
and east for approximately 0.3 mile and crosses agricultural and forested land and North Fonville Road. It
10-19 November 2018

Q Mountain Valle
PIPELINE
Resource Report 10
Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
then turns in a more southerly direction for approximately 1.3 miles and crosses agricultural and forested
land, Sandy Cross Road, and an existing electric transmission easement. It rejoins the Preferred Route at
MP 67.5.
As shown in Table 10.5-6, the primary advantages of FERC Alternative 3 are:
• crosses less fewer parcels; and
• affects 0.4 fewer acre of forested land.
The primary disadvantages of FERC Alternative 3 are:
• greater length and land disturbance; and
• affects 2.9 more acres of agricultural land.
Constructability concerns of FERC Alternative 3 are:
• none identified based on initial review.
The Project further evaluated FERC Alternative 3 and incorporated approximately 1.7 miles of the
alternative route into the Mystic Valley Reroute described in Section 10.5.4 below.
Table 10.5-6
Comparison of the Preferred Route and FERC Alternative 3
Feature
Preferred Route
FERC Alternative 3
Difference
Total length (miles)
1.5
2.0
+0.5
Construction right-of-way (acres) a/
18.9
24.7
+5.8
Permanent right-of-way (acres) a/
9.4
12.3
+2.9
Total number of parcels crossed
16
14
-2
Number of residences within 25 and 50 feet of the
edge of the construction ROW (and associated
additional temporary workspace)
0/0
0/0
0/0
Number of waterbodies crossed
3
3
0
Number of NWI wetlands crossed
0
0
0
Total NWI wetland crossing length (feet)
0
0
0
NWI wetlands within construction ROW (acres) b/
0
0
0
Agricultural land within construction ROW (acres)
c/
9.5
12.4
2.9
Forested land within construction ROW (acres)
10.9
10.5
-0.4
Length parallel or adjacent to existing ROW
(miles)
0
0
0
10-20 November 2018

IT Mountain Valley
PIPELINE
Table 10.5-6
Resource Report 10
Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
Comparison of the Preferred Route and FERC Alternative 3
Feature I Preferred Route I FERC Alternative 3 Difference
a/ Assuming 100 -foot -wide construction ROW and 50 -foot -wide permanent ROW.
b/ Assuming 75 -foot -wide construction ROW.
c/ Includes pasture/hay and cultivated crops.
ROW = right-of-way. NWI = National Wetland Inventory
Information Sources:
GIS —Analysis based on Geodatabase layers and shapefiles.
NC Parcel Boundaries and Standard Fields - http://data.nconemap.gov/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.page
NLCD — 2006 National Land Cover Data - http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd-2006.htmi
NWI — National Wetlands Inventory - http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
USGS — U.S. Geological Survey - http://www.usgs.gov/
NHD — National Hydrography Dataset - http://nhd.usgs.gov/
ESRI - GIS Mapping - http://www.esri.com/
FERC Alternative 4 (MP 65.8 to MP 70.8)
The Project evaluated FERC Alternative 4 between MP 65.8 and MP 70.8 (see Figure 10.5-5, Appendix
10-A). At MP 65.6, FERC Alternative 4 extends in an easterly direction for approximately 3.8 miles and
crosses agricultural and forested land. Within this segment, the alternative route crosses North Fonville
Road, State Highway 49, and Johnson Road. It then turns in a south-southwest direction for approximately
5.8 miles and crosses agricultural and forested land, and several road / railroads including Mebane Rodgers
Road/State Route 1921, Dewitt Drive, Bason Road/State Route 1927, U.S. Highway 70/E. Main Street, a
railroad track, Stone Street Extension/State Route 1936, and Tollingwood Road. It rejoins the preferred
route at MP 70.8.
As shown in Table 10.5-7, the primary advantages of FERC Alternative 4 are:
• affects fewer residences within 25 and 50 feet of workspace;
• collocates with existing rights-of-way for an additional 1.8 miles.
The primary disadvantages of FERC Alternative 4 are:
• greater length and land disturbance;
• affects three more parcels;
• crosses two more waterbodies and four more wetlands; and
• affects 0.5 more acre of wetlands 24 more acres of agricultural land, and 18.4 more acres of forested
land.
Potential constructability concerns of FERC Alternative 4 are:
• none identified based on initial review.
Because the primary disadvantages outweigh the primary advantages, the Project eliminated this alternative
from further consideration as its preferred pipeline route.
10-21 November 2018

Mountain Valle
PIPELINE
Resource Report 10
Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
Table 10.5-7
Comparison of the Preferred Route and FERC Alternative 4
Feature
Preferred Route
FERC Alternative 4
Difference
Total length (miles)
5.0
9.4
+4.4
Construction right-of-way (acres) a/
61.3
114
+52.7
Permanent right-of-way (acres) a/
30.6
57.0
+26.4
Total number of parcels crossed
63
60
-3
Number of residences within 25 and 50 feet of
the edge of the construction ROW (and
1/2
0/0
-1/-2
associated additional temporary workspace)
Number of waterbodies crossed
12
14
+2
Number of NWI wetlands crossed
1
5
+4
Total NWI wetland crossing length (feet)
25
321
+296
NWI wetlands within construction ROW
0.2
0.7
+0.5
(acres) b/
Agricultural land within construction ROW
12.4
36.3
+23.9
(acres) c/
Forested land within construction ROW
35
53.4
+18.4
(acres)
Length parallel or adjacent to existing ROW
0.2
2.0
+1.8
(miles)
a/ Assuming 100 -foot -wide construction ROW and 50 -foot -wide permanent ROW.
b/ Assuming 75 -foot -wide construction ROW.
c/ Includes pasture/hay and cultivated crops.
ROW = right-of-way. NWI = National Wetland Inventory
Information Sources:
GIS — Analysis based on Geodatabase layers and shapefiles.
NC Parcel Boundaries and Standard Fields - http://data.nconemap.gov/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.page
NLCD — 2006 National Land Cover Data - http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd-2006.htmi
NWI — National Wetlands Inventory - http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
USGS — U.S. Geological Survey - http://www.usgs.gov/
NHD — National Hydrography Dataset - http://nhd.usgs.gov/
ESRI - GIS Mapping - http://www.esri.com/
FERC Alternative 5 (MP 71.8 to MP 73.1)
The Project evaluated FERC Alternative 5 between MP 71.8 and MP 73.1 (see Figure 10.5-6, Appendix
10-A). At MP 71.8, FERC Alternative 5 extends in an east/southeast direction for approximately 0.6 mile
and crosses agricultural and forested land and Jimmie Kerr Road. It then turns in a south-southwest
direction for approximately 1.7 miles and crosses agricultural and forested land, Cherry Lane, Jimmie Kerr
Road, and State Highway 54/E. Harden Street before rejoining the preferred route at MP 73.1.
As shown in Table 10.5-8, the primary advantage of FERC Alternative 5 is:
• affects fewer residences within 50 feet of workspace.
The primary disadvantages of FERC Alternative 5 are:
• greater length and land disturbance; and
10-22 November 2018

Mountain Valle
PIPELINE
• affects three more parcels and 8.7 additional acres of agricultural land.
Potential constructability concerns of FERC Alternative 5 are:
• none identified based on initial review.
Resource Report 10
Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
Because the primary disadvantages outweigh the primary advantages, the Project eliminated this alternative
from further consideration as its preferred pipeline route.
Table 10.5-8
Comparison of the Preferred Route and FERC
Alternative 5
Feature
Preferred Route
FERC Alternative 5
Difference
Total length (miles)
1.3
2.2
+0.9
Construction right-of-way (acres) a/
16.2
26.3
+10.1
Permanent right-of-way (acres) a/
8.1
13.1
+5.0
Total number of parcels crossed
17
20
+3
Number of residences within 25 and 50 feet of the
edge of the construction ROW (and associated
1 / 1
0/0
-1/ -1
additional temporary workspace)
Number of waterbodies crossed
3
3
0
Number of NWI wetlands crossed
0
0
0
Total NWI wetland crossing length (feet)
0
0
0
NWI wetlands within construction ROW (acres) b/
0
0
0
Agricultural land within construction ROW (acres)
3
11.7
+8.7
c/
Forested land within construction ROW (acres)
19.5
19.5
10
Length parallel or adjacent to existing ROW (miles)
10.1
10
-0.1
a/ Assuming 100 -foot -wide construction ROW and 50 -foot -wide permanent ROW.
b/ Assuming 75 -foot -wide construction ROW.
c/ Includes pasture/hay and cultivated crops.
ROW = right-of-way. NWI = National Wetland Inventory
Information Sources:
GIS —Analysis based on Geodatabase layers and shapefiles.
NC Parcel Boundaries and Standard Fields - http://data.nconemap.gov/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.page
NLCD — 2006 National Land Cover Data - http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd-2006.html
NWI — National Wetlands Inventory - http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
USGS — U.S. Geological Survey - http://www.usgs.gov/
NHD — National Hydrography Dataset - http://nhd.usgs.gov/
ESRI - GIS Mapping - http://www.esri.com/
FERC Alternative 6 (MP 58.2 to MP 62.0)
The Project evaluated FERC Alternative 6 between MP 58.2 and MP 62.0 (see Figure 10.5-7, Appendix
10-A). At MP 58.2, FERC Alternative 6 extends south and is collocated with a Duke Energy electric
transmission easement for approximately 2.9 miles. It crosses agricultural and forested land, Burch Bridge
Road and Iseley School Road. The alternative is collocated with an existing utility easement between Iseley
School Road and Huffinese Drive (approximately 0.9 mile). It continues in an easterly direction and crosses
agricultural and forested land before it rejoins the preferred route at MP 62.0.
10-23 November 2018

Q Mountain Valle
PIPELINE
As shown in Table 10.5-9, the primary advantages of FERC Alternative 6 are:
• affects 4.0 fewer acres of agricultural land; and
• collocates with existing rights-of-way for an additional 1.6 miles.
The primary disadvantages of FERC Alternative 6 are:
• greater length and land disturbance;
Resource Report 10
Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
• affects seven more parcels;
• affects more residences within 25 and 50 feet of workspace;
• crosses five more waterbodies and one more wetland; and
• affects 0.2 more acre of wetlands and 3.6 additional acres of forested land.
Potential constructability concerns of FERC Alternative 6 are:
• none identified based on initial review.
Because the primary disadvantages outweigh the primary advantages, the Project eliminated this alternative
from further consideration as its preferred pipeline route.
Table 10.5-9
Comparison of the Preferred Route and FERC Alternative 6
Feature
Preferred Route
FERC Alternative 6
Difference
Total length (miles)
3.7
4.4
+0.7
Construction right-of-way (acres) a/
45.6
53.3
+7.7
Permanent right-of-way (acres) a/
22.7
26.6
+3.9
Total number of parcels crossed
21
28
+7
Number of residences within 25 and 50 feet
of the edge of the construction ROW (and
associated additional temporary workspace)
0/0
1 / 1
+1 / +1
Number of waterbodies crossed
5
10
+5
Number of NWI wetlands crossed
1
2
+1
Total NWI wetland crossing length (feet)
35
131
+96
NWI wetlands within construction ROW
(acres) b/
0.1
0.3
+0.2
Agricultural land within construction ROW
(acres) c/
21.8
17.8
-4
Forested land within construction ROW
(acres)
21.3
24.9
+3.6
Length parallel or adjacent to existing ROW
(miles)
0.9
2.5
+1.6
10-24 November 2018

