20140957 Ver 2_Resource Report 2_20150901

0
Mandc ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE, LLC
Coast ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE
Pipdne Docket Nos. CP15- -000
CP15- -000
CP15- -000
and
DOMINION TRANSMISSION, INC.
SUPPLY HEADER PROJECT
;W"Dominiow Docket No. CP15- -000
Resource Report 2
Water Use and Quality
Final
Prepared by
Amk
�W'j
an ERM Group company
September 2015

Resource Report 2
Water Use and Quality
Summary of Required Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Report Information
Minimum Filing Requirements:
Report Section Reference
I . Identify all perennial surface waterbodies crossed by the proposed project and their water quality
Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2 5,
classification. (§ 380.12(d)(1))
Appendix 2A
• Identify by milepost
Section 2.2.6, Table 2.2 6-1
• Indicate if potable water intakes are within 3 miles downstream of the crossing
2. Identify all waterbody crossings that may have contaminated waters or sediments. (§ 380.12(d)(1))
Section 2.2 4; Appendix 213
• Identify by milepost.
• Include offshore sediments.
Not applicable
3 Identify watershed areas, designated surface water protection areas, and sensitive waterbodies crossed
Sections 2 2.1, 2.2.5, and 2.2.8;
by the proposed project. (§ 380.12(d)(1))
Tables 2.2. 1 - 1, Appendix 2C
0 Identify by milepost.
Appendix 2F
4. Provide a table (based on NWI maps if delineations have not been done) identifying all wetlands, by
Tables 2 3.4-1, 2 3 4-2 and 2.3 4 -
milepost and length, crossed by the proposed project (including abandoned pipeline), and the total
3; Appendix 2H
acreage and acreage of each wetland type that would be affected by construction. (§ 380.12(d)(1&4))
Sections 2.2. 10 and 2.3.5
5. Discuss construction and restoration methods proposed for crossing wetlands, and compare them to
Sections 1.5.2.2, 2.3 5, and 2.3.6
staff s Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures. (§ 3 80.12(d)(2))
6. Describe the proposed waterbody construction, impact mitigation, and restoration methods to be used to
Sections 1 5 2.1, 2 2.9, and 2.2. 10
cross surface waters and compare to the staff s WetIand and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation
Procedures (§ 380.12(d)(2))
Not applicable
Although the Procedures do not apply offshore, the first part of this requirement does apply. Be
sure to include effects of sedimentation, etc. This information is needed on a mile -by -mile basis
and will require completion of geophysical and other surveys before filing. (See also Resource
Report 3.)
7. Provide original National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps or the appropriate state wetland maps, if
Appendix 2G
NWI maps are not available, that show all proposed facilities and include nulepost locations for
proposed pipeline routes. (§ 380.12(d)(4))
8. Identify all U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) — or state -designated aquifers crossed. (§
Sections 2 12, 2.1.2, 2.1.4 and
380.12(d)(9))
2.1.4; Tables 2.1.1-1, 2 1.3-1,
Identify the location of known public and private groundwater supply wells or springs within 150
2.1.3-2, 2.1.3-3, and 2 14-1;
feet of construction.
Figure 2.1
Additional Information:
Report Section Reference
Identify proposed mitigation for impacts on groundwater resources
Section 2.1.6
Discuss the potential for blasting to affect water wells, springs, and wetlands, and associated initigation.
Sections 2.16, 2.2.10, and 2 3 5
Identify all sources of hydrostatic test water, the quantity of water required, methods for withdrawal, and
Section 2.2.6, Table 2.2 6-1
treatment of discharge, and any waste products generated
If underground storage of natural gas is proposed, identify how water produced from the storage field will be
Not applicable
disposed.
If salt caverns are proposed for storage of natunrI gas, identify the source locations, the quantity required, the
Not applicable
method and rate of water withdrawal, and disposal methods.
For each waterbody greater than 100 feet wide, provide site-specific construction, mitigation, and restoration
Section 2.2.2, Table 2.2 2-2;
plans.
Appendix 2F
Indicate mitigation measures to be undertaken to ensure that public or private water supplies are returned to
Section 2.1.6
their former capacity in the event of damage resulting from construction.
Describe typical staging area requirements at waterbody and wetland crossings.
Sections 2.2. 10 and 2.3.5
If wetlands would be filled or permanently lost, describe proposed measures to compensate for permanent
Section 2.3.6
wetland losses
If forested wetlands would be affected, describe proposed measures to restore forested wetlands following
Section 2.3.6
construction
Describe techniques to be used to mmunize turbidity and sedimentation impacts associated with offshore
Not applicable
trenching, if any.
2-i

Resource Report 2
Water Use and Quality
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2.0 RESOURCE
REPORT 2 — WATER USE AND QUALITY ..................................... 2-1
2.1 GROUNDWATER RESOURCES ......................................................................
2-4
2.1.1
Principal Aquifers .................................................................................... 2-4
2.1.2
Designated Sole or Principal Source Aquifers ......................................... 2-9
2.1.3
Water Supply Wells ................................................................................. 2-9
2.1.4
Springs ...................................................................................................
2-14
2.1.5
Contaminated Groundwater ...................................................................
2-14
2.1.6
Groundwater Construction Related Impacts and Mitigation .................
2-17
2.1.7
Facility Operations .................................................................................
2-21
2.2 SURFACE WATER RESOURCES ..................................................................
2-22
2.2.1
Existing Watersheds ...............................................................................
2-22
2.2.2
Waterbodies Crossed .............................................................................
2-22
2.2.3
Surface Water Standards and Classifications ........................................
2-25
2.2.4
Contaminated Waters or Sediments .......................................................
2-29
2.2.5
Public Surface Water Intakes and Surface Water Protection Areas ......
2-29
2.2.6
Horizontal Directional Drill Mud Water Use ........................................
2-32
2.2.7
Hydrostatic Test Water and Fugitive Dust Control Water .....................
2-32
2.2.8
Sensitive Surface Waters .......................................................................
2-34
2.2.9
Waterbody Construction Procedures .....................................................
2-36
2.2.10
Waterbody Construction -Related Impacts and Mitigation ....................
2-36
2.2.11
Facility Operations .................................................................................
2-41
2.3 WETLANDS ......................................................................................................
2-42
2.3.1
Wetland Types .......................................................................................
2-43
2.3.2
Existing Wetland Resources ..................................................................
2-43
2.3.3
Wetland Reserve Program .....................................................................
2-44
2.3.4
Wetland Crossings .................................................................................
2-45
2.3.5
Wetland Crossing Methods ....................................................................
2-49
2.3.6
Wetland Impacts and Mitigation ............................................................
2-51
2.3.7
Compensatory Mitigation ......................................................................
2-56
2.4 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................
2-57
2 -ii

Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2. 1. 1 -1
Aquifers Crossed by the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply Header Project ..... 2-6
Table 2.1.3 -1
Public Water Supply Wells Within 150 Feet of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and
SupplyHeader Project ....................................................................................... 2-10
Table 2.1.3-2
Private Water Wells Within 150 Feet of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply
HeaderProject .................................................................................................... 2-12
Table 2.1.3-3
Wellhead Protection Areas Crossed by the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply
HeaderProject .................................................................................................... 2-13
Table 2.1.4-1
Springs Located Within 150 Feet of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply
HeaderProject .................................................................................................... 2-14
Table 2.1.5-1
Contaminated Sites, Landfills, and Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Near the
Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply Header Project .......................................... 2-16
Table 2.2.1 -1
Watersheds Crossed by the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply Header Project2-23
Table 2.2.2-1
Waterbodies Affected by the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply Header Project2-24
Table 2.2.2-2
Major Waterbodies Crossed by the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply Header
Project................................................................................................................ 2-25
Table 2.2.2-3
Waterbodies Crossed by the Atlantic Coast Pipeline on Federal Lands ............ 2-25
Table 2.2.5-1
Surface Water Intake Facilities Within 3.0 Miles Downstream of and Water
Protection or Assessment Watersheds Crossed by the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and
SupplyHeader Project ....................................................................................... 2-31
Table 2.2.5-2
Water Source Watersheds Crossed by the Atlantic Coast Pipeline in North
Carolina.............................................................................................................. 2-32
Table 2.2.6-1
Water Requirements for Horizontal Directional Drills for the Atlantic Coast
Pipeline.............................................................................................................. 2-33
Table 2.2.7-1
Water Requirements for Hydrostatic Testing for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and
SupplyHeader Project ....................................................................................... 2-35
Table 2.3.2-1
Wetland and Waterbody Survey Status ............................................................. 2-44
Table 2.3.4-1
Summary of Wetland Types Affected by Construction and Operation of the
Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply Header Project .......................................... 2-46
Table 2.3.4-2
Summary of Wetland Types Affected by Construction and Operation of the
Atlantic Coast Pipeline on Federal Lands .......................................................... 2-48
Table 2.3.4-3
Summary of Wetlands Affected by Aboveground Facilities for the Atlantic Coast
Pipeline.............................................................................................................. 2-48
Table 2.3.4-4
Summary of Wetlands Affected by Access Road Construction for the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline and Supply Header Project ........................................................ 2-50
2 -iii