IT Mountain Valley Resource Report 10
PIPELINE Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
Table 10.5-9
Comparison of the Preferred Route and FERC Alternative 6
Feature I Preferred Route I FERC Alternative 6 1 Difference I
a/ Assuming 100 -foot -wide construction ROW and 50 -foot -wide permanent ROW.
b/ Assuming 75 -foot -wide construction ROW.
c/ Includes pasture/hay and cultivated crops.
ROW = right-of-way. NWI = National Wetland Inventory
Information Sources:
GIS —Analysis based on Geodatabase layers and shapefiles.
NC Parcel Boundaries and Standard Fields - http://data.nconemap.gov/cjeoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.pacie
NLCD — 2006 National Land Cover Data - http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd-2006.htmi
NWI — National Wetlands Inventory - http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
USGS — U.S. Geological Survey - http://www.usgs.gov/
NHD — National Hydrography Dataset - http://nhd.usgs.gov/
ESRI - GIS Mapping - http://www.esri.com/
10.5.4 Mystic Valley Reroute (Preferred Route)
Between MP 64.0 and MP 67.5 in Alamance County, North Carolina, the Project evaluated the Mystic
Valley Reroute (preferred route) to avoid a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Cripple Creek Mitigation Bank
and address landowner concerns along its original route (filed under PF 18-4-000 on August 20, 2018). The
Mystic Valley Reroute deviates from the Project's original route at MP 64.0 and extends generally east,
southeast, and south. From MP 64.0 to MP 65.8, it crosses open, agricultural, forest land; and Hidden
Valley Trail/Road, Faucette Lane, and Deep Creek Church Road. At MP 65.8, the Mystic Valley Reroute
intersects with the FERC Alternative 3 route described above and extends generally southeast. It crosses
agricultural and forested land and North Fonville Road. It then turns in a more southerly direction and
crosses agricultural and forested land, Sandy Cross Road, and an existing electric transmission easement
before it rejoins the original route at MP 67.5 (see Figure 10.5-4).
As shown in Table 10.5-10, the primary advantages of the Mystic Valley Reroute (preferred route) are:
crosses less agricultural land;
addresses landowner concerns; and
affects less forest land.
The primary disadvantages of the Mystic Valley Reroute (preferred route) are:
• greater length and land disturbance.
Potential constructability concerns of the Mystic Valley Reroute (preferred route) are:
• none identified based on initial review.
While the Mystic Valley Reroute (preferred route) results in similar environmental impacts as the original
route, it avoids a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Cripple Creek Mitigation Bank and addresses landowner
concerns along its original route. Therefore, it was incorporated into the Project's preferred pipeline route.
10-25 November 2018

Q Mountain Valle
PIPELINE
Resource Report 10
Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
Table 10.5-10
Comparison of the Original Route and Mystic Valley Reroute (Preferred Route)
Feature
Original Route
Mystic Valley
Reroute
(Preferred Route)
Difference
General
Total length (miles) a/
2.99
3.49
+0.5
Length adjacent to existing ROW (miles)
0
0
0
Land affected during construction (acres) a/
36.4
42.5
+6.1
Land affected during operation (acres) a/
18.1
21.2
+3.1
Land Use
Populated areas within 1/2 mile (number)
0
0
0
National Forest System lands crossed
(miles)
0
0
0
National Forest Wilderness crossed (miles)
0
0
0
State lands crossed (forests, parks, wildlife
management areas) (miles)
0
0
0
Scenic Trail crossings (number)
0
0
0
Designated Natural and Scenic Rivers,
Nationwide Rivers Inventory, significant
fisheries, ponds/lakes (number)
0
0
0
NRHP designated or eligible historic
districts crossed (miles)
0
0
0
Landowner parcels crossed (number)
27
27
0
Residences within 50 feet of construction
work space (number)
0
0
0
Environmental Justice Areas (miles)
1.1
1.1
0
Resources
Agricultural land crossed (miles) c/
19.1
19.2
-0.1
Open land crossed (miles)
1.9
1.7
+0.2
Developed land crossed (miles)
0
0
0
Forested land crossed (miles)
1.1
1.7
-0.6
Forested land affected during construction
(acres)
14
20.1
-6.1
Forested land affected during operation
(acres)
6.8
10
-3.2
Total Wetlands (NWI) crossed (feet)
0
0
0
PEM NWI wetlands affected by construction
(acres) b/
0
0
0
PEM NWI wetlands affected by operation
(acres) a/
0
0
0
PSS NWI wetlands affected by construction
(acres) b/
0
0
0
PSS NWI wetlands affected by operation
(acres) a/
0
0
0
PFO NWI wetlands crossed (feet)
0
0
0
PFO NWI wetlands affected by construction
(acres) b/
0
0
0
10-26 November 2018

IT Mountain Valley
PIPELINE
Resource Report 10
Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
Table 10.5-10
Comparison of the Original Route and Mystic Valley Reroute (Preferred Route)
Mystic Valley
Feature
Original Route
Reroute
Difference
(Preferred Route)
PFO NWI wetlands affected by operation
0
0
0
(acres) a/
Perennial waterbody crossings (number)
0
0
0
Crossings of major waterbodies (>100 feet)
0
0
0
(number)
Presence of critical habitat or federally
endangered or threatened species
No / 0
No / 0
0
(Yes/No). Number of species.
Shallow bedrock crossed (miles)
0
0
0
Karst area crossed (miles)
0
0
0
a/ Assuming 100 -foot -wide construction ROW and 50 -foot -wide permanent ROW.
b/ Assuming 75 -foot -wide construction ROW.
c/ Includes pasture/hay and cultivated crops.
Populated Areas = census designated places, consolidated cites, and incorporated places.
ROW = right-of-way. NWI = National Wetland Inventory. NRHP = National Register of Historic Places.
PEM = Palustrine Emergent Wetland; PSS = Palustrine Scrub -Shrub Wetland; PFO = Palustrine Forested Wetland.
Information Sources:
GIS —Analysis based on Geodatabase layers and shapefiles.
NC Parcel Boundaries and Standard Fields - http://data.nconemap.gov/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.page
VA Parcel Boundaries and Standard Fields -
https://www.arcgis.com/home/item. html?id=f1 dccafl f42e4Ocbba791 feae2e23690
NLCD — 2006 National Land Cover Data - http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd-2006.html
NWI — National Wetlands Inventory - http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
USGS — U.S. Geological Survey - http://www.usgs.gov/
NHD — National Hydrography Dataset - http://nhd.usgs.gov/
USDA - https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/edw/datasets.php
NRHP - National Register of Historic Places - https://www.nps.gov/nr/research/data—downloads.htm
ESRI - GIS Mapping - http://www.esri.com/
10.6 ROUTE VARIATIONS
Route variations differ from route alternatives as they consist of alignment adjustments that enhance
constructability, reduce impacts on localized features, sensitive resources, terrain, and/or provide
appropriate space to allow for the safe operation and maintenance of the pipeline. They are typically shorter
than route alternatives and may not always display a clear environmental advantage other than avoiding or
reducing the impact to site-specific features or resources. After selection of the preferred route, the Project
evaluated potential route variations using both desktop and field survey data to address construction
constraints and to reduce impacts to landowners and sensitive environmental resources.
The FERC requested that the Project evaluate two route variations to minimize effects on the Robert Pollok -
Hill View Farms at approximately MP 15.0 in Pittsylvania County, Virginia and residences between MP
40.2 and MP 41.0 in Rockingham County, North Carolina. These variations are described below.
10-27 November 2018

Mountain Valley Resource Report 10
PIPELINE Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
10.6.1 Robert Pollock -Hill View Farms Variation
The Project evaluated the Robert Pollok -Hill View Farms Variation between MP 14.7 and MP 15.7 to
reduce impact on the farm (see Figure 10.6-1). At MP 14.7, this variation extends west of the preferred
route and continues in a southwest direction for approximately 1.0 mile. It parallels an existing utility
easement, crosses mostly agricultural and open land, Whitmell School Road/County Road 750, and rejoins
the preferred route at MP 15.7.
As shown in Table 10.6-1, the primary advantages of the Robert Pollok -Hill View Farms Variation are:
• collocates with existing rights-of-way for an additional 1.0 mile; and
• affects less agricultural land.
The primary disadvantages of the Robert Pollok -Hill View Farms Variation are:
• none identified based on initial review.
Potential constructability concerns of the Robert Pollok -Hill View Farms Variation are:
• none identified based on initial review.
While the Project did not fully incorporate the Robert Pollok -Hill View Farms Variation as a result of the
alternative analysis, approximately 1,300 feet of access road and approximately 0.3 acre of additional
temporary workspace were removed between MP 14.7 and MP 15.7.
Table 10.6-1
Comparison of the Preferred Route and Robert Pollok -Hill View Farms Variation
Feature
Preferred Route
Robert Pollok -Hill
View Farms
Variation
Difference
Total length (miles)
1.0
1.0
0
Construction right-of-way (acres) a/
12.3
12.3
0
Permanent right-of-way (acres) a/
6.1
6.1
0
Total number of parcels crossed
6
6
0
Number of residences within 25 and 50 feet of the
edge of the construction ROW (and associated
additional temporary workspace)
0/0
0/0
0/0
Number of waterbodies crossed
0
0
0
Number of NWI wetlands crossed
0
0
0
Total NWI wetland crossing length (feet)
0
0
0
NWI wetlands within construction ROW (acres) b/
0
0
0
Agricultural land within construction ROW (acres)
c/
9.4
8.6
-0.8
Forested land within construction ROW (acres)
2.0
2.0
0
Length parallel or adjacent to existing ROW
(miles)
0
1
+1
10-28 November 2018

Q Mountain Valley Resource Report 10
PIPELINE Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
Table 10.6-1
Comparison of the Preferred Route and Robert Pollok -Hill View Farms Variation
Robert Pollok -Hill
Feature Preferred Route View Farms Difference
Variation
a/ Assuming 100 -foot -wide construction ROW and 50 -foot -wide permanent ROW.
b/ Assuming 75 -foot -wide construction ROW.
c/ Includes pasture/hay and cultivated crops.
ROW = right-of-way. NWI = National Wetland Inventory
Information Sources:
GIS —Analysis based on Geodatabase layers and shapefiles.
NC Parcel Boundaries and Standard Fields - http://data.nconemap.gov/qeoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.page
NLCD — 2006 National Land Cover Data - http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd-2006.html
NWI — National Wetlands Inventory - http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
USGS — U.S. Geological Survey - http://www.usgs.gov/
NHD — National Hydrography Dataset - http://nhd.usgs.gov/
ESRI - GIS Mapping - http://www.esri.com/
10-29 November 2018

M Mountain ,11ev
PIPELINE--
Figure 10.6-1
Sheet 1 of 1
Robert Pollock-Hill Farms Variation
(USGS Topographic)
600 Willowbrook Ln
; TRG West Chester, PA 19382
�"""""'" October 2018

Legend
o Mileposts
M Mountain
%
iPreferred
Pipeline Route
FIPrI. I.'lr
P i t t s y l v a n i a i
c o U n tri
Robert Pollock -Hill Farms
arms
Figure 10.6-1A
Qa
Variation
Sheet 1 of 1
111777������111 ,A
L__ County Boundary
Robert Pollock -Hill Farms Variation
i
(ESRI World Imagery)
���"��-�
1 inch = 600 feet
600 Willowbrook Ln
iC,2 TRC West Chester, PA 19382
Data Sources: ESRI, USGS, EQT When Printed 8.5x11
m""""" October 2018

Mountain Valley Resource Report 10
PIPELINE Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
10.6.2 MP 40.0 to MP 41.4 Variation
The Project evaluated a route variation between MP 40.0 and MP 41.4 to reduce the number of residences
potentially affected by the Project (see Figure 10.6-2). At MP 40.0, this variation extends south-southwest
for approximately 0.5 mile and crosses forested and open land and Narrow Gauge Road. It then turns east-
southeast for approximately 1.1 miles and crosses mostly forested land before it rejoins the preferred route
at MP 41.4.
As shown in Table 10.6-2, the primary advantages of the MP 40.0 and MP 41. 4 Variation are:
• affects two fewer parcels;
• affects fewer residences within 25 and 50 feet of workspace; and
• affects less forested land.
The primary disadvantages of the MP 40.0 and MP 41. 4 Variation are:
greater length and associated land disturbance; and
affects more wetlands and agricultural land.
Potential constructability concerns of the MP 40.0 and MP 41. 4 Variation are:
• none identified based on initial review.
Because the primary disadvantages outweigh the primary advantages, the Project eliminated this variation
from further consideration as its preferred pipeline route.
Table 10.6-2
Comparison of the Preferred Route and MP 40.0 to MP 41.4 Variation
Feature
Preferred Route
MP 40.0 to
MP 41.4 Variation
Difference
Total length (miles)
1.4
1.6
+0.2
Construction right-of-way (acres) a/
17.4
19.8
+2.4
Permanent right-of-way (acres) a/
8.7
9.9
+1.2
Total number of parcels crossed
10
8
-2
Number of residences within 25 and 50 feet of the
edge of the construction ROW (and associated
additional temporary workspace)
1/1
0/0
-1/-1
Number of waterbodies crossed
3
3
0
Number of NWI wetlands crossed
1
1
0
Total NWI wetland crossing length (feet)
243
303
+60
NWI wetlands within construction ROW (acres) b/
0.4
0.5
+0.1
Agricultural land within construction ROW (acres)
c/
1.0
2.2
+1.2
Forested land within construction ROW (acres)
13.1
11.8
-1.3
Length parallel or adjacent to existing ROW
(miles)
0.5
0.2
-0.3
10-32 November 2018

Q Mountain Valle
PIPELINE
Table 10.6-2
Resource Report 10
Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
Comparison of the Preferred Route and MP 40.0 to MP 41.4 Variation
Feature Preferred Route MP 40.0 to Difference
MP 41.4 Variation
a/ Assuming 100 -foot -wide construction ROW and 50 -foot -wide permanent ROW.
b/ Assuming 75 -foot -wide construction ROW.
c/ Includes pasture/hay and cultivated crops.
ROW = right-of-way. NWI = National Wetland Inventory
Information Sources:
GIS —Analysis based on Geodatabase layers and shapefiles.
NC Parcel Boundaries and Standard Fields - http://data.nconemap.gov/qeoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.page
NLCD — 2006 National Land Cover Data - http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd-2006.html
NWI — National Wetlands Inventory - http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
USGS — U.S. Geological Survey - http://www.usgs.gov/
NHD — National Hydrography Dataset - http://nhd.usgs.gov/
ESRI - GIS Mapping - http://www.esri.com/
10-33 November 2018

MP 40;x,
0
375
5
Feet
750
` k
/ • 711 9
`��—
l r
-4\
`Rockingham
I a� County 1 r��
%i .4 1
Legend
o Mileposts
---- Preferred Pipeline Route
MP 40.0 to MP 41.4
Variation
L__ ; County Boundary
1 inch = 750 feet
Data Sources: ESRI, USGS, EQT When Printed 8.5x11
MP 41.4
1'1 Mountain -,11ev
PIPELINE--
Figure 10.6-2
Sheet 1 of 1
MP 40.0 to MP 41.4 Variation
(USGS Topographic)
600 Willowbrook Ln
TRG West Chester, PA 19382
�" " October 2018

Mountain Valley Resource Report 10
PIPELINE Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
10.6.3 MP 69.5 to MP 69.7 Variation (Preferred Route)
The Project evaluated a route variation between MP 69.5 and MP 69.7 (preferred route) to avoid a
significant part of the Town of Haw River's vision for revitalizing the downtown / Main Street core area
that the original route crossed. The MP 69.5 to MP 69.7 Variation from the Project's original route at MP
69.5 and extends generally southeast and south. It crosses open, forest, and developed land and East Main
Street, a railroad track, and driveway and rejoins the original route at MP 69.7 (see Figure 10.6-3).
As shown in Table 10.6-3, the primary advantages of the MP 69.5 to MP 69.7 Variation are:
• avoids the Town of Haw River town revitalization area;
• affects one less residence within 25 feet of workspace; and
• affects a town fire hall and small business.
The primary disadvantages of the MP 69.5 to MP 69.7 Variation are:
• greater length and associated land disturbance; and
• limited construction work area due to exposed sewage and water line.
Potential constructability concerns of the MP 69.5 to MP 69.7 Variation are:
• foreign utility line crossing, limited work area at town fire hall and small business, and residence
located east of North Main Street.
While the MP 69.5 to MP 69.7 Variation (preferred route) results in similar environmental impacts as the
original route, it avoids the Town of Haw River's vision for revitalizing the downtown/Main Street core
area and addresses town concerns along its original route. Therefore, it was incorporated into the
Project's preferred pipeline route.
Table 10.6-3
Comparison of the Original Route and MP 69.5 to MP 69.7 Variation (Preferred Route)
Feature
Original Route
MP 69.5 to MP 69.69
Variation
(Preferred Route)
Difference
Total length (miles)
0.5
0.4
+0.1
Construction right-of-way (acres) a/
6.5
5.4
+1.1
Permanent right-of-way (acres) a/
3.2
2.6
+0.6
Total number of parcels crossed
12
14
-2
Number of residences within 25 and 50 feet of the
edge of the construction ROW (and associated
additional temporary workspace)
2/3
3/3
-1/0
Number of waterbodies crossed
1
1
0
Number of NWI wetlands crossed
0
0
0
Total NWI wetland crossing length (feet)
0
0
0
NWI wetlands within construction ROW (acres) b/
0
0
0
Agricultural land within construction ROW (acres)
c/
0
0
0
Forested land within construction ROW (acres)
1.8
1.8
0
10-35 November 2018

Q Mountain Valle
PIPELINE
Resource Report 10
Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
Table 10.6-3
Comparison of the Original Route and MP 69.5 to MP 69.7 Variation (Preferred Route)
MP 69.5 to MP 69.69
Feature
Original Route
Variation
Difference
(Preferred Route)
Length parallel or adjacent to existing ROW
0
0
0
(miles)
a/ Assuming 100 -foot -wide construction ROW and 50 -foot -wide permanent ROW.
b/ Assuming 75 -foot -wide construction ROW.
c/ Includes pasture/hay and cultivated crops.
ROW = right-of-way. NWI = National Wetland Inventory
Information Sources:
GIS —Analysis based on Geodatabase layers and shapefiles.
NC Parcel Boundaries and Standard Fields - http://data.nconemap.gov/qeoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.page
NLCD — 2006 National Land Cover Data - http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd-2006.html
NWI — National Wetlands Inventory - http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
USGS — U.S. Geological Survey - http://www.usgs.gov/
NHD — National Hydrography Dataset - http://nhd.usgs.gov/
ESRI - GIS Mapping - http://www.esri.com/
10-36 November 2018

J �✓ 70 1
h
I
a Haw'RiveI
Elem Sch
O`
MP 69.5
` 1 �
n
Alam`ence
Counrty i l
5 0
f
49 ` I MP 69.95'
f
----- ___ � OMP 70 �
\ r o
0 250 500 r+ `
Feet 1 `\
I
� Greed Lam+-�
I
1
(\Ala ' ance
I County
r r A-
H. R trf•In$1
Graham
Legend
o Mileposts
---- Preferred Pipeline Route
MP 69.5 to MP 69.95 Variation
Original Route
County Boundary
1 inch = 500 feet
Data Sources: ESRI, USGS, EQT When Printed 8.5x11
M Mountain -,11ev
PIPELINE--
Figure 10.6-3
Sheet 1 of 1
MP 69.5 to MP 69.95 Variation
(USGS Topographic)
600 Willowbrook Ln
TRG West Chester, PA 19382
�-" " October 2018

Ir Mountain Valley Resource Report 10
PIPELINE Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
10.6.4 Route Variations Incorporated into the Project Pipeline
The Southgate Project has currently identified route variations during preliminary routing, stakeholder
outreach efforts, and landowner and/or and agency requested route deviations. The Project has incorporated
191 of these route variations into the current preferred route to address landowner concerns, environmental
resources, potential culturally sensitive areas, and constructability issues. These are shown in Table 10.6-
4 in Appendix 10-13.
The Project continues to evaluate these variations and will continue to refine the route as necessary through
the remainder of the field survey process. In addition, the Project will continue to coordinate with
stakeholders with respect to developing route variations for site-specific concerns and will provide the
FERC with a summary of alignment revisions in supplemental filings, as applicable.
10.7 ABOVEGROUND FACILITY ALTERNATIVES
10.7.1 Compressor Station Alternatives
The Project conducted a hydraulic analysis to determine the optimum horsepower and compression to
provide the increased volumes of natural gas necessary to meet the purpose and need of the Project. As a
result, the Project determined that two new compressor stations were necessary to meet the compression
requirements for the increased delivery volume and delivery locations. The compressor station site
selection -process used multiple factors including: engineering design and construction, pipeline design
limitations, land/workspace requirements, site elevation, road access, interconnecting pipe, land
availability, and environmental effects.
The Project evaluated alternative site for its proposed Lambert Compressor Station site, as described below.
10.7.1.1 Lambert Compressor Station Alternative
The Project considered one alternative site for the location of the Lambert Compressor Station in
Pittsylvania County, Virginia. The proposed Lambert Compressor Station site is located at MP 0.0 of the
pipeline route (see Figure 10.7-1). Land use at the proposed compressor station site consists of forested
and agricultural land. Table 10.7-1 provides an analysis of the proposed Lambert Compressor Station site
and the alternative site.
Lambert Compressor Station Alternative 1
The Lambert Compressor Station Alternative 1 site is located near MP 0.0 of the pipeline approximately
0.4 mile northwest of the proposed compressor station site (see Figure 10.7-1). The alternative site consists
of forested land, is surrounded by forested land, and would require a new permanent access road from
Transco Road/County Road 692 located approximately 0.4 mile to the northeast. An existing electric
powerline is located approximately 0.6 mile to the northwest of the alternative site. Two residences are
located approximately 0.3 and 0.4 mile northeast and northwest of the alternative site, respectively, and a
third residence is located approximately 0.5 mile to the southwest. Transco's compressor facilities (Stations
165 and 166) are located approximately 0.2 mile to the east of the Lambert Compressor Station Alternative
1 site.
10-38 November 2018

L-_ County Boundary
Mountain VAT
PIPELINE ni
Figure 10.7-1
Lambert Compressor Station
Alternative
(USGS Topographic)
600 Willowbrook Ln
41% TRC West Chester, PA 19382
.. + « October 2018