Resource Report 2
11
Water Use and Quality
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2. 1. 1 -1 Principal Aquifers ................................................................................................ 2-5
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 2A Waterbodies Crossed and Crossing Methods for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline
and Supply Header Project
Appendix 2B hnpaired Waterbodies Crossed by the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply
Header Project
Appendix 2C Sensitive Waterbodies Crossed by the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply
Header Project
Appendix 2D Wetland and Waterbody Delineation Reports — Atlantic Coast Pipeline
Appendix 2E Wetland and Waterbody Delineation Reports — Supply Header Project
Appendix 2F Site -Specific Drawings for Major Waterbodies Crossed by the Atlantic Coast
Pipeline
Appendix 2G National Wetland Inventory Maps — Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply
Header Project
Appendix 2H Wetlands Crossed and Crossing Methods for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and
Supply Header Project
2 -iv

�t
Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality,
2-v
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ACEP
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program
ACP
Atlantic Coastline Pipeline
ACRES
Assessment, Cleanup, and Redevelopment Exchange System
ACSA
Augusta County Service Authority
AGL
AGL Resources, Inc.
Atlantic
Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC
ATWS
Additional Temporary Workspace
CERCLIS
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System
Certificate
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
Commission
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
CSR
Code of State Regulation
CWF
Cold Water Fisheries
Dominion
Dominion Resources, Inc.
DTI
Dominion Transmission, Inc.
Duke Energy
Duke Energy Corporation
E2E
estuarine intertidal emergent
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ER
Environmental Report
FERC
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FOIA
Freedom of Information Act
FWS
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
GDS-NWR
Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
GIS
geographic information system
gpd
gallons per day
HDD
horizontal directional drill
HQ
high quality waters
HUC
hydrological unit code
LUST
leaking underground storage tank
M&R
metering and regulating
MMDth/d
million dekatherms feet per day
MP
milepost
MSW
municipal solid waste
NCAC
North Carolina Administrative Code
NCDENR-DWR
North Carolina Department of Envirom-nent and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
NGL
natural gas liquids
NHD
National Hydrography Dataset
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRCS
National Resources Conservation Service
NRI
Nationwide Rivers Inventory
NWI
National Wetlands Inventory
PAB
palustrine aquatic bed
PADEP
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
2-v

Resource Report 2
Water Use and Quality
PEM
PFO
palustrine emergent wetland
palustrine forested wetland
Piedmont
Piedmont Natural Gas Co., Inc.
Plan
Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan
Procedures
Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures
Projects
Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply Header Project
PSS
palustrine scrub -shrub wetland
PUB
palustrine unconsolidated bottom
SHP
Supply Header Project
SPCC Plan
Spill, Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan
SSURGO
Soil Survey Geographic Database
SWPO
Source Water Protection Overlay
USACE
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USDA
U.S. Department of Agriculture
USDOT
U.S. Department of Transportation
USFS
U.S. Forest Service
USGS
U.S. Geological Survey
VAC
Virginia Administrative Code
VDEQ
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
VDH-ODW
Virginia Department of Health — Office of Drinking Water
VEGIS
VDEQ's Environmental geographic information system
VLIS
Virginia's Legislative Information System
WPA
wellhead protection area
WVCSR
West Virginia Code of State Regulations
WVDEP
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
WVDHHR
West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources
ZCC
Zone of Peripheral Concern
ZPC
Zone of Critical Concern
2 -vi

ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE – Docket Nos. CP15- — -000, CP15---000, CP15---000
U SUPPLY HEADER PROJECT – Docket No. CP15---000
2.0 RESOURCE REPORT 2 – WATER USE AND QUALITY
Atlantic Coast Pipeline
Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC (Atlantic) is a company formed by four major U.S. energy
companies – Dominion Resources, Inc. (Dominion; NYSE: D), Duke Energy Corporation (Duke
Energy; NYSE: DUK), Piedmont Natural Gas Co., Inc. (Piedmont; NYSE: PNY), and AGL
Resources, Inc. (AGL; NYSE: GAS). 1 The company was created to develop, own, and operate
the proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP or Project), an approximately 564.1 -mile-long,
interstate natural gas transmission pipeline system designed to meet growing energy needs in
Virginia and North Carolina (see Figure 1. 1. 1 - 1 in Resource Report 1). The ACP will be capable
of delivering up to 1.5 million dekatherms per day (MMDth/d) of natural gas that will be used to
generate electricity, heat homes, and run local businesses. The pipeline Project will facilitate
cleaner air, increase the reliability and security of natural gas supplies, and provide a significant
economic boost in West Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina. More information is provided at
the company's website at www.dom.com/ac-oipeline. Atlantic has contracted with Dominion
Transmission, Inc. (DTI), a subsidiary of Dominion, to permit, build, and operate the ACP on
2
behalf of Atlantic.
Atlantic is seeking authorization from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC or Commission) under Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to construct, own, operate,
and maintain the following proposed facilities for the ACP system: 3
Mainline Pipeline Facilities:
AP -1: approximately 300.1 miles of underground 42 -inch outside diameter
natural gas transmission pipeline in Harrison, Lewis, Upshur, Randolph, and
Pocahontas Counties, West Virginia; Highland, Augusta, Nelson, Buckingham,
Cumberland, Prince Edward, Nottoway, Dinwiddie, Brunswick, and Greensville
Counties, Virginia; and Northampton County, North Carolina.
AP -2: approximately 183.0 miles of underground 36 -inch outside diameter
natural gas transmission pipeline in Northampton, Halifax, Nash, Wilson,
Johnston, Sampson, Cumberland, and Robeson Counties, North Carolina.
On August 24, 2015, Southern Company and AGL Resources announced that the boards of directors of both companies have approved a
definitive merger agreement. Pursuant to the agreement, AGL Resources will become a new wholly owned subsidiary of Southern
Company. The companies expert to complete the transaction in the second half of 2016.
2 As described in this report, DTI actions associated with the ACP are on behalf of Atlantic.
3 Atlantic is also requesting a Blanket Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Part 284, Subpart G, of the Commission's
regulations authorizing open -access transportation of natural gas for others with pre -granted abandonment authority, and a Blanket
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Part 157, Subpart F, of the Commission's regulations authorizing certain
facility construction and operation, certain certificate amendments and abandonments
2-1

Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
Lateral Pipeline Facilities:
AP -3: approximately 79.3 miles of underground 20 -inch outside diameter natural
gas lateral pipeline in Northampton County, North Carolina; and Greensville and
Southampton Counties and the Cities of Suffolk and Chesapeake, Virginia.
AP -4: approximately 0.6 mile of underground 16 -inch outside diameter natural
gas lateral pipeline in Brunswick County, Virginia.
AP -5: approximately 1. 1 miles of underground 16 -inch outside diameter natural
gas lateral pipeline in Greensville County, Virginia.
Compressor Station Facilities:
Compressor Station 1 (Marts Compressor Station): a new, natural gas-fired
compressor station approximately at milepost 4 (MP) 7.6 of the AP -1 mainline in
Lewis County, West Virginia.
Compressor Station 2 (Buckingham Compressor Station): a new, natural gas-
fired compressor station approximately at MP 191.5 of the AP - 1 mainline in
Buckingham County, Virginia.
Compressor Station 3 (Northampton Compressor Station): a new natural gas-
fired compressor station approximately at MP 3 00.1 of the AP- 1 mainline and
MP 0.0 of the AP -2 mainline and 0.0 of the AP -3 lateral in Northampton County,
North Carolina.
Other Aboveground Facilities:
Nine new metering and regulating (M&R) stations at receipt and/or delivery
points along the new pipelines (including one at Compressor Station I and one at
Compressor Station 2).
Thirty valve sites at select points along the new pipelines at intervals specified by
U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) regulations at Title 49 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 192.
Eight sets of pig launcher and/or receiver sites at I I points along the new
pipelines (including launcher/receiver sites at Compressor Stations 2 and 3).
As required by 18 CFR 380.12, Atlantic is submitting this Environmental Report (ER) in
support of its Application to the Commission for a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity (Certificate) to construct and operate the proposed ACP facilities.
4 The mileposts used in this report are based on three-dimensional changes in topography (elevation) along the proposed pipeline routes.
Therefore, the straight-line distance between two mileposts depicted on two-dimensional maps and figures of the routes may be less than
5,280 feet. The n-ffleposts are reference points along the routes.
2-2