Mountain Valle
PIPELINE
Resource Report 10
Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
As shown in Table 10.7-1, the primary advantages of the Lambert Compressor Station Alternative 1 are:
• smaller site size and associated land disturbance;
• shorter pipeline length to reach the site; and
• shorter access road length to reach the site.
The primary disadvantages of the Lambert Compressor Station Alternative 1 are:
• unknown availability of land;
• more noise sensitive areas within 1.0 mile of the site.
Potential constructability concerns of the Lambert Compressor Station Alternative 1 are:
• future natural gas infrastructure associated with the Mountain Valley Pipeline to be placed within
the site.
In addition, approximately 90 percent of the Lambert Compressor Station Alternative 1 site is vegetated
with trees and shrubs while the proposed site consists of open land and is approximately 30 percent
vegetated with trees and shrubs. The vegetation at both sites would provide a visual buffer. The nearest
residence/noise sensitive areas are located approximately 1,300 and 3,300 feet from the alternative and
proposed site, respectively. Activities at the alternative site could affect waterbodies and would require the
removal of approximately 25,000 cubic yards of material (soil and rock) from the site. The proposed site
will not affect waterbodies and would require the removal of approximately 16,500 cubic yards of material
from the site. Because the Lambert Compressor Station Alternative 1 would be within 1.0 mile of more
noise sensitive areas, be located in an area of future natural gas infrastructure, and does not offer an
environmental or constructability advantage, the Project eliminated this alternative site from further
consideration as its preferred compressor station site.
Table 10.7-1
Comparison of the Proposed Lambert Compressor Station Site and Alternative 1
Feature
Proposed Lambert
Compressor Station
Alternative 1
Land availability (Yes/No)
Yes
Unknown
Total land to be acquired (estimated acres)
127.5
Unknown
Construction workspace (acres)
14.7
14.5
Operation workspace (acres)
3.8
3.8
Length of pipeline required to reach the site (miles)
0.4
<0.1
Length of access road required to reach the site
(miles)
0.6
0.4
Existing land use (type)
Forested/Agriculture
Forested
Construction/operation impact on prime farmland soils
(acres)
12.8/3.7
14.5 / Unknown
Construction/operation impact on NWI wetlands
(acres)
0/0
0/0
Presence of critical habitat or federally endangered or
threatened species (Yes/No)
No
No
Presence of NRHP-eligible sites (Yes/No)
No
No
10-40 November 2018

IT Mountain Valley
PIPELINE
Resource Report 10
Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
Table 10.7-1
Comparison of the Proposed Lambert Compressor Station Site and Alternative 1
Feature Proposed Lambert
Alternative 1
Compressor Station
Number of NSAs within 1 mile of the site 45
55
Zoning Unknown
Unknown
NWI = National Wetland Inventory; NRHP = National Register of Historic Places; NSAs = Noise Sensitive Areas;
Information Sources:
GIS — Analysis based on Geodatabase layers and shapefiles.
NLCD — 2006 National Land Cover Data - http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd-2006.html
NWI — National Wetlands Inventory - http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
USGS — U.S. Geological Survey - http://www.usgs.gov/
NHD — National Hydrography Dataset - http://nhd.usgs.gov/
ESRI - GIS Mapping - http://www.esri.com/
10.7.2 Electric Driven Compressor Units
The proposed Project compressor stations will include centrifugal turbines powered by natural gas with the
natural gas obtained directly from the pipeline. While electric motor -driven compressors can power
compressor stations in some instances, this is not feasible for the Project due to the lack of sufficient
electricity required for each compressor station site.
To use electric driven compressor units, electric power at high voltage would need to be supplied by
overhead transmission lines to a substation that would be located at each compressor station site. The
compressor stations are not located near existing high voltage electric transmission lines. The substation
would step down the voltage for electric driven compressor motors and other miscellaneous loads.
Additionally, electric driven motors located at each compressor station could require a liquid cooled
variable frequency drive, primarily to start the motor and then for speed control of the compressor. For
these reasons, the use of electric driven compressor units is not a reasonable alternative for the proposed
Project compressor stations.
10.7.3 Meter Station Alternatives
The proposed Lambert Interconnect, LN 3600 Interconnect, T-15 Dan River Interconnect, and T-21 Haw
River Interconnect locations reflect customer and system requirements. There are no alternatives that would
satisfy all of these requirements; therefore, no alternatives were considered.
10.8 REFERENCES
U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA). 2017a. State Profile and Energy Estimates — Virginia. Available
online at: https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=VA Accessed June 3, 2018.
U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA). 2017b. State Profile and Energy Estimates — North Carolina.
Available online at: https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=NC Accessed June 3, 2018.
10-41 November 2018

Ir Mountain VallePIPELINE y
LLc
MVP Southgate Project
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
Resource Report 10
Appendix 10-A
Resource Report 10
Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
FERC Requested Route Alternative Figures
November 2018

MP 63.9-
a M P 6.4
MP 65
o�
0 1'1200, y 2,400
'd D
r. Feet 1
1 1 S,i: -k +� AVE
1
1 DEEP C.RLEK_:
1
L4
MP 66
l 4Y f'st t J
Alamance
1
County /
i
i
dMP 67
�y4 m 1
'� C Q( s / �`i/� i
MP 68
\1
tt
— I ----1----
M Mountain Vall
o Mileposts
fy
PIPELINE �.i
1 I
1
1 DEEP C.RLEK_:
1
L4
MP 66
l 4Y f'st t J
Alamance
1
County /
i
i
dMP 67
�y4 m 1
'� C Q( s / �`i/� i
MP 68
\1
Legend
— I ----1----
M Mountain Vall
o Mileposts
fy
PIPELINE �.i
1 I
Alamance I
— — — Preferred Pipeline Route
County
Figure 10.5-2
FERC Alternative 1
!•" �1
L___; County Boundary
Sheet 1of3
5uir, r.�, h. IIfeU 7r1 P.
i 1 I
FERC Alternative 1
f I
1
�
(USGS Topographic)
I
�I i
i
1 inch = 2,000 feet
600
West Chester, PA 19382
;TRC WestWillowbrookA 1
Data Sources: ESRI, USGS, TRC, EQT When Printed 8.5x11
- _� �
""- October 2018

Legend
-,�------------��::----; ----
o Mileposts
1'1 Mountain ln�,�
PIPELINE
Alamance j
— — — Preferred Pipeline Route
County j
! �
FERC Alternative 1
Figure 10.5-2
r County Boundary
Sheet 2of3
�
I Bur Tji -!,. IryzYr 7nr
FERC Alternative 1
r
�
(USGS Topographic)
I
I i
1 inch = 2,000 feet
TRC 600 Willowbrook Ln
TRC West Chester, PA 19382
Data Sources: ESRI, USGS, TRC, EQT When Printed 8.5x11
-
""" October 2018

Legend
_'A ------------- -----1 ------ VF I" 1 Mountain Valli
o Mileposts PIPELINE
Alamance j — — — Preferred Pipeline Route
County j FERC Alternative 1
j � Figure 10.5-2
County Boundary Sheet 3of3
�.,'Bu
FERC Alternative 1
f j (USGS Topographic)
600 I i ;TRC WestWillowbrookeser,A 1
� j 1 inch = 2,000 feet - TRC West Chester, PA 19382
Data Sources: ESRI, USGS, TRC, EQT When Printed 8.5x11 """ October 2018

M Mountain
PIPELINE
Figure 10.5-3
Sheet 1 of 1
FERC Alternative 2
(USGS Topographic)
600 ;TRC WestWillowbrookester,A 1
West Chester, PA 19382
October 2018

Legend
_'A ------------------ ; - MMountain ! 1 e v
O
Mileposts PIPELINE
r� I
! j _ _ _ Mystic Valley Reroute
(Preferred Pipeline Route)
! O jFigure 10.5-4
FERC Alternative 3 Sheet 1 of 1
i A l a m h,tti' a '"�f3,r,r Original Route
Count ! ---� FERC Alternative 3
- y County Boundary (USGS Topographic)
! i TRC 600 Willowbrook Ln
! j 1 inch = 1,500 feet - _� � West Chester, PA 19382
Data Sources: ESRI, USGS, TRC, EQT When Printed 8.5x11 """ October 2018

MP 65
Q`
I
' MP 65.8 ���` MP 66
` x
10
F
Alamance .,
( i County ,
a tri I W
Q
/ L
s✓ 1 © - - J _, a -°fps
i — lV- 4�� ►ten l f
0 1,200 2,400 \ ¢ cpF
Feet
MP 68
Legend
o Mileposts
— — — Preferred Pipeline Route
FERC Alternative 4
County Boundary
1 inch = 2,000 feet
Data Sources: ESRI, USGS, TRC, EQT When Printed 8.5x11
M Mountain -,11ev
PIPELINE -.i,
Figure 10.5-5
Sheet 1 of 3
FERC Alternative 4
(USGS Topographic)
;TRC600 Willowbrook Ln
® � M� West Chester, PA 19382
October 2018

M Mountain -,11ev
PIPELINE --
Figure 10.5-5
Sheet 2 of 3
FERC Alternative 4
(USGS Topographic)
600 ;TRC WestWillowbrookester,A 1
West Chester, PA 19382
October 2018

M Mountain -,11ev
PIPELINE --
Figure 10.5-5
Sheet 3 of 3
FERC Alternative 4
(USGS Topographic)
600 ;TRC WestWillowbrookester,A 1
West Chester, PA 19382
October 2018

--URi1NG-ro, A13r,�{e
Q t / Mid coli Cc1�f 'unky.
"- MP 71.8
/
z•
Of
PIMP 72
rIEL
/ Alamance
County
/
MP 73
/
l �
_ 1
l / F
1
�.
"ev ti y
off
MP 73.11 --
0 600 1,200
Feetti
Legend
o Mileposts
— — — Preferred Pipeline Route
FERC Alternative 5
County Boundary
1 inch = 1,000 feet
Data Sources: ESRI, USGS, TRC, EQT When Printed 8.5x11
M Mountain -,11ev
PIPELINE -
Figure 10.5-6
Sheet 1 of 1
FERC Alternative 5
(USGS Topographic)
TRC600 Willowbrook Ln
® � C West Chester, PA 19382
October 2018

1'1 Mountain - IIlev
PIPELINE'.ii
Figure 10.5-7
Sheet 1 of 1
FERC Alternative 6
(USGS Topographic)
% T600 Willowbrook Ln
RC
M- West Chester, PA 19382
October 2018

r
r • CuYP' X19 s
1
� Sum
v Ebro \Ian -t b '
t r.
IF
Alkk
to ,
'�ffAlrDr. •` � � r
r v
-naduw�p� •�A •.q
Js. —

A
n � � � •ice f M Py n�f
Rru�nfe C. w� .
ri.ress�q
• v Ito
po
�. 40
- w
�N
J �
_._ s

q , 4+ Jae Cc:. F .� j • nt -red Ln•
uT
a•
�Noel 93I'llif
�i % )4 r(i i•,1'Y t :
`e_ d
40 3 8h ait_ r o•. / , "r 4 � 'civ p �'
�. �-fr,•�e �i0.w� � $ My X /w ��
' y
y +
1
..4 tHa iNb a
Goon y �'
Ln
.., r �?
•... 6 ` menti - 'i
J;
MinnrF',j ,b

Ir Mountain VallePIPELINE y
ac
MVP Southgate Project
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
Resource Report 10
Appendix 10-B
Resource Report 10
Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
Route Variations Incorporated into the
MVP Southgate Project Pipeline
November 2018

Q Mountain Valle
PIPELINE
Resource Report 10
Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
TABLE 10.6-4
Route Variations Incorporated into the MVP Southgate Project Pipeline
Tract ID
Reroute No.
Approx.
Approx.
Length
Variation Description
Justification
Begin MP
End MP
(miles)
VA -PI -001.000
MVP -RA -228-1624
0
0
0.00
H-605 Lambert Compressor Station Suction
H-605 Lambert Compressor Station Suction
VA -PI -002.000
Line
Line
VA -PI -002.000
MVP -RA -228-1627
0
0
0.00
Lambert Compressor Station Discharge Line
Lambert Compressor Station Discharge Line
VA -PI -008.000
MVP -RA -143-1526
1
1.25
0.25
Adjusted centerline ("CL") to be next to existing
Adjusted CL to be next to existing ROW
VA -PI -009.000
right-of-way ("ROW")
Adjusted the access road TA -PI -005 to end at
Adjusted the access road TA -PI -005 to end
VA -PI -012.000
MVP -RR -257-1422
2.25
2.25
0.00
a additional temporary workspace ("ATWS")
at a ATWS that is outside of a wetland
that is outside of a wetland
VA -PI -014.000
MVP -RA -143-1527
2.35
2.7
0.35
Adjusted CL to be next to existing ROW
Adjusted CL to be next to existing ROW
VA -PI -022.000
MVP -RR -257-1425
3.4
3.4
0.00
Extended access road TA -PI -006 to a public
Extended access road TA -PI -006 to a public
VA -PI -023.000
road
road
VA -PI -022.000
MVP -RR -228-1312
3.55
3.55
0.00
Contoured this work box to fit stream/wetland
Adjusted the ATWS to contour to
VA -PI -023.000
angles
stream/wetland
VA -PI -029.000
The removal of the Pi's makes it better for a
VA -PI -030.000
VA -PI -031.000
MVP -RA -143-1528
4.25
4.4
0.15
Removed Point of Intersections ("PI's")
horizontal directional drill ("HDD") or a
VA -PI -032.000
conventional bore
VA -PI -032.000
MVP -RA -143-1529
4.6
4.9
0.30
Adjusted CL to be next to existing ROW
Adjusted CL to be next to existing ROW
VA -PI -034.000
MVP -RA -143-1530
5
5.1
0.10
Minimized creek crossing and adjust PI away
Minimized creek crossing and adjust PI
from creek crossing
away from creek crossing
VA -PI -034.000
VA-PI-034.00O.RR
MVP -RA -183-0855
5
5.3
0.30
Adjusted CL to avoid being in stream for
Adjusted CL to avoid being in stream for
VA -PI -035.000
approximately 600 feet.
approximately 600 feet.
VA -PI -034.000
MVP -RA -221-1831
5
5
0.00
Trimmed ATWS to 30'x 100' to avoid sensitive
Trimmed ATWS to 30'x 100' to avoid
resource area
sensitive resource area as much as possible
VA -PI -034.000
MVP -RA -221-1835
5
5
0.00
Removed. Reduce / avoid impact on sensitive
Access road not needed
resource area
VA -PI -034.000
MVP -RA -253-1423
5.1
5.1
0.00
Modified access road layout
Adjusted access road to follow the existing
VA-PI-034.100.AR
road
VA -PI -035.000
MVP -RA -218-1715
5.3
5.3
0.00
Access road removed
Access road not needed
10-13-1 November 2018

Q Mountain Valle
PIPELINE
Resource Report 10
Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
TABLE 10.6-4
Route Variations Incorporated into the MVP Southgate Project Pipeline
Tract ID
Reroute No.
Approx.
Approx.
Length
Variation Description
Justification
Begin MP
End MP
(miles)
VA -PI -035.000
MVP -RA -253-1606
5.5
5.5
0.00
Removed TA -PI -044
Access road not needed
VA -PI -036.000
VA-PI-035.100.AR
VA -PI -036.000
MVP -RR -270-1240
5.9
5.9
0.00
Extend access road to a public road
Extend access road to a public road
VA -PI -037.000
VA -PI -037.000
MVP -RA -153-1208
6.3
6.5
0.20
Adjusted CL to be next to existing ROW
Adjusted CL to be next to existing ROW
VA -PI -041.000
MVP -RA -153-1215
7.2
7.3
0.10
Adjusted CL to be next to existing ROW
Adjusted CL to be next to existing ROW
VA -PI -041.000
VA -PI -042.000
MVP -RA -228-1315
7.2
7.5
0.30
Straighten out and follow existing pipelines
Adjusted CL to be next to existing ROW
VA -PI -044.000
VA -PI -043.000
MVP -RA -218-1732
7.6
7.6
0.00
Removed TA -PI -020
Access road not needed
VA -PI -053.000
MVP -RR -183-0902
9.6
9.6
0.00
Adjusted access road to avoid cemetery
Adjust access road to avoid cemetery
VA -PI -053.000
MVP -RA -254-1528
9.6
9.6
0.00
Modified access road layout
Adjusted access road to follow the existing
road
VA -PI -053.000
MVP -RR -183-0859
9.65
10
0.35
Adjusted centerline to avoid large cemetery
Adjusted CL to avoid large cemetery
VA -PI -075.000
Adjusted the route to avoid potential
VA-PI-075.001.ASC
MVP -RR -221-1024
11
11.5
0.50
Alternate route to avoid sensitive resource area
VA -PI -076.000
sensitive resource area
VA -13I-077.000
MVP -RR -255-1641
11.65
11.9
0.25
Adjusted centerline to avoid cemetery
Adjusted CL to avoid cemetery
VA -PI -079.000
MVP -RA -218-2017
12.2
12.2
0.00
Removed access road
Access road not needed
VA -PI -082.000
MVP -RA -219-1725
12.4
12.4
0.00
Reduced ATWS to property lines to avoid
Reduced ATWS to property lines to avoid
cemetery
cemetery
VA -13I-082.000
MVP -RA -219-1839
12.6
12.6
0.00
Removed access road
Access road not needed
VA -PI -082.000
MVP -RA -219-1846
12.65
12.65
0.00
Removed access road
Access road not needed
VA -13I-084.000
MVP -RA -153-1249
12.8
13.1
0.30
Adjusted CL to be next to existing ROW
Adjusted CL to be next to existing ROW
10-13-2 November 2018

Q Mountain Valle
PIPELINE
Resource Report 10
Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
TABLE 10.6-4
Route Variations Incorporated into the MVP Southgate Project Pipeline
Tract ID
Reroute No.
Approx.
Approx.
Length
Variation Description
Justification
Begin MP
End MP
(miles)
The landowner requested that the access road
Adjusted the access road at the land owners
VA-PI-092.200.AR
MVP -RR -219-0800
14.15
14.15
0.00
not to go past their house and barn but from
the gates at the road along the property line
request
VA-PI-092.200.AR
MVP -RA -254-1542
14.15
14.15
0.00
Removed section of access road
Adjusted access road to not go near land
owners house
VA -PI -094.000
MVP -RA -153-1254
14.2
14.4
0.20
Adjusted CL to be next to existing ROW
Adjusted CL to be next to existing ROW
VA -PI -094.000
VA -PI -095.000
MVP -RA -153-1257
14.7
14.85
0.15
Adjusted CL to reduce the number of PIs.
Adjusted CL to reduce the number of PIs.
VA -PI -096.000
Adjusted to route to the west based on the
Adjusted to route to the west, run the line
VA -PI -096.000, VA -PI-
MVP -RA -218-2043
14.8
15.2
0.40
property evidence gathered and run the line
north to a point of intersection with original
099.000
north to a point of intersection with original
route. Avoid VA-PI-097.000.ABU.
route. Avoid VA-PI-097.000.ABU.
VA -PI -100.000
Adjusted CL to reduce the number of PIs in this
Adjusted CL to reduce the number of PIs in
VA -PI -099.000
MVP -RA -153-1303
15.2
15.45
0.25
location.
this location.
VA -PI -101.000
VA -PI -099.000
MVP -RR -218-2047
15.2
15.2
0.00
Landowner does not want the access road
Adjusted access road to not go near land
going by his house.
owners house
VA -PI -099.000
MVP -RA -253-1127
15.4
15.4
0.00
Remove section of TA -PI -037
Adjusted the route of the access road to not
VA-PI-099.100.AR
go past the land owners house
VA-PI-102.000.ABU
Adjusted CL to be next to existing pipeline
VA -PI -103.000
MVP -RA -179-1227
15.7
15.85
0.15
ROW. According to the LDAR info the slope is
Adjusted CL to be next to existing ROW
--14.9% (8.2 deg)
VA -PI -103.000
Adjusted route to avoid sensitive resource
VA-PI-104.000.ABU
MVP -RA -199-1127
15.9
16.05
0.15
Avoided sensitive resource area.
VA -PI -106.000
area
VA -PI -106.000
MVP -RA -253-1124
16.1
16.1
0.00
Removed TA -PI -040
Access road not needed
10-13-3 November 2018

Q Mountain Valle
PIPELINE
Resource Report 10
Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
TABLE 10.6-4
Route Variations Incorporated into the MVP Southgate Project Pipeline
Tract ID
Reroute No.
Approx.
Approx.
Length
Variation Description
Justification
Begin MP
End MP
(miles)
VA -PI -115.000
MVP -RA -219-1808
16.8
17.2
0.40
At 16.9, propose to cross the creek at a more
Adjusted the route to reduce the amount of
VA -PI -118.000
perpendicular angle.
environmental impact
VA -PI -118.000
MVP -RA -253-1035
17.4
17.4
0.00
Removed TA -PI -044
Access road not needed
VA -PI -120.000
Adjusted CL to be next to the existing pipeline
Adjusted CL to be next to the existing
VA -PI -121.000
ROW. There is an old farm house and barn
pipeline ROW. There is an old farm house
VA-PI-122.00O.ABU
MVP -RA -163-1213
18
18.4
0.40
next to the existing pipeline ROW, potential
and barn next to the existing pipeline ROW,
VA -PI -123.000
karst area.
potential karst area.
VA -PI -124.000
VA -PI -121.000
MVP -RA -197-1303
18
18
0.00
Adjusted CL of access road TA -PI -046 to avoid
Adjusted CL of access road TA -PI -046 to
sensitive resource area
avoid sensitive resource area
VA -PI -121.000
VA-PI-122.00O.ABU
MVP -RA -239-1745
18.2
18.35
0.15
Adjusted CL to avoid A frame electric poles
Adjusted CL to avoid A frame electric poles
VA -PI -123.000
VA -PI -124.000
VA -PI -124.000
MVP -RA -239-1750
18.3
18.3
0.00
MLV3
MLV3
VA -PI -150.000
MVP -RA -228-1319
19.8
19.9
0.10
Crossed the existing lines square
Crossed the existing lines square
VA -PI -150.000
VA -PI -151.000
This will reduce the number of Pi's needed and
This will reduce the number of Pi's needed
VA -PI -152.000
MVP -RA -153-1458
19.9
20.3
0.40
this route will miss the structure.
and this route will miss the structure.
VA -PI -155.000
VA -PI -156.000
10-13-4 November 2018

Q Mountain Valle
PIPELINE
Resource Report 10
Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
TABLE 10.6-4
Route Variations Incorporated into the MVP Southgate Project Pipeline
Tract ID
Reroute No.
Approx.
Approx.
Length
Variation Description
Justification
Begin MP
End MP
(miles)
VA -PI -150.000
Preferred by the landowner. He had no issues
VA -PI -151.000
with us co -locating but stressed that he did not
VA -PI -152.000
MVP -RR -218-2110
19.9
20.4
0.50
want us to go through the center of his pasture.
Adjusted the route at the land owners
VA-PI-153.000.ABU
request
VA-PI-154.000.ABU
There is -75' between the Williams line and the
VA -PI -160.000
garage on tract VA-PI-153.000.ABU
VA -PI -160.000
MVP -RR -257-1433
20.45
20.45
0.00
Adjusted access road TA -PI -052 to avoid
Adjusted access road to avoid sensitive
sensitive resource area
resource area
VA -PI -160.000
VA -PI -161.000
MVP -RA -155-1441
20.5
21.2
0.70
Adjusted CL to be next to existing ROW
Adjusted CL to be next to existing ROW
VA -PI -162.000
VA -PI -163.000
VA-PI-164.100.AR
MVP -RA -218-1737
21.2
21.2
0.00
Removed TA -PI -054
Access road not needed
VA-PI-164.000.ABU
VA -PI -163.000
MVP -RA -155-1446
21.35
21.65
0.30
Adjusted CL to be next to existing ROW
Adjusted CL to be next to existing ROW
VA -PI -165.000
VA -PI -171.000
VA -PI -172.000
MVP -RA -155-1449
22.15
22.75
0.60
Adjusted CL to be next to existing ROW
Adjusted CL to be next to existing ROW
VA -PI -173.000
VA -PI -173.000
MVP -RA -249-1429
22.35
22.35
0.00
Removed ATWS 1172
ATWS not needed
VA -PI -173.000
MVP -RA -249-1444
22.35
22.35
0.00
Removed TA -PI -056
Access road not needed
VA -PI -173.000
MVP -RA -249-1437
22.45
22.45
0.00
ATWS 1174 Removed
ATWS not needed
VA -PI -173.000
MVP -RA -249-1447
22.45
22.45
0.00
TA -PI -057 Removed
Access road not needed
VA-PI-166.100.AR
MVP -RA -249-1450
22.6
22.6
0.00
TA -PI -058 Removed
Access road not needed
VA-PI-166.200.AR
10-13-5 November 2018