F -I
J
Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
Supply Header Project
DTI proposes to construct and operate approximately 37.5 miles of pipeline loop and
modify existing compression facilities in Pennsylvania and West Virginia (see Figure 1. 1. 1 - I in
Resource Report 1). This Project, referred to as the Supply Header Project (SHP), will enable
DTI to provide firm transportation service of up to 1.5 MMDth/d to various customers, including
Atlantic. Atlantic will be a Foundation Shipper in the SHP, and will utilize the SHP capacity to
allow its shippers access to natural gas supplies from various DTI receipt points for further
delivery to points along the ACP. By providing its customers access to an affordable and stable
source of natural gas, the SHP also satisfies the same purpose and need as the ACP by increasing
the reliability and security of natural gas supplies in Virginia and North Carolina.
DTI is seeking authorization from the Commission under Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas
Act to construct, own, operate, and maintain the following proposed facilities for the SHP:
Pipeline Loops:
TL -636: approximately 3.9 miles of underground 30 -inch outside diameter
natural gas pipeline looping DTI's existing LN -25 pipeline in Westmoreland
County, Pennsylvania.
TL -635: approximately 33.6 miles of underground 30 -inch outside diameter
natural gas pipeline looping DTI's existing TL -360 pipeline in Harrison,
Doddridge, Tyler, and Wetzel Counties, West Virginia.
Compressor Station Modifications:
0 JB Tonkin Compressor Station: modifications at DTI's existing JB Tonkin
Compressor Station in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania.
0 Crayne Compressor Station: modifications at DTI's existing Crayne Compressor
Station in Greene County, Pennsylvania.
0 Burch Ridge Compressor Station: crossover piping at DTI's existing Burch
Ridge Compressor Station in Marshall County, West Virginia.
0 Mockingbird Hill Compressor Station: modifications at or near DTI's existing
Mockingbird Hill Compressor Station in Wetzel County, West Virginia.
Other Aboveground Facilities:
One new M&R station at a new delivery point within Atlantic's proposed
Compressor Station 1 in Lewis County, West Virginia.
Six valve sites at select points along the new pipeline loops at intervals specified
by USDOT regulations at 49 CFR 192.
Two sets of pig launcher and receiver sites at the ends of each of the new pipeline
loops.
2-3

Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
DTI is also requesting authorization from the FERC under Section 7(b) of the Natural
Gas Act to abandon in place two existing gathering compressor units (Hasting Compressor Units
I and 2) at its existing Hastings Compressor Station in Wetzel County, West Virginia.
As required by 18 CFR 380.12, DTI is submitting this ER in support of its Application to
the Commission for a Certificate to construct and operate the proposed SHP facilities.
Scope of Resource Report 2
This Resource Report describes water quality and provides data sufficient to determine
the expected impact of the ACP and SHP (collectively, the Projects) and the effectiveness of
mitigative enhancement, or protective measures. Information provided in this Report is derived
from field surveys, technical documents, publicly available data and maps, and consultation with
Federal, State/Commonwealth, and local authorities. This Report also addresses comments
received from the public during the FERC Pre -filing Process as well as comments received
directly from the FERC and other Federal and State/Commonwealth agencies.
2.1 GROUNDWATER RESOURCES
2.1.1 Principal Aquifers
A principal aquifer is defined as a regionally extensive aquifer or aquifer system with the
potential to be used as a source of potable water (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS], 2014a). The
principal aquifers crossed by the proposed ACP are the Pennsylvanian, Mississippian, Valley and
Ridge, Piedmont and Blue Ridge Crystalline -rock, and Early Mesozoic Basin aquifers, as well as
the Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain aquifer system (USGS, 2003). The proposed SHP crosses
the Pennsylvanian principal aquifer (USGS, 2003). Figure 2. 1.1 -1 depicts the principal aquifers
and aquifer systems crossed by the proposed Projects. Information on each aquifer is
summarized in Table 2. 1. 1 - 1.
Principal aquifers are often multi -layered and may extend underground beyond the areas
where they are mapped. The mapped boundaries typically represent the extent of the principal
aquifer nearest to the surface (USGS, 1997). For example, the Mississippian aquifer is exposed
as narrow bands along western West Virginia, but it underlies most of the Pennsylvanian aquifer.
Because construction of the Projects will generally occur within the upper 10 feet of the soil
surface, only the shallowest principal aquifers crossed by the Projects are described below.
In addition to principal aquifers, the ACP and SHP cross areas where minor surficial
aquifers are associated with glacial outwash or unconsolidated alluvium in stream valleys
(USGS, 1997). These localized surficial aquifers are a source of water for private wells across
the region, with greater significance along the AP -3 lateral in the coastal plain of Virginia.
The ACP also crosses areas mapped as "other rocks." These consist of areas underlain by
crystalline rocks of minimal permeability. Areas mapped as other rocks are considered minor
aquifers. Potential impacts on these minor aquifers are similar to the Principal Aquifers and
addressed in Section 2.1.6.
2-4

Resource Report 2
At"
f t
'J,
TL -636 k,
if i�
TL -635
0 0 v-
50
%
100
0
AP -1
150 4
200
250
L
AP -4
0 AP -3
0
0
300 0
AP -5' 0
50
Ar -2
100
20 40
Wes
7,Domin io-n-
�!LF M�,�l,�,ti,D�F�DOWSRPPI–ArcGiSlI
Water Use and Quality
X r
v
ACP Mainline Atlantic Coast Pipeline and
ACP Lateral Supply Header Project
SHP Pipeline Loops Figure 2. 1.1 -1
Principal Aquifers
F_ P :_P,1 i�,I-Aquffers ffwd, REVISED 81215t2015. SCALIF DRAWN BY THohn
2-5
PimipafAqLsfers
C.01. H.Y.. q.(,,
J— ,d BUt A,d9e Orbolat—a qUf,,
E t M-- b— q.0—
Ped—i I'd EN,,, F�dqe aystalne ma quiu,
Sodh.w— C..VW PI.. qr. y.—
Wd�.Aft., C..,1.1 MI.
qst— S.6-1 .,0,, y -
01h. MOI
VAy .,id R,dq. wl-
41
am
-, "�N -- qd—
VA', Pop ,
ACP Mainline Atlantic Coast Pipeline and
ACP Lateral Supply Header Project
SHP Pipeline Loops Figure 2. 1.1 -1
Principal Aquifers
F_ P :_P,1 i�,I-Aquffers ffwd, REVISED 81215t2015. SCALIF DRAWN BY THohn
2-5

Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
40.6 to 44.9
58A to 59.6
616 to 69.4
83.9 to 183.0
Halifax, Nash, Wilson, and Johnston Counties
TABLE2.1.1-1
Piedmont and Blue Ridge 3 to 300 15 to 30
3 8.5 to 40.6
Aquifers Crossed by the
Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply Header Project
44 9 to 58.1
59.6 to 616
Range of
Well Yield
State or Commonwealth/Pipeline Segment/
AP -3
Depth to
(gallons per
County or City
Mileposts
Aquifer a
Aquifer (feet)
minute)
ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE
West Virginia
West Virginia
TL -635
Wetzel, Tyler, Doddridge, and Harrison Counties
AP -1
Pennsylvanian Sandstone 80 to 400 20 to 430
Harrison, Lewis, Upshur, and Randolph Counties
0 to 52 1
Pennsylvanian Sandstone
80 to 400
20 to 430
63.5 to 65.9
66.6 to 68.8
Randolph and Pocahontas Counties
52.1 to 53.8
Mississippian Sandstone and
50 to 200
20 to 180
616 to 63.5
Carbonate
65 9 to 66.6
68.8 to 710
Randolph and Pocahontas Counties
53 8 to 61.6
Otherrocks
Unavailable b
Variable
710 to 83.1
Virginia
AP -1
Highland County
83 1 to 86.0
Otherrocks
Unavailable b
Variable
Highland and Augusta Counties
86.0 to 151.6
Valley and Ridge Sandstone
50 to 400
Variable
and Carbonate
Augusta, Nelson, Buckingham, Cumberland, Prince
151.6 to 210.3
Piedmont and Blue Ridge
3 to 300
15 to 30
Edward, Nottoway, Dmwiddie, Brunswick, and
216 6 to 286 8
Crystalline -rock
Greensville Counties
Buckingham and Cumberland Counties
210.3 to 216.6
Early Mesozoic Basin
200 to 900
5 to 80
Sandstone
Greensville County
286 8 to 300.1
Northern Atlantic Coastal
30 to 2100
At least 50
Plain Semiconsolidated Sand
AP -3
Greensville and Southampton Counties, City of
12.1 to 78.1
Northern Atlantic Coastal
30 to 2100
At least 50
Suffolk, and City of Chesapeake
Plain Semiconsohdated Sand
AP -4
Brunswick County
0.0 to 0.6
Piedmont and Blue Ridge
3 to 300
15 to 30
Crystalline -rock
AP -5
Greensville County
0 0 to 1.1
Piedmont and Blue Ridge
3 to 300
15 to 30
Crystalline -rock
North Carolina
AP -2
Northampton, Halifax, Nash, Wilson, Johnston,
0 0 to 31.5
Northern Atlantic Coastal
30 to 2100
At least 50
Sampson, Cumberland, and Robeson Counties
34.3 to 38 5
Plain Serniconsolidated Sand
40.6 to 44.9
58A to 59.6
616 to 69.4
83.9 to 183.0
Halifax, Nash, Wilson, and Johnston Counties
31.5 to 34.3
Piedmont and Blue Ridge 3 to 300 15 to 30
3 8.5 to 40.6
Crystalline -rock
44 9 to 58.1
59.6 to 616
69.4 to 83.9
AP -3
Northampton County
0.0 to 12 1
Northern Atlantic Coastal 30 to 2100 At least 50
Plain Serniconsolidated Sand
SUPPLY HEADER PROJECT
West Virginia
TL -635
Wetzel, Tyler, Doddridge, and Harrison Counties
0.0 to 33.6
Pennsylvanian Sandstone 80 to 400 20 to 430
2-6

Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
TABLE 2. 1. 1 -1 (cont'd)
Aquifers Crossed by the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply Header Project
State or Commonwealth/Pipeline Segment/
County or City Mileposts Aquifer
Pennsylvania
TL,636
Westmoreland County 0 to 3.9 Pennsylvanian Sandstone
Range of Well Yield
Depth to (gallons per
Aquifer (feet) minute)
80 to 400 20 to 430
a Figure 2. 1. 1 -1 differentiates carbonate and sandstone components, identified in the legend, associated with the geographically
expansive Mississippian and Valley and Ridge Aquifers, which are combined to align with the resource report text and table.
b Unavailable — reliable depth to aquifer data is unavailable in the Groundwater Atlas of the United States and other publicly available
publications.
Sources. Kozar and Brown, 1995, LeGrand, 1988; Swistock, 2007
2.1.1.1 Pennsylvanian and Early Mesozoic Basin Aquifers
The Pennsylvanian and Early Mesozoic Basin aquifers consist of layers of consolidated
sedimentary rock, of which sandstone formations are the primary water -producing units
(USGS, 1997a). Sandstone retains only a small part of the intergranular pore space present
before the rock was consolidated, and compaction and cementation have greatly reduced the
primary pore space in the rock (USGS, 1999). Secondary openings in the rock, such as joints
and fractures, along with bedding planes, contain and transmit most of the groundwater in the
formation (USGS, 1999). The hydraulic conductivity of sandstone aquifers is low to moderate,
but because they extend over large areas, these aquifers can provide large amounts of water
(USGS, 1999).
As of 2005, water withdrawals from Early Mesozoic basins aquifers were 131 million
gallons per day (gpd), including 41.9 million gpd in Pennsylvania and 2.1 million gpd in Virginia
(Maupin and Barber, 2005). Water withdrawals from Pennsylvanian aquifers were
132 million gpd, including 43.6 million gpd in Pennsylvania and 18.3 million gpd in West
Virginia (Maupin and Barber, 2005).
2.1.1.2 Mississippian and Valley and Ridge Aquifers
Mississippian aquifers mostly consist of water yielding carbonate rocks. They are
considered principle aquifers in many regions of the United States, but in the ACP Project area,
they are limited in geographic extent and only yield water in localized areas (USGS, 1997a).
Valley and Ridge aquifers mostly consist of folded sandstone, shale, and limestone. In Virginia,
these rock formations also contain coal and minor amounts of dolomite and conglomerate. In
some cases, the rocks have been metamorphosed into quartzite, slate, and marble.
Carbonate rocks are the most productive rock units in the Valley and Ridge aquifers
(USGS, 1997b), and they are the water producing rock units of the Mississippian aquifers
(USGS, 1997a). As of 2005, water withdrawals from sandstone and carbonate rocks in
Mississippian aquifers were 286 million gpd, including 0.9 million gpd in West Virginia and
0.1 million gpd in Virginia (Maupin and Barber, 2005). Water withdrawals from the Valley and
Ridge aquifers were 95 million gpd, including 34.2 million gpd in Virginia (Maupin and
Barber, 2005).
2-7

Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
Most carbonate rocks originate as sedimentary deposits in marine environments
(USGS, 1999b). Compaction, cementation, and dolomitization processes can substantially
reduce the porosity and permeability of these deposits as they lithify (USGS, 1999b). The
dissolution of carbonate rock by circulating, slightly acidic groundwater, however, can create
solution openings ranging in size from small tubes to caverns that may be tens of meters wide
and hundreds to thousands of meters long (USGS, 1999).
Where saturated, carbonate rocks with well-connected networks of solution openings
yield large amounts of water to wells that penetrate the openings, although the undissolved rock
between the large openings may be almost impermeable (USGS, 1999b). The dissolution of
carbonate rock can result in the formation of sinkholes and other karst features (USGS, 1999b).
Karst terrain is discussed in more detail in Section 6.4.4 of Resource Report 6.
2.1.1.3 Piedmont and Blue Ridge Crystalline -rock Aquifers
The Piedmont and Blue Ridge aquifers mostly consist of crystalline rocks (i.e.,
metamorphic and igneous rocks), but they also include some carbonate rocks (USGS, 1997c).
Major bedrock units crossed by the ACP in the Piedmont Province include Proterozoic -aged
gneiss, Tertiary -aged gravel, and Permian to Proterozoic -aged granite. Major bedrock units
crossed by the ACP in the Blue Ridge Province include Cambrian -aged sedimentary dolostone
(dolomite) and Proterozoic -aged granitic gneiss. Carbonate rocks provide the largest well yields
in the Piedmont and Blue Ridge aquifers (USGS, 1997c). A description of carbonate rock
aquifers is provided above (see Mississippian and Valley and Ridge Aquifers). Igneous and
metamorphic rocks are only permeable where they are fractured, and they generally yield only
small amounts of water to wells. Because these rocks extend over large areas, however,
significant volumes of water are available from these formations.
As of 2005, water withdrawals from the Piedmont and Blue Ridge carbonate -rock
aquifers were 29.9 million gpd (Maupin and Barber, 2005). Water withdrawals from the
Piedmont and Blue Ridge crystalline -rock aquifers were 146 million gpd, including
14.5 million gpd in Virginia and 62.6 million gpd in North Carolina (Maupin and Barber, 2005).
2.1.1.4 North Atlantic Coastal Plain Aquifer System
The Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain aquifer system mostly consists of semi -consolidated
sand aquifers separated by clay confining units. Major geologic units crossed by the proposed
ACP facilities in the Coastal Plain Province include Cretaceous to Quaternary -aged sedimentary
deposits (e.g., clay or mud, sand, gravel, and alluvium) and Cretaceous -aged sandstone.
Unconsolidated sands compose the surficial aquifer, which is the uppermost water -yielding part
of the system. These surficial aquifers are susceptible to human activities due to the shallow
depth to the aquifer in some areas (USGS, 1997d). Additionally, sediments in Coastal Plain
aquifers are thin near their contact with rocks of the Piedmont Province, and in places do not
yield as much water as the underlying igneous and metamorphic rocks associated with Piedmont
I aquifers (USGS, 1997). The Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain aquifer system also includes a
productive carbonate rock (limestone) aquifer. A description of carbonate rock aquifers is
provided above (see Mississippian and Valley and Ridge Aquifers).
W