Q Mountain Valle
PIPELINE
Resource Report 10
Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
TABLE 10.6-4
Route Variations Incorporated into the MVP Southgate Project Pipeline
Tract ID
Reroute No.
Approx.
Approx.
Length
Variation Description
Justification
Begin MP
End MP
(miles)
VA -PI -173.000
VA-PI-173.100.AR
VA -PI -173.000
MVP -RA -249-1454
22.7
22.7
0.00
TA -PI -060 Removed
Access road not needed
VA -PI -174.000
MVP -RA -177-1447
23.1
23.7
0.60
Adjusted CL to be next to existing ROW
Adjusted CL to be next to existing ROW
VA -PI -175.000
VA -PI -178.000
MVP -RA -177-1449
24.4
24.7
0.30
Adjusted CL to be next to existing ROW
Adjusted CL to be next to existing ROW
NC-RO-002.000
MVP -RA -157-1313
26.25
26.45
0.20
Adjusted CL to be next to existing ROW
Adjusted CL to be next to existing ROW
NC-RO-005.000
MVP -RR -269-1541
27
28.3
1.30
Adjusted CL to avoid sensitive resource area
Adjusted CL to avoid sensitive resource area
NC-RO-006.000
and for LN3600
and for LN3600
NC-RO-005.000
MVP -RR -270-1244
27.4
27.4
0.00
Added access road
Added access road
NC-RO-006.000
NC-RO-006.000MVP-RR-257-1435
28.1
28.1
0.00
Extended access road PA-RO-000 to public
Extended access road PA-RO-000 to public
NC-RO-006.001 . CS2
road
road
NC-RO-006.000
MVP -RA -153-1309
28.3
28.3
0.00
Moved the ATWS to stay out of large wetland
The previous location of this ATWS was in a
large wetland. This location had no wetlands
NC-RO-007.000
MVP -RA -159-1655
29.3
29.65
0.35
There is side hill construction in this area,
There is side hill construction in this area,
adjust CL to be on top of the hill
adjust CL to be on top of the hill
NC-RO-011.000
NC-RO-012.000. W BC
NC-RO-013.000
NC-RO-014.000
MVP -RR -269-1549
29.9
30.55
0.65
Adjusted CL for HDD profile and T15 location
Adjusted CL for HDD profile and T15
NC-RO-015.000
location
NC-RO-016.000
NC-RO-018.000.ABU
NC-RO-019.000
10-13-6 November 2018

Q Mountain Valle
PIPELINE
Resource Report 10
Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
TABLE 10.6-4
Route Variations Incorporated into the MVP Southgate Project Pipeline
Tract ID
Reroute No.
Approx.
Approx.
Length
Variation Description
Justification
Begin MP
End MP
(miles)
NC-RO-011.000
MVP -RR -270-1247
29.9
29.9
0.00
Added ATWS for equipment and mats
Added ATWS for equipment and mats
NC-RO-011.000
MVP -RR -270-1248
29.9
29.9
0.00
Added ATWS for HDD area
Added ATWS for HDD area
NC-RO-011.000
MVP -RR -270-1250
29.9
29.9
0.00
Added ATWS for truck turning
Added ATWS for truck turning
NC-RO-011.000
MVP -RR -270-1251
29.9
29.9
0.00
Adjusted where the access road route
Adjusted where the access road route to
HDD location
NC-RO-014.000
MVP -RR -228-1322
30.3
30.3
0.00
ATWS for Hydro test
ATWS for Hydro test
NC-RO-022.000
MVP -RR -257-1438
30.75
31.15
0.40
Adjusted route to avoid red tract and 2 large
Adjusted route to avoid red tract and 2 large
NC-RO-025.000
stream crossings
stream crossings
NC-RO-025.000
Adjusted CL to reduce the amount of stream
Adjusted CL to reduce the amount of stream
NC-RO-027.000
MVP -RA -159-1700
31.2
31.4
0.20
impact and to avoid side hill construction
impact and to avoid side hill construction
NC-RO-029.000
NC-RO-025.900.AR
NC-RO-025.850.ABU
NC-RO-025.800.ABU
NC-RO-025.700.AR
NC-RO-025.650.ABU
NC-RO-025.600.AR
NC-RO-025.500.AR
MVP -RA -219-1902
31.2
31.2
0.00
Removed access road TA-RO-083
Access road not needed
NC-RO-025.400.AR
NC-RO-025.300.AR
NC-RO-025.200.AR
NC-RO-025.100.AR
NC-RO-026.00O.ABU
NC-RO-025.000
NC-RO-029.000
Adjusted CL to stay away from sensitive
Adjusedt CL to stay away from sensitive
NC-RO-030.000
MVP -RA -179-1146
31.4
31.6
0.20
resource area and bring the PI closer to the top
resource area and bring the PI closer to the
of the hill
top of the hill
10-13-7 November 2018

Q Mountain Valle
PIPELINE
Resource Report 10
Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
TABLE 10.6-4
Route Variations Incorporated into the MVP Southgate Project Pipeline
Tract ID
Reroute No.
Approx.
Approx.
Length
Variation Description
Justification
Begin MP
End MP
(miles)
NC-RO-033.000
MVP -RA -159-1706
31.6
31.9
0.30
Adjusted CL to avoid side hill and multiple
Adjusted CL to avoid side hill and multiple
NC-RO-034.000
ravines
ravines
NC-RO-035.000
MVP -RA -159-1717
32
32.15
0.15
Adjusted CL to avoid side hill construction
Adjusted CL to avoid side hill construction
NC-RO-037.000
NC-RO-038.000
MVP -RR -257-1441
32.35
32.55
0.20
Adjusted route to co -locate with existing
Adjusted route to co -locate with existing
pipeline
pipeline
NC-RO-047.000
NC-RO-048.000
NC-RO-049.000
NC-RO-050.000
NC-RO-051.000
Adjusted CL to avoid side hill construction,
Adjusted CL to avoid side hill construction,
NC-RO-052.000
MVP -RA -162-1521
34.2
35.35
1.15
baptism area around MP 34.6 and sensitive
baptism area around MP 34.6 and sensitive
NC-RO-053.000
resource area around MP 34.9
resource area around MP 34.9
NC-RO-054.000
NC-RO-055.000
NC-RO-056.000
NC-RO-057.000
NC-RO-054.000
Adjusted CL to avoid multiple stream crossings
Adjusted CL to avoid multiple stream
NC-RO-056.000
MVP -RR -193-1030
34.95
35.35
0.40
and side hill construction
crossings and side hill construction
NC-RO-057.000
NC-RO-058.000
Adjusted CL to avoid side hill construction and
Adjusted CL to avoid side hill construction
NC-RO-060.000
MVP -RA -162-1535
35.9
36.35
0.45
to stay off "NO" tract
and to stay off "NO" tract
NC-RO-061.000
NC-RO-060.000
MVP -RA -228-1520
36
36
0.00
Removed ATWS 1304 because it is in a ravine.
ATWS not usable
NC-RO-061.000
NC-RO-060.000
MVP -RA -242-1543
36
36
0.00
Trimmed the work space out of the corner to
Trimmed the work space out of the corner to
stay off red tract
stay off red tract
NC-RO-077.000
NC-RO-081.000
MVP -RR -242-1509
37.6
37.85
0.25
Adjusted route to avoid red tract
Adjusted route to avoid red tract
NC-RO-080.000
10-13-8 November 2018

Q Mountain Valle
PIPELINE
Resource Report 10
Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
TABLE 10.6-4
Route Variations Incorporated into the MVP Southgate Project Pipeline
Tract ID
Reroute No.
Approx.
Approx.
Length
Variation Description
Justification
Begin MP
End MP
(miles)
NC-RO-084.000
NC-RO-085.000
NC-RO-086.000
NC-RO-087.000
MVP -RA -143-1533
38
38.8
0.80
Avoided Side Hill Construction
Avoided Side Hill Construction
NC-RO-088.000
NC-RO-089.000
NC-RO-090.000
NC-RO-085.000
MVP -RA -230-1251
38.1
38.1
0.00
Changed ATWS 1328 to 240'x 90' to fit inside
Adjusted ATWS to fit inside of survey
survey corridor
corridor
NC-RO-091.000
MVP -RA -230-1254
38.85
38.85
0.00
Change ATWS 1337 to 90'x 110' to fit inside
Adjusted ATWS to fit inside of survey
survey corridor
corridor
NC-RO-091.000
NC-RO-092.000
MVP -RA -162-1541
39
39.35
0.35
Adjusted CL to avoid side hill construction
Adjusted CL to avoid side hill construction
NC-RO-094.000
NC-RO-092.000
Adjusted CL to bring the CL up the hill a little
Adjusted CL to bring the CL up the hill a little
NC-RO-094.000
MVP -RR -193-1501
39.2
39.6
0.40
bit more and to get the WS out of the
bit more and to get the WS out of the
NC-RO-095.000
wetland/pond area
wetland/pond area
NC-RO-100.000
MVP -RA -163-1116
40
40.2
0.20
Adjusted CL to stay away from washout ditch
Adjusted CL to stay away from washout
NC-RO-101.000
ditch
NC-RO-101.000
MVP -RA -230-1302
40.15
40.15
0.00
Change ATWS 1350 to 90' x 110' to fit inside
Adjusted ATWS to fit inside of survey
survey corridor
corridor
NC-RO-101.000
MVP -RA -230-1305
40.2
40.2
0.00
Changed ATWS 1352 to 90'x 110' to fit inside
Adjusted ATWS to fit inside of survey
survey corridor
corridor
NC-RO-106.000
MVP -RA -230-1308
40.5
40.5
0.00
Changed ATWS 1355 to 90' Wide to fit inside
Adjusted ATWS to fit inside of survey
survey corridor
corridor
NC-RO-108.000
MVP -RA -230-1311
40.6
40.6
0.00
Changed ATWS 1357 to 90' Wide to fit inside
Adjusted ATWS to fit inside of survey
survey corridor
corridor
NC-RO-109.000
MVP -RA -153-1317
40.7
40.9
0.20
Adjusted CL to avoid side hill construction
Adjusted CL to avoid side hill construction
10-13-9 November 2018

Q Mountain Valle
PIPELINE
Resource Report 10
Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
TABLE 10.6-4
Route Variations Incorporated into the MVP Southgate Project Pipeline
Tract ID
Reroute No.
Approx.
Approx.
Length
Variation Description
Justification
Begin MP
End MP
(miles)
NC-RO-111.000
MVP -RR -270-1253
41.4
41.4
0.00
Extended access road to public road
Extended access road to public road
NC-RO-111.000
NC-RO-111.000.RC
MVP -RA -193-1511
41.45
41.8
0.35
Adjusted CL to straighten out the route and
Adjusted CL to straighten out the route and
NC-RO-112.000
reduce the number of PIs needed
reduce the number of PIs needed
NC-RO-111.000
MVP -RR -249-1522
41.55
41.75
0.20
Adjusted CL to be able to bore Hwy 29
Adjusted CL to be able to bore Hwy 29
NC-RO-112.000
NC-RO-112.000
MVP -RA -153-1320
41.6
41.8
0.20
Straighten out this road crossing to follow the
Straighten out this road crossing to follow
power lines.
the power lines.
NC-RO-111.000
NC-RO-112.000
MVP -RR -249-1517
41.65
41.65
0.00
ATWS for bore
ATWS for bore
NC-RO-112.000
MVP -RA -157-1325
41.9
42.2
0.30
Adjusted CL to stay away from small cemetery.
Adjusted CL to stay away from small
cemetery.
NC-RO-112.200
NC-RO-112.300
NC-RO-112.400
MVP -RR -162-1547
42.3
43
0.70
Adjusted CL to avoid AT&T tower
Adjusted CL to avoid AT&T tower
NC-RO-117.000
NC-RO-117.000
Adjusted CL to stay away from large
NC-RO-118.000.ABU
MVP -RR -177-1515
42.5
43.4
0.90
Adjusted CL to stay away from large cemetery
cemetery
NC-RO-122.000
NC-RO-122.000
MVP -RA -230-1313
43.4
43.4
0.00
Changed ATWS 1391 to 90'x 110' to fit inside
Adjusted ATWS to fit inside of survey
survey corridor
corridor
NC-RO-122.100
MVP -RA -230-1315
43.45
43.45
0.00
Changed ATWS 1392 to 75'x 260' to fit inside
Adjusted ATWS to fit inside of survey
survey corridor
corridor
NC-RO-133.200
MVP -RA -230-1317
43.8
43.8
0.00
Changed ATWS 1396 to 90'x 110' to fit inside
Adjusted ATWS to fit inside of survey
survey corridor
corridor
NC-RO-133.000
MVP -RA -230-1320
44.1
44.1
0.00
Changed ATWS 1403 to 90'x 110' to fit inside
Adjusted ATWS to fit inside of survey
survey corridor
corridor
10-13-10 November 2018

Q Mountain Valle
PIPELINE
Resource Report 10
Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
TABLE 10.6-4
Route Variations Incorporated into the MVP Southgate Project Pipeline
Tract ID
Reroute No.
Approx.
Approx.
Length
Variation Description
Justification
Begin MP
End MP
(miles)
NC-RO-138.000
MVP -RA -230-1322
44.8
44.8
0.00
Changed ATWS 1408 to 60'x 220' to fit inside
Adjusted ATWS to fit inside of survey
survey corridor
corridor
NC-RO-140.000
MVP -RA -153-1324
45.45
45.75
0.30
CL adjustment to route around pasture.
CL adjustment to route around pasture.
NC-RO-142.000
Adjusted TA-RO-129 CL to MDS CL points of
NC-RO-148.505.AR
MVP -RR -254-1405
46.75
46.75
0.00
existing road and change the start of the
Adjusted access road to follow the existing
NC-RO-148.510.AR
access road off Frank Rd to follow existing
road
gravel path
NC-RO-149.000
MVP -RA -230-1324
47.05
47.05
0.00
Changed ATWS 1429 to 90'x 230' to fit inside
Adjusted ATWS to fit inside of survey
survey corridor
corridor
NC-RO-153.000
MVP -RA -153-1329
47.3
47.5
0.20
Straighten out to reduce the number of PIs
Straighten out to reduce the number of PIs
NC-RO-154.000
MVP -RR -257-1443
47.3
47.3
0.00
Extended access road TA-RO-130 to public
Extended access road TA-RO-130 to public
road
road
NC-RO-154.000
MVP -RA -153-1333
47.6
47.7
0.10
Straighten out to reduce the number of PIs
Straighten out to reduce the number of PIs
NC-RO-154.000
MVP -RA -230-1327
47.6
47.6
0.00
Changed ATWS 1437 to 90' Wide to fit inside
Adjusted ATWS to fit inside of survey
survey corridor
corridor
NC-RO-156.000
MVP -RA -153-1338
48
48.1
0.10
Straighten out to reduce the number of PIs
Straighten out to reduce the number of PIs
NC-RO-156.000
MVP -RA -193-1529
48
48.1
0.10
Adjusted CL to keep CL on top of hill
Adjusted CL to keep CL on top of hill
NC-RO-162.000
MVP -RA -230-1329
48.7
48.7
0.00
Changed ATWS 1449 to 90' Wide to fit inside
Adjusted ATWS to fit inside of survey
survey corridor
corridor
NC-RO-165.000
MVP -RA -253-1620
49.2
49.2
0.00
Adjusted TA-RO-135 CL to MDS CL points of
Adjusted access road to follow the existing
existing road and round turns
road
10-13-11 November 2018

Q Mountain Valle
PIPELINE
Resource Report 10
Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
TABLE 10.6-4
Route Variations Incorporated into the MVP Southgate Project Pipeline
Tract ID
Reroute No.
Approx.
Approx.
Length
Variation Description
Justification
Begin MP
End MP
(miles)
Removed access road TA-RO-138, runs
NC-RO-171.000through
MVP -RA -242-1439
49.8
49.8
0.00
land owner's car port and past house.
Access road not needed
NC-RO-171.100.AR
The access road is approx. 855' and the
nearest road crossing is approx. 1330'.
NC-RO-170.000MVP-RR-257-1446
49.8
49.8
0.00
Adjusted access road TA-RO-138 to avoid
Adjusted access road TA-RO-138 to avoid
NC-RO-171.100.AR
going under car port
going under car port
NC-RO-181.000
MVP -RA -253-1624
51.4
51.4
0.00
Adjusted TA-RO-140 CL to MDS CL points of
Adjusted access road to follow the existing
existing road and round turns
road
NC-RO-181.000
MVP -RA -253-1626
51.6
51.6
0.00
Adjusted TA-RO-141 CL to MDS CL points of
Adjusted access road to follow the existing
existing road and round turns
road
NC-RO-183.000
MVP -RA -253-1628
51.7
51.7
0.00
Adjusted TA-RO-142 CL to MDS CL points of
Adjusted access road to follow the existing
existing road and round turns
road
NC-RO-186.000
MVP -RA -230-1331
52.55
52.55
0.00
Changed ATWS 1477 to 90'x 110' to fit inside
Adjusted ATWS to fit inside of survey
survey corridor
corridor
NC-RO-186.000
MVP -RA -230-1333
52.6
52.6
0.00
Changed ATWS 1478 to 90'x 110' to fit inside
Adjusted ATWS to fit inside of survey
survey corridor
corridor
NC -AL -000.005
MVP -RA -230-1335
52.6
52.6
0.00
Change ATWS 1479 to 90'x 110' to fit inside
Adjusted ATWS to fit inside of survey
survey corridor
corridor
NC-RO-186.000
MVP -RR -257-1448
52.6
52.6
0.00
Changed access road TA -TO -146 to go from
Changed access road TA -TO -146 to go from
public road to TWS
public road to TWS
NC -AL -000.065
MVP -RA -250-1321
53.5
53.5
0.00
Trimmed this section of TA -AL -152
Trimmed this section of TA -AL -152
NC -AL -008.000
NC -AL -009.000
MVP -RR -165-1051
54.85
55.1
0.25
Adjusted CL to avoid pond / swamp area
Adjusted CL to avoid pond / swamp area
NC -AL -015.000
MVP -RA -206-1431
55.3
55.3
0.00
Removed - There is enough ATWS at the PI
ATWS not needed
NC -AL -016.000
(ATWS 1509) that this ATWS is not needed.
10-13-12 November 2018

Q Mountain Valle
PIPELINE
Resource Report 10
Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
TABLE 10.6-4
Route Variations Incorporated into the MVP Southgate Project Pipeline
Tract ID
Reroute No.
Approx.
Approx.
Length
Variation Description
Justification
Begin MP
End MP
(miles)
NC-AL-017.000.ABU
NC -AL -018.000
NC -AL -010.000
MVP -RA -230-1340
55.3
55.3
0.00
Changed ATWS 1509 to 75'x 230' to fit inside
Adjusted ATWS to fit inside of survey
NC -AL -018.000
survey corridor
corridor
NC -AL -018.000
NC -AL -019.000
NC -AL -021.000
NC -AL -022.000
Adjusted CL to reduce the number of PIs and
Adjusted CL to reduce the number of PIs
NC -AL -023.000
MVP -RA -153-1347
55.5
56.35
0.85
to reduce the amount of tree clearing needed
and to reduce the amount of tree clearing
NC -AL -024.000
needed
NC -AL -025.000
NC-AL-025.1100.AR
NC -AL -027.000
NC -AL -018.000
MVP -RR -270-1255
55.6
55.6
0.00
Adjusted access road to be on existing path
Adjusted access road to be on existing path
NC -AL -028.000
MVP -RA -153-1356
56.4
56.4
0.00
Moved ATWS to the road crossing because the
Moved ATWS to the road crossing because
ATWS at MP 56.7 is on top of a pond
the ATWS at MP 56.7 is on top of a pond
NC -AL -028.000
NC -AL -033.000
MVP -RR -257-1513
56.8
56.8
0.00
Added access road
Added access road
Removed access road TA -AL -160 runs on top
NC-AL-035.000.ABU
of land owner's septic and in between their
NC -AL -036.000
MVP -RA -242-1409
56.9
56.9
0.00
crop fields. The access road is approx. 2000'
Access road not needed
and the nearest road crossing is approx.
2740'.
NC -AL -033.000
MVP -RR -257-1515
56.9
56.9
0.00
Added access road
Added access road
NC -AL -042.000
MVP -RA -186-1423
57.35
57.75
0.40
UDAR suggests that the PI is in the pond. This
UDAR suggests that the PI is in the pond.
NC -AL -043.000
adjustment is to avoid the pond
This adjustment is to avoid the pond
NC -AL -043.000
MVP -RR -257-1517
57.75
57.75
0.00
Extended access road TA -AL -161 to public
Extended access road TA -AL -161 to public
road
road
10-13-13 November 2018

Q Mountain Valle
PIPELINE
Resource Report 10
Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
TABLE 10.6-4
Route Variations Incorporated into the MVP Southgate Project Pipeline
Tract ID
Reroute No.
Approx.
Approx.
Length
Variation Description
Justification
Begin MP
End MP
(miles)
NC -AL -051.000
MVP -RA -231-0828
58.6
58.6
0.00
Changed ATWS 1543 to 90'x 110' to fit inside
Adjusted ATWS to fit inside of survey
survey corridor
corridor
NC -AL -054.000
MVP -RA -228-1324
59.1
59.2
0.10
Extended PIs out of the road ROW
Extended PIs out of the road ROW
NC -AL -058.000
NC -AL -075.000
MVP -RA -231-0832
60.7
60.7
0.00
Change ATWS 1559 to 90'x 110' to fit inside
Adjust ATWS to fit inside of survey corridor
survey corridor
NC-AL-076.100.AR
NC-AL-076.200.AR
NC-AL-076.400.AR
NC-AL-076.500.AR
The landowner walked with the civil crew to
The landowner walked with the civil crew to
NC -AL -076.000
MVP -RA -172-0945
60.8
60.8
0.00
show them where he wants the access road to
show them where he wants the access road
NC-AL-074.450.AR
be.
to be.
NC -AL -076.000
NC-AL-074.100.AR
NC -AL -074.000
NC-AL-076.1100.AR
The existing access could be squared up to
NC -AL -076.000
This property owner has an existing access
Boone Road for better turning and the
NC-AL-074.450.AR
MVP -RA -153-1402
60.9
60.9
0.00
road to the backfield that has been logged and
current route has a few tight turns in it that
NC -AL -074.000
cleared.
could be straightened out to reduce the
number of turns for large trucks.
NC -AL -103.000
NC -AL -104.000
NC -AL -106.000
NC -AL -128.000
NC -AL -134.000
NC -AL -135.000
MVF-NC-AL-001.000
MVF-NC-AL-002.000
MVP -RR -240-1812
61
67.5
6.50
Mystic Valley Farm re-route
Mystic Valley Farm re-route
MVF-NC-AL-003.000
MVF-NC-AL-004.000
MVF-NC-AL-005.000
MVF-NC-AL-006.000
MVF-NC-AL-007.000
MVF-NC-AL-010.000
NC -AL -110.000. RC
MVF-NC-AL-011.000
10-13-14 November 2018