Resource Report 2
Water Use and Quality
As of 2015, water withdrawals from the Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain aquifer system
were 1,040 million gpd, including 90.8 million gpd in Virginia and 142 million gpd in North
Carolina (Maupin and Barber, 2005). The limestone aquifer is most productive in North
Carolina, where yields reached 125 million gpd in 1985 (USGS, 1997d).
2.1.2 Designated Sole or Principal Source Aquifers
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) "defines a sole or principal source
aquifer as an aquifer that supplies at least 50 percent of the drinking water consumed in the area
overlying the aquifer. These areas may have no alternative drinking water source(s) that could
physically, legally and economically supply all those who depend on the aquifer for drinking
water" (EPA, 2008). For convenience, the EPA refers to all designated sole or principal source
aquifers as "sole source aquifers" (EPA, 2008).
There are currently no EPA -designated sole source aquifers in West Virginia
(EPA, 2008). The West Virginia Department of Envirom-nental Protection (WVDEP) and West
Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources (WVDHHR) do not designate sole source
aquifers on a State level (Paucer, 2015; Shaver 2015).
There are currently no EPA -designated sole source aquifers in North Carolina
(EPA, 2008). The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division
of Water Resources (NCDENR-DV%TR) does not designate sole source aquifers on a State level
(Johnson, 2015).
The only EPA -designated sole source aquifer in Virginia is the Columbia & Yorktown -
Eastover Multiaquifer System, which is across the Chesapeake Bay and over 25 miles to the
northeast of the nearest ACP facility (EPA, 2007 and 2013 a). The Commonwealth of Virginia
regulates groundwater withdrawal within two Ground Water Management Areas that are
managed by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) in accordance with the
Ground Water Management Act of 1992. These management areas are outlined under Title 9 of
Virginia Administrative Code (VAC) Agency 25, Chapter 600, Section 20 (Virginia's
Legislative hiformation System [VLIS], 2014a). The portions of the ACP within the Cities of
Suffolk and Chesapeake and Southampton County occur within the Eastern Virginia
Groundwater Management Area (VDEQ, 2014a). The other management area, the Eastern
Shore Groundwater Management Area, is located in the Counties of Accomack and
Northampton, over 25 miles to the northeast of the nearest ACP facility.
There are two sole source aquifers in Pennsylvania, but both are located far from the
nearest proposed SHP facilities. The Seven Valleys Aquifer and New Jersey Coastal Plain
Aquifer are located approximately 140 miles southeast and 300 miles east of the nearest SHP
facilities, respectively (EPA, 2008). The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
(PADEP) Bureau of Safe Drinking Water does not designate sole source aquifers on a
Commonwealth level and defers to EPA -designated sole source aquifers in the region
(Reisch, 2015).
2.1.3 Water Supply Wells
Atlantic and DTI are in the process of identifying public and private supply wells and
springs within the Project area, as outlined below. Atlantic will continue to identify public and
2-9

Resource Report 2
Water Use and Quality
private supply wells and springs within 150 feet of the construction workspace. In addition,
wells and springs will be identified within 500 feet of the proposed pipelines in karst areas and
within 0.25 mile of horizontal directional drill (HDD) activities.
2.1.3.1 Public Wells
Atlantic consulted with the WVDHHR Source Water Assessment and Wellhead
Protection Program, Virginia Department of Health — Office of Drinking Water (VDH-ODW),
and NCDENR-DWR to obtain -location data for public water supply wells within 150 feet of the
workspace for proposed ACP facilities. DTI similarly consulted with the WVDHHR and
PADEP Bureau of Safe Drinking Water to obtain location data for public water supply wells
within 150 feet of the proposed workspace for the SHP facilities. The results of these
consultations are described below and summarized in Table 2.1.3-1.
TABLE 2.1.3-1
I
Public Water Supply Wells Within 150 Feet of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply Header Project
Facility/County or City/State or Distance and Direction
Commonwealth Milepost(s) Public Water Well Name from Workspace (feet)
ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE
AP -1
None Identified
AP -2
Wilson County, NC
Cumberland County, NC
AP -3
None Identified
AP4
None identified
AP -5
None identified
Aboveground Facilities
None identified
SUPPLY HEADER PROJECT
TL -635
None identified
TL -636
None identified
Aboveground Facilities
None identified
67.5 Town of Sims
141.6 United Church of Christ Shiloh
Within Workspace
121, NW
Location data for water supply wells is not publicly available in West Virginia.
However, the WVDHHR reviewed maps of the proposed ACP and SHP facilities to identify
public water supply wells located along or near the proposed facilities in West Virginia. The
WVDHHR (2015a) did not identify any public water wells within 150 feet of the proposed
workspace for the ACP and SHP facilities in West Virginia.
The VDH-ODW provided Atlantic with digital location data for public water supply
wells in Virginia (Soto, 2015). No public water supply wells were identified within 150 feet of
the proposed workspace for the ACP facilities in Virginia.
at$]

Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
Public water supply well data was acquired from the NCDENR-DWR (2014a). Review
of these data identified two public wells within 150 feet of the proposed workspace for the AP -2
mainline in North Carolina.
The PADEP Bureau of Safe Drinking Water identified the eMapPA application as the
best source of information on public water supply wells in the Commonwealth
(McCaffrey, 2015). No public wells were identified within 150 feet of the TL- 636 loop and
other SHP facilities in Pennsylvania through review of this application (PADEP, 2015a).
2.1.3.2 Private Wells
Location data for private wells are not readily available from the PADEP, WVDHHR,
VDEQ, VDH-ODW, and NCDENR-DWR. Atlantic and DTI, respectively, are documenting
locations of private wells within 150 feet of the proposed ACP and SHP facilities through
discussions with landowners and field (civil) surveys: Private water supply wells identified to
date within 150 feet of the proposed workspace for the ACP and SHP facilities are listed in Table
2.1.3-2. Atlantic will continue to identify private supply wells within 150 feet of the
construction workspace. In addition, wells will be identified within 500 feet of the proposed
pipelines in karst areas and within 0.25 mile of horizontal directional drill (HDD) activities.
These additional survey efforts are scheduled to begin in the Fall of 2015. Results of the surveys
will be provided in supplemental filing.
2.1.3.3 Wellhead Protection Areas
Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1986 established requirements for States
to implement wellhead protection programs designed to protect underground sources of drinking
water. A wellhead protection area (ATA) is an area around a public water supply well that has
been delineated to regulate and protect the water supply drawn by the well. The size of the WPA
is based on an evaluation of geology and hydraulics or is mandated based on the type of public
water supply well. Shallow wells, which are susceptible to impacts on near surface groundwater,
generally have larger surface protection areas than deeper wells.
Atlantic and DTI, respectively, are consulting with the State/Commonwealth agencies
responsible for overseeing wellhead protection programs to identify WPAs proximate to the
proposed ACP and SHP facilities (i.e., the WVDHHR, VDEQ, VDH, NCDENR-DVY'R, and
PADEP). Crossings of WPAs identified by these agencies along the proposed facilities are
identified in Table 2.1.3-3.
In West Virginia, the Source Water Assessment and Wellhead Protection Program is
administered by the W-VDHHR. While locations of WPAs data are not publically available, the
W'VDHHR (2015a, 2015b) reviewed the proposed facilities. No WPAs were identified within 3
miles of the ACP or SHP facilities (WVDHHR, 2015b).
2-11

Resource Report 2
Water Use and Quality
TABLE 2 13-2
Private Water Wells Within 150 Feet of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply Header Project
Distance (feet) and Direction
Facility/County or City/State or Commonwealth
Milepost
From Workspace
ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE
17, W
Nash County, NC
AP -1
18, SE
Nash County, NC
Lewis County, WV
2.2
Within Workspace
Lewis County, WV
9.4
3, E
Upshur County, W
39.5
3 1, NE
Augusta County, VA
120.9
39, SW
Nottoway County, VA
229.9
24, NE
Nottoway County, VA
240.8
4,S
AP -2
Halifax County, NC
319.9
54, SE
Nash County, NC
3322
17, W
Nash County, NC
3381
18, SE
Nash County, NC
3473
90, NW
Nash County, NC
347.5
65, NW
Nash County, NC
347.5
Within Workspacc
Nash County, NC
347.6
Within Workspacc
Nash County, NC
353.3
Within Workspace
Johnston County, NC
379.2
70, W
Johnston County, NC
385.1
Within Workspace
Johnston County, NC
401.2
Within Workspacc
Cumberland County, NC
433.5
Within Workspace
Cumberland County, NC
433.6
Within Workspace
Cumberland County, NC
450.6
86, NW
Robeson County, NC
466.1
119's
Robeson County, NC
474.1
77,S
AP -3
Southampton County, VA
24.0
146, NW
City of Suffolk, VA
58.2
5,S
AP -4
None identified to date
AP -5
None identified to date
Abovcground Facilities
None identified to date
SUPPLY HEADER PROJECT
TL -635
Doddndgc County, WV
15.2
117, E
TL -636
Westmoreland County, PA
12
70, S
The Commonwealth of Virginia, under the oversight of VDEQ and VDH, has a Wellhead
Protection Plan that was adopted in April 2005 (VDEQ, 2005). The plan provides a framework
for establishing wellhead protection areas and a process for local agencies and various I
government units to apply for funding to implement wellhead protection plans for public water
supplies. Atlantic consulted with the VDH-ODW to identify public water wells that may have
associated wellhead protection areas. The VDH-ODW conducted Source Water Assessments
and susceptibility evaluations in 2003, after which Zone 1 and Zone 2 Groundwater Assessment
2-12
0

Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
Areas were defined as a 1,000 -foot and 1 -mile fixed radius surrounding a source, respectively
(VDH, 1999).
Atlantic identified two Zone 1 Groundwater Assessment Areas crossed by the proposed
route, and 10 Zone 2 Groundwater Assessment Areas. Of these Groundwater Assessment Areas
crossed, Atlantic identified one wellhead protection area crossed between MP 145.5 and 147.0 in
Augusta County, where groundwater protection measures have been implemented. Atlantic will
evaluate these measures for use during construction. Augusta County has established Source
Water Protection Overlay (SWPO) Districts, divided into Area 1 and Area 2 classification, to
protect public groundwater supply sources. Lyndhurst Area 2 SWPO District, which is crossed
by the proposed route, is defined as an area that contributes to recharge of a public groundwater
supply source (Augusta County, 2011). The Augusta County Service Authority (ACSA) noted
that the Lyndhurst Well is the largest in the county and provides water to various residential,
commercial, and industrial consumers (Hoover, 2015). Atlantic is reviewing information to
potentially further minimize the crossing of Lyndhurst Area 2 SWPO District.
TABLE 2.13-3
Wellhead Protection Areas Crossed by the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply Header Project
Facility/County or City/State or
Commonwealth Milepost(s) Wellhead Protection Area Crossing Length (feet)
ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE
AP -1
Lyndhurst/Augusta, VA 145.5 —147.0 Lyndhurst Well 15 miles
AP -2
None identified
AP -3
None identified
AP4
None identified
AP -5
None identified
Aboveground Facilities
None identified
SUPPLY HEADER PROJECT
TL -635
None identified
TL,636
None identified
Aboveground Facilities
None identified
The NCDENR-DWR (NC OneMap, 2015a) provided Atlantic with statewide digital data
for WPAs in North Carolina. Based on) provided Atlantic with statewide digital data for WPAs
in North Carolina. Based on a review of this data, no WPAs are crossed by the proposed ACP
facilities in North Carolina. The nearest VVTA is located approximately 0.8 mile from MP 382.0
of the AP -2 mainline.
Based on a review of data from the Pennsylvania Groundwater Information System, no
WPAs are crossed by the proposed SHP facilities in Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources, 2015).
2-13

Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
2.1.4 Springs 0
Based on a review of USGS 7.5 -minute series topographic maps and the results of
discussions with landowners, civil field surveys, and biological field surveys conducted to date,
four springs are located within 150 feet of the proposed workspace for the ACP AP -1 mainline
(see Table 2.1.4-1). Atlantic will continue to identify springs within 150 feet of the construction
workspace. In addition, springs will be identified within 500 feet of the proposed pipelines in
karst areas and within 0.25 mile of HDD activities. These additional survey efforts are
scheduled to begin in the Fall of 2015. Results of the surveys will be provided in supplemental
filing.
TABLE 2 14-1
Springs Located Within 150 Feet of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply Header Project lb
Pipeline Segment/County or City/ Distance and Direction from Workspace Surface Drainage Direction
State or Commonwealth Approximate Milepost (feet) of Spring from Project'
ATLANTIC COAST
PIPELINE
AP -1
Highland County, VA 85.3 51, SW Up Gradient
Augusta County, VA 115.2 140, N Up Gradient
Buckingham County, VA 204.0 Within Workspace Side Gradient
Buckingham County, VA 204.0 33, NE Down Gradient
a No springs are located within 150 feet of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline in West Virginia or North Carolina, or within 150 feet of the
Supply Header Project.
b Spring information is based on USGS 7.5 -minute series topographic maps, discussions with landowners, civil field surveys, and
biological field surveys.
C Surface drainage direction of a spring is evaluated from the pipeline right-of-way.
Atlantic reviewed comments regarding potential for the ACP to influence sinking points
in the Cowpasture River valley that feed the Coursey Springs State Fish Hatchery.5 Within the
Cowpasture River watershed the ACP will remain over 1,500 feet from VDCR documented
sinkholes. In addition, the ACP crosses the Cowpasture River approximately 11 miles to the
northeast, upstream of the Coursey Springs State Fish Hatchery. The immediate watershed that
feeds into the hatchery along the Pheasanty Run is not crossed by the ACP. Atlantic will
construct across the Cowpasture River using the dam -and -pump method in accordance with the
Plan and Procedures (see Section 1.5.2.1 of Resource Report 1 for a description of this method),
and will restore the bed, banks, and water flow to the Cowpasture River once construction across
the river is complete.
2.1.5 Contaminated Groundwater
Atlantic and DTI, respectively, searched Federal and State/Commonwealth databases to
identify contaminated sites, including sites which may have contributed to contaminated
groundwater, in the vicinity of the proposed ACP and SHP facilities. The EPA's Facility
Registry System map service was used to locate sites within one mile of the Projects that are
5 During the ACP and SHP Open Houses, and in comments filed with the FERC, a comment suggested that ACP crosses a recharge area that
feeds the Coursey Springs State Fish Hatchery. C-)
2-14

Resource Report 2
Water Use and Quality
listed on the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information
System (CERCLIS) and the Assessment, Cleanup and Redevelopment Exchange System
(ACRES) (EPA, 2014) .6 In addition, various other map services and databases were reviewed
for each State/Commonwealth as described below.
As shown in Table 2.1.5-1, the review of EPA records identified one Federal Brownfield
site and six Federal Superfund sites mapped within one mile of the proposed ACP and SHP
facilities. The majority of these federally -listed contaminated sites are located along the eastern
extent of the proposed AP -3 lateral, where it crosses industrialized areas within the City of
Chesapeake, Virginia. Based on the geospatial point data available on the EPA's Facility
Registry System map service, Envirofacts online database, and additional site-specific
information that was provided to Atlantic by EPA staff, none of the Federal Brownfield or
Superfilnd sites are known to be crossed by the proposed route for the ACP facilities.
In order to verify the boundaries associated with each of the federally -listed sites located
within one mile of the proposed ACP facilities, Atlantic submitted several site-specific
information requests to the EPA asking for additional documentation to confirm the boundaries
of each Federal Superfund and Brownfield site listed in Table 2.1.5-1. The boundaries have been
verified for six of the seven Federal Superfimd and Brownfield sites listed in Table 2.1.5-1, none
of which are crossed by the proposed ACP facilities. However, verification of site boundaries
for the Borden Smith Douglass Superfund Site is pending a response from the EPA to a Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA) request that was submitted by Atlantic in August 2015. The response
is anticipated to be provided by the EPA in September 2015.
In addition to the EPA resources, Atlantic and DTI reviewed the WVDEP web -based list
of municipal solid waste landfills and online database of leaking underground storage tanks
(LUST). No contaminated sites were found within one mile of the proposed ACP and SHP
facilities in West Virginia (WVDEP, 2013, 2014b, 2014c).
The VDEQ's Environmental geographic information system (VEGIS) system was used to
obtain geospatial databases of LUSTS and other solid or hazardous waste sites in Virginia
(VDEQ, 2014b). Review of these sources identified one municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill
complex, one industrial landfill, and one inert landfill mapped within 0.5 mile and 18 LUST
sites mapped within 1,000 feet of the proposed ACP facilities in Virginia. Based on the
geospatial point data and additional site-specific information provided by the VDEQ, a portion of
the Augusta Regional Landfill may be crossed by the proposed route for the AP -I mainline.
Therefore, as discussed in Section 2.1.6, Atlantic has incorporated a route adjustment that
increases the distance between the AP -1 mainline and the landfill in order to mitigate the
potential impacts of blasting that is anticipated to take place near the Augusta Regional Landfill
site boundary. The review of VDEQ records indicated that none of the other contaminated sites
identified will be crossed by the proposed ACP facilities. In addition, eight of the sites are
estimated to be hydraulically down gradient from the proposed ACP facilities and are therefore
unlikely to contribute to groundwater contamination in the vicinity of the proposed ACP
facilities.
6 CERCLIS and ACRES sites are commonly known as Federal Superfund and Brownfield sites, respectively.
2-15

Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
TABLE 2.1.5-1
Contaminated Sites, Landfills, and Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Near the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply Header Project'
Surface
County/ City and
Distance and
Drainage
State/
Pipeline
Nearest
Direction from
Direction from
Commonwealth
Segment
Milepost
Site Name
Centerlme (ft)
Facility Type
projeetb
ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE
CERCLIS and ACRES Sites Identified within I mile of the Centerline and Aboveground Facilities
Northampton, NC
AP -2
78
Garysburg Community
1,510 W
Brownfield
Up Gradient
Center
Johnston, NC
AP -2
912
Hot -Z Selina Spill
1,124 W
Superfund Site
Up Gradient
Cumberland, NC
AP -2
142.8
Woody's Salvage Yard
252 SE
Superfand Site
Down Gradient
Chesapeake, VA
AP -3
77.3
Norfolk hitercoastal. Steel
201 SE
Superfund Site
Side Gradient
Chesapeake, VA
AP -3
78.1
Money Point Creosite Site
124 N
Superfund Site
Down Gradient
Chesapeake, VA
AP -3
78.5
Eppinger & Russel Co hic.
1,250 N
Superfund Site
Down Gradient
Chesapeake, VA
AP -3
79.0
Borden Smith Douglass
los
Superfund Site
Side Gradient
Landfill and Solid
Waste Sites Identified within 0.5 mile of the Centerline and Aboveground Facilities
Augusta, VA
AP -1
141.4
Jolivue Landfill/Augusta
586 NE
Closed MSW Landfill
Up Gradient
Regional Landfill
and Active MSW
Landfill Complex
Chesapeake, VA
AP -3
155.1
Dominion Chesapeake
247 E
Closed Industrial
Side Gradient
Energy Center
Landfill and Active
Industnal Landfill
Chesapeake, VA
AP -3
79.1
Atlantic Aggregate Recyclers
269N E
inert Landfill
Up Gradient
Leaking Underground Petroleum Storage Tank (LUST) Sites within 1000 feet of the Centerline and Aboveground Facilities
Augusta, VA
AP -1
143.9
Starkey Residence
148 SW
LUST
Side Gradient
Nelson, VA
AP -1
1825
Woodson's Grocery
237 E
LUST
Side Gradient
Buckingham, VA
AP -1
209.3
Betty Brown Property
197 NE
LUST
Up Gradient
Nash, NC
AP -2
49.0
NCCU-Turner Law School
256 SE
LUST
Side Gradient
Nash, NC
AP -2
49.0
NCCU-Eagleson Hall
82 NW
LUST
Down Gradient
Johnston, NC
AP -2
90.7
Days Inn Motel
9 SE
LUST
Side Gradient
Johnston, NC
AP -2
108.1
Tippet Residential
188 SE
LUST
Down Gradient
Sampson, NC
AP -2
117.8
Plain View Grocery
294 SE
LUST
Up Gradient
Robeson, NC
AP -2
1818
Rudy's Restaurant
233 SW
LUST
Down Gradient
Southampton, VA
AP -3
23.6
Cooke Residence
269 NW
LUST
Up Gradient
Suffolk, VA
AP -3
City of Suffolk Pump Station
LUST
Side Gradient
62.0
11
244 NW
Chesapeake, VA
AP -3
75.2
Deep Creek Pharmacy
70 SW
LUST
Down Gradient
Chesapeake, VA
AP -3
75.3
BOX USA Group, hic.
284 N
LUST
Up Gradient
Chesapeake, VA
AP -3
754
Mid Atlantic Repair, hic.
163 S
LUST
Down Gradient
Chesapeake, VA
AP -3
75.4
Watkins Motor Lines, hic
llos
LUST
Down Gradient
Chesapeake, VA
AP -3
766
Deep Creek Pumping Station
235 N
LUST
Up or Side
Gradient
Chesapeake, VA
AP -3
77.8
IMT -r -Chesapeake Terminal
200 NW
LUST
Up or Side
Gradient
Chesapeake, VA
AP -3
782
Chesapeake Energy Center
196S
LUST
Up or Side
Gradient
Chesapeake, VA
AP -3
782
Chesapeake Energy Center
205S
LUST
Up or Side
Gr -adient
Chesapeake, VA
AP -3
78.2
Chesapeake Energy Center
211 S
LUST
Up or Side
Gradient
2-16
0

0)
Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
TABLE 2 15-1 (cont'd)
Contaminated Sites, Landfills, and Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Near the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply Header Project'
Surface
County/ City and Distance and
Drainage
State/ Pipeline Nearest Direction from
Direction from
Commonwealth Segment Milepost Site Name Centerline (ft) Facility Type
,tb
projer
Chesapeake, VA AP -3 78.2 Chesapeake Energy Center 203S LUST
Up or Side
Gradient
Chesapeake, VA AP -3 78.2 Chesapeake Energy Center 243S LUST
Up or Side
Gradient
Chesapeake, VA AP -3 78.6 OneSteel Recycling, Inc. 266 N LUST
Up or Side
Gradient
Chesapeake, VA AP -3 78.7 Former Smith Douglas Plant 135S LUST
Up or Side
Gradient
a No contaminated sites, landfills, or LUST sites were found within the search distances identified above for SHP.
b USGS topographic maps were reviewed to evaluate the topographic disposition of each site in relation to the Projects.
The NCDENR OneMap Geospatial Portal was used to obtain geospatial databases of
LUSTS, landfills, and other solid or hazardous waste sites in North Carolina (NCDENR, 2014a,
2014b, 2014c). Review of these sources identified six LUST sites mapped within 1,000 feet of
the proposed ACP facilities in North Carolina. Based on the geospatial point data available on
the OneMap Geospatial Portal, none of the contaminated sites located in North Carolina appear
to be crossed by the proposed facilities. In addition, three of these sites are located hydraulically
down gradient from the proposed ACP facilities and are therefore unlikely to have contributed to
groundwater contamination in the vicinity of the proposed ACP facilities.
The PADEP's web -based list of Municipal Waste Landfills & Resource Recovery
Facilities and an online database for Bureau of Environmental Cleanup and Brownfields
Regulated Storage Tank Cleanup Incidents was reviewed to identify contaminated sites in
Pennsylvania (PADEP, 2014). No contaminated sites were identified within one mile of the
proposed SHP facilities in Pennsylvania in these or the EPA sources.
As discussed in Section 2.6.1, Atlantic and DT1 are currently coordinating with Augusta
County in order to minimize the impact of the proposed ACP facilities on the Augusta Regional
Landfill. In addition, Atlantic and DTI are currently awaiting a response from the EPA in order
to verify the site boundaries of the Borden Smith Douglass Superfund Site. Based on the
geospatial data and other information provided by State/Commonwealth and Federal agencies,
Atlantic and DTI have concluded that none of the other contaminated sites listed in Table 2.1.5-1
are crossed by the current route for the proposed ACP facilities. However, in the event that
contaminated soil or groundwater is encountered during construction, Atlantic and DTI will
implement the appropriate containment and mitigation measures described in the Contaminated
Media Plan (see Appendix 1F of Resource Report 1).
2.1.6 Groundwater Construction Related Impacts and Mitigation
Standard procedures for construction of the pipeline and aboveground facilities could
potentially affect groundwater in Several ways. Clearing, grading, trenching, and soil stockpiling
activities could temporarily alter overland flow and groundwater recharge or could result in
minor fluctuations in groundwater levels and/or increased turbidity. Near -surface soil
2-17