Q Mountain Valle
PIPELINE
Resource Report 10
Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
TABLE 10.6-4
Route Variations Incorporated into the MVP Southgate Project Pipeline
Tract ID
Reroute No.
Approx.
Approx.
Length
Variation Description
Justification
Begin MP
End MP
(miles)
MVF-N C-AL-012.000.AB U
MVF-NC-AL-013.000
MVF-NC-AL-016.000
MVF-NC-AL-017.000
NC -AL -120.000
NC -AL -119.000
FA34-AL-001.000
FA3-AL-002.000
FA3-AL-003.000
FA3-AL-005.000
FA3-AL-006.000
FA3-AL-007.000
FA3-AL-008.000
FA3-AL-009.000
FA3-AL-010.000
NC -AL -085.000
The land owner mentioned that in the field of
The land owner mentioned that in the field of
NC -AL -086.000
MVP -RR -165-0832
62.25
62.5
0.25
tract NC -AL -085.000 they would like to put a
tract NC -AL -085.000 they would like to put a
sub -division in the future
sub -division in the future
NC -AL -086.000
MVP -RA -231-0841
62.65
62.65
0.00
Changed ATWS 1573 to 90'x 110' to fit inside
Adjusted ATWS to fit inside of survey
survey corridor
corridor
NC -AL -089.000
MVP -RA -231-0844
62.8
62.8
0.00
Changed ATWS 1575 to 90'x 330 to fit inside
Adjusted ATWS to fit inside of survey
NC-AL-088.000.ABU
survey corridor
corridor
NC -AL -093.000
MVP -RA -231-0846
63
63
0.00
Changed ATWS 1577 to 90'x 110' to fit inside
Adjusted ATWS to fit inside of survey
survey corridor
corridor
NC -AL -096.000
NC -AL -097.000
MVP -RA -143-1534
63.1
63.5
0.40
Extended PI out of creek
Extended PI out of creek
NC -AL -098.000
NC-AL-101.000.ABU
MVP -RA -231-0848
63.45
63.45
0.00
Changed ATWS 1582 to 90'x 230' to fit inside
Adjusted ATWS to fit inside of survey
NC-AL-102.000.ABU
survey corridor
corridor
NC-AL-102.000.ABU
MVP -RA -231-0852
63.5
63.5
0.00
Changed ATWS 1583 to 90'x 330' to fit inside
Adjusted ATWS to fit inside of survey
survey corridor
corridor
10-13-15 November 2018

Q Mountain Valle
PIPELINE
Resource Report 10
Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
TABLE 10.6-4
Route Variations Incorporated into the MVP Southgate Project Pipeline
Tract ID
Reroute No.
Approx.
Approx.
Length
Variation Description
Justification
Begin MP
End MP
(miles)
This is an alternate access to TA -AL -172 and
The land owner requested that the access
NC -AL -103.000
MVP -RR -206-1421
63.7
63.7
0.00
TA -AL -173 access roads.
road be on the west side of the property
instead of going around their house
NC -AL -103.000
MVP -RA -250-1017
63.7
63.7
0.00
Trimmed TA -AL -172 to remove the section
Trimmed TA -AL -172 to remove the section
NC-AL-103.100.AR
behind the house
behind the house
NC -AL -103.000
MVP -RA -250-1019
64
64
0.00
Removed TA -AL -173
Access road not needed
NC -AL -119.000
MVP -RA -247-1539
65.6
65.6
0.00
Mystic Valley Farm Access road 1
Mystic Valley Farm Access road 1
NC -AL -120.000
NC -AL -120.000
MVP -RA -231-0855
65.8
65.8
0.00
Changed ATWS 1605 to 90'x 110' to fit inside
Adjusted ATWS to fit inside of survey
survey corridor
corridor
NC-AL-121.00O.ABU
MVP -RA -231-0858
65.9
65.9
0.00
Change ATWS 1607 to 90' Wide to fit inside
Adjusted ATWS to fit inside of survey
NC -AL -122.000
survey corridor
corridor
NC -AL -128.000
MVP -RA -247-1557
66.75
66.75
0.00
Mystic Valley Farm Access road 4
Mystic Valley Farm Access road 4
NC-AL-132.100.AR
NC -AL -133.000
NC -AL -128.000
MVP -RA -247-1551
67.25
67.25
0.00
Mystic Valley Farm Access road 2
Mystic Valley Farm Access road 2
NC -AL -133.000
NC -AL -138.000
NC -AL -139.000
The LiDAR information suggests that the end
NC -AL -140.000
MVP -RR -186-1407
67.9
68.2
0.30
of the pond is in the perm. ROW. This
Adjust route to avoid pond
NC -AL -141.000
adjustment is to stay away from the pond
NC -AL -142.000
NC -AL -143.000
MVP -RA -231-0901
68.3
68.3
0.00
Changed ATWS 1629 to 90' Wide to fit inside
Adjusted ATWS to fit inside of survey
survey corridor
corridor
NC -AL -143.000
MVP -RR -270-1257
68.3
68.3
0.00
Added perm. access road because Indian
Added perm. access road because Indian
Village Trail is a private road
Village Trail is a private road
10-13-16 November 2018

Q Mountain Valle
PIPELINE
Resource Report 10
Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
TABLE 10.6-4
Route Variations Incorporated into the MVP Southgate Project Pipeline
Tract ID
Reroute No.
Approx.
Approx.
Length
Variation Description
Justification
Begin MP
End MP
(miles)
NC -AL -143.000
MVP -RA -231-0903
68.35
68.35
0.00
Changed ATWS 1631 to 90'x 110' to fit inside
Adjusted ATWS to fit inside of survey
survey corridor
corridor
NC -AL -143.000
MVP -RA -231-0907
68.4
68.4
0.00
Changed ATWS 1632 to 90'x 110' to fit inside
Adjusted ATWS to fit inside of survey
survey corridor
corridor
NC -AL -143.000
MVP -RA -231-0928
68.45
68.45
0.00
Changed ATWS 1634 to 90'x 110' to fit inside
Adjusted ATWS to fit inside of survey
survey corridor
corridor
NC -AL -148.000
MVP -RA -231-0930
68.7
68.7
0.00
Changed ATWS 1639 to 90'x 165' to fit inside
Adjusted ATWS to fit inside of survey
survey corridor
corridor
NC -AL -148.000
MVP -RA -231-0933
68.8
68.8
0.00
Changed ATWS 1641 to 90'x 110' to fit inside
Adjusted ATWS to fit inside of survey
survey corridor
corridor
NC -AL -148.000
MVP -RA -231-0937
68.85
68.85
0.00
Changed ATWS 1643 to 90'x 140' to fit inside
Adjusted ATWS to fit inside of survey
survey corridor
corridor
NC -AL -148.000
MVP -RA -231-0939
68.95
68.95
0.00
Changed ATWS 1646 to 85'x 220' to fit inside
Adjusted ATWS to fit inside of survey
NC -AL -149.000
survey corridor
corridor
NC -AL -149.000
NC -AL -150.000
MVP -RA -228-1327
69
69.1
0.10
Straighten out and move PI out of road ROW
Straighten out and move PI out of road ROW
NC -AL -151.000
NC-AL-169.00O.ABU
NC-AL-170.00O.ABU
NC-AL-176.00O.ABU
Less impact for this route. Shorter distance,
Less impact for this route. Shorter distance,
NC-AL-179.00O.ABU
MVP -RR -221-0832
69.5
69.9
0.40
less fittings, less pipe, lessen foreign utility
less fittings, less pipe, lessen foreign utility
NC-AL-181.00O.ABU
impact, less overhead utility relocation.
impact, less overhead utility relocation.
NC -AL -183.000
NC -AL -184.000
NC -AL -182.000
NC-AL-182.100.ABU
MVP -RA -156-1740
69.8
69.95
0.15
Adjusted CL to avoid abandoned building and
Adjusted CL to avoid abandoned building
NC -AL -184.000
to stay away from steep hill side
and to stay away from steep hill side
NC -AL -184.000
MVP -RA -231-0941
69.9
69.9
0.00
Changed ATWS 1659 to 90'x 110' to fit inside
Adjusted ATWS to fit inside of survey
survey corridor
corridor
10-13-17 November 2018

Q Mountain Valle
PIPELINE
Resource Report 10
Alternatives
Docket No. CP19-XX-000
TABLE 10.6-4
Route Variations Incorporated into the MVP Southgate Project Pipeline
Tract ID
Reroute No.
Approx.
Approx.
Length
Variation Description
Justification
Begin MP
End MP
(miles)
NC -AL -186.000
MVP -RA -219-1820
70.35
70.7
0.35
Proposed a couple minor shifts of centerline to
Adjusted the line due to slight side hill
NC -AL -188.000
account for side -hill terrain
NC -AL -191.000
MVP -RA -231-0943
70.9
70.9
0.00
Changed ATWS 1670 to 90' wide to fit inside
Adjusted ATWS to fit inside of survey
survey corridor
corridor
NC -AL -191.000
MVP -RA -231-0945
71
71
0.00
Changed ATWS 1672 to 90' Wide to fit inside
Adjusted ATWS to fit inside of survey
survey corridor
corridor
NC -AL -191.000
MVP -RA -231-0947
71.05
71.05
0.00
Changed ATWS 1675 to 90'x 110' to fit inside
Adjusted ATWS to fit inside of survey
survey corridor
corridor
NC -AL -191.000
MVP -RA -231-0948
71.3
71.3
0.00
Changed ATWS 1676 to 80'x 280' to fit inside
Adjusted ATWS to fit inside of survey
survey corridor
corridor
NC -AL -192.000
MVP -RR -270-1300
71.55
71.55
0.00
Extended access road to a public road
Extended access road to a public road
NC -AL -192.000
MVP -RA -231-0950
71.8
71.8
0.00
Changed ATWS 1680 to 90'x 230' to fit inside
Adjusted ATWS to fit inside of survey
NC -AL -193.000
survey corridor
corridor
NC -AL -193.000
MVP -RA -231-0952
71.9
71.9
0.00
Changed ATWS 1681 to 90'x 260' to fit inside
Adjusted ATWS to fit inside of survey
NC -AL -194.000
survey corridor
corridor
NC -AL -199.000
According to the LiDAR info, there is side hill
According to the LiDAR info, there is side hill
NC -AL -200.000
MVP -RA -198-1549
72.4
72.7
0.30
construction in this area (--32.5%, --18 deg.)
construction in this area (-32.5%, 18 deg.)
NC -AL -201.000
Adjust the CL to avoid the side hill construction
Adjust the CL to avoid the side hill
construction
NC -AL -210.000
MVP -RR -270-1302
73.1
73.1
0.00
Add edperm. access road for T21
Added perm. access road for T21
NC -AL -210.000
MVP -RR -270-1303
73.1
73.1
0.00
Changed location of T21 Site
Changed location of T21 Site
10-13-18 November 2018