Resource Report 2
Water Use and Quality
compaction caused by the operation of heavy construction equipment could reduce the ability of
soil to absorb water, which could increase surface runoff and the potential for ponding. These
impacts will be minimized or avoided through implementation of the construction practices
outlined in the 2013 versions of the FERC's Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and
Maintenance Plan (Plan) and Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures
(Procedures).
Ground disturbance associated with construction of pipelines and aboveground facilities
is generally within the upper 10 feet or less of the existing ground surface, which is above the
typical minimum depth of the bedrock aquifers in the areas crossed by the Projects. A depth of
10 feet is also above most near -surface aquifers and most wells that might be completed in a
localized shallow aquifer. Where near -surface aquifers are present or localized alluvial aquifers
occur, they typically consist of unconsolidated alluvial sand and gravel exhibiting rapid recharge
and groundwater movement. If disturbed, these aquifers quickly re-establish equilibrium and
turbidity levels rapidly subside, such that impacts are localized and temporary. Upon completion
of construction, Atlantic and DTI will restore the ground surface as closely as practicable to
original contours and reestablish vegetation on the right-of-way to facilitate restoration of
preconstruction overland flow and recharge patterns. To minimize the potential impact of
hazardous material spills on surficial aquifers during construction and operation of the ACP and
SHP, Atlantic and DTI have prepared and will implement a Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasures Plan (SPCC Plan) (see Appendix lF of Resource Report 1). Hazardous or
toxic materials used on the right-of-way would typically be limited to fuels, oils, lubricants, and
in some cases blasting materials. These materials would be handled in accordance with the
SPCC Plan and Blasting Plan. In addition, to minimize impacts associated with construction
water discharges on surficial aquifers Atlantic and DTI will implement measures outlined in the
Plan and Procedures during construction dem�atering activities.
Karst features that have an opening into the subsurface bedrock have the potential to
provide a conduit for impacts to groundwater. 7 Atlantic and DTI conducted a detailed desktop
assessment and field survey along those portions of the Projects considered prone to the
development of karst to identify sinkholes and other karst features. As warranted, Atlantic and
DTI will make minor route adjustments to avoid areas containing dense concentrations of
features, such as sinkholes, which are indicative of karst development. Atlantic and DTI have
prepared and will implement a Karst Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (see Appendix 1 F of
Resource Report 1), which identifies construction and restoration practices in karst areas.
During construction, erosion and sediment controls will be installed along the edge of the
construction right-of-way and in other work areas upslope of known sinkholes or other karst
features with a direct connection to the phreatic zone of the karst (i.e., groundwater). In addition,
refueling, hazardous materials storage, and overnight equipment parking within 300 feet of karst
features with direct connection to the phreatic zone will be prohibited. Results of the desktop
assessment and field surveys as well as proposed construction and mitigation measures for karst
areas are discussed in more detail in Resource Report 6.
7 During the ACP and SHP Open Houses, and in comments filed with the FERC, several individuals commented about karst features and the
potential to impact groundwater resources.
2-18

Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
Potential project -related groundwater contamination sources may also include accidental
spills and leaks of hazardous materials associated with construction; refueling or maintenance of
vehicles; and storage of fuel, oil, and other fluids. Spills or leaks from equipment used during
construction pose the greatest risk to groundwater resources. If not cleaned up, soils
contaminated by spilled materials could leach and add pollutants to groundwater.
To avoid or minimize the potential impact of hazardous material spills during
construction and operation of the ACP and SHP, Atlantic and DTI have prepared and will
implement a SPCC Plan. The SPCC Plan will specify preventive measures such as regular
inspection of storage areas for leaks, replacement of deteriorating containers, and construction of
containment systems around hazardous liquids storage facilities. The SPCC Plan will restrict
refueling or other liquid transfer areas within 100 feet of wetlands, waterbodies, and springs, and
within 300 feet of karst features with a direct connection to the phreatic zone; prohibit refueling
within 200 feet of private water supply wells and within 400 feet of municipal water supply
wells; and require additional precautions (e.g., secondary containment) when specified setbacks
cannot be maintained. In addition, Atlantic and DTI will evaluate recommended measures
provided by local agencies where wellhead protection or groundwater protection areas are
crossed. The SPCC Plan also will identify emergency response procedures, equipment, and
cleanup measures to be implemented in the event of a spill, and require the construction
contractor to complete an inventory of construction fuels, lubricants, and other hazardous
materials that may be used or stored in designated areas, as well as the amount and type of
containers that will be used to store these materials.
It is possible that previously undocumented sites with contaminated soils or groundwater
could be discovered during construction of the Projects. Atlantic and DTI have prepared and
will implement a Contaminated Media Plan to address these circumstances (see Appendix IF of
Resource Report 1). The Contaminated Media Plan describes measures to be implemented in
the event that signs of contaminated soil and/or groundwater are encountered during
construction. Signs of potential contamination could include discoloration of soil, chemical -like
odors, or sheens on soils or water. Containment measures will be implemented to isolate and
contain suspected soil or groundwater contamination, and collect and test samples of the soil or
groundwater to identify the contaminants. Once the contaminants are identified, a response plan
will be developed for crossing or avoiding the site.
Blasting may be necessary along portions of the proposed ACP and SHP facilities where
bedrock is located at or near the ground surface (see Section 6.2 of Resource Report 6). Atlantic
and DTI have prepared and will implement a Blasting Plan which identifies procedures for the
use, storage, and transportation of explosives consistent with safety requirements as defined by
Federal, State/Commonwealth, and local agency regulations. The Blasting Plan is provided in
Appendix IF of Resource Report 1. Where blasting is necessary, it will be conducted in a
manner to minimize possible impacts on nearby public and private water supply wells, springs,
or karst features with a direct connection to the phreatic zone.
2-19

Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
Without proper planning, blasting could affect groundwater quality and 8 bedrock -based
water well systems located in close proximity to the construction right-of-way. The use of
controlled blasting techniques, where small, localized detonations are utilized, will avoid or
minimize the impacts of blasting and limit rock fracture to the immediate vicinity of these
activities. As noted in Sections 2.1.3.2 and 2.1.4, Atlantic and DTI will contact landowners to
determine the location of private water wells and private water supply springs within 150 feet of
approved construction workspaces. Atlantic and DTI will, with landowner permission, conduct
preconstruction and post -construction well testing, and perform necessary repair or restoration to
maintain well productivity and water quality, for wells located within 150 feet of the
construction area.
Atlantic plans to monitor groundwater quality and yield for public and private supply
wells and springs proximate to the Project area, as described in more detail below. Groundwater
inventory and sample collection will be conducted before and after construction to determine
whether water supplies have been affected by pipeline construction activities. Atlantic and DTI
will establish baseline groundwater conditions prior to construction of the Projects through
investigative field surveys and a sampling protocol. The surveys will include a groundwater
inventory of all wells or springs within 500 feet of the proposed pipelines in karst areas and
within 150 feet of the construction workspace along the remainder of the proposed pipelines. In
order to conduct these inventories, land owner permission will need to be obtained first.
With landowner permission, water samples will be obtained prior to construction to
establish water quality and yield baselines during the varying seasons. These samples will be
tested for pH, total suspended solids, total dissolved solids, conductivity, alkalinity, acidity,
sulfates, oil/grease, phenolic, iron, manganese, aluminum, fecal coliform, copper, lead, nickel,
silver, thallium, zinc, chromium, arsenic, mercury, selenium, cyanide, calcium magnesium,
hardness, chlorides, antimony, cadmium, and beryllium. Sampling methods will adhere to the
prevailing EPA and State/Commonwealth sampling, analytical and data quality assurance and
quality control procedures. The samples will be analyzed using EPA -approved methods and the
analysis will be performed by a certified laboratory in each State/Commonwealth.
Any well damage claim will be investigated for cause; during this investigation a
temporary potable water source will be supplied to the well owner. This temporary potable
water source will be supplied by a potable water storage device and/or a temporary water
treatment system to restore potable water.
In the event the damage claim investigation yields positive results that construction
activities caused or contributed to well damage. Atlantic or DTI will provide a permanent
potable water source. This will be supplied by a permanent water treatment system and/or a new
well drilled to a deeper aquifer.
To respond to mitigation requested by the ACSA regarding potential blasting near the
Augusta Regional Landfill, Atlantic has incorporated a route adjustment that increases the
8 In comments filed with the FERC, several individuals commented about blasting during construction and potential impacts on water sources
and water quality.
2-20

Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
distance between the AP -1 mainline and the landfill.9 The purpose of this adjustment was an
added precaution to mitigate potential impacts of blasting near the landfill's monitoring wells.
Atlantic will also develop a site-specific blasting and monitoring plan for this area in
consultation with the ACSA.
Atlantic and DTI are evaluating the need to use groundwater for the aboveground
facilities. Groundwater may be used for hydrostatic testing of facility piping, dust control,
operation and maintenance activities, and domestic uses.
2.1.7 Facility Operations
The Projects will transport pipeline quality natural gas that has been processed to remove
natural gas liquids (NGL) prior to being received by the ACP and SHP. However, a small
amount of residual NGLs may still exist in the gas transported by ACP and SHP. Several
important considerations are incorporated into the design and operation of the Projects with
regard to NGLs. These design elements will minimize the risk of release of residual NGLs that
may accumulate in the pipeline as a result of normal natural gas pipeline operations. 49 CFR
Parts 192.475, 192.476., 192.477, and 192.491 address operations of natural gas pipelines. Gas
pressure and receipts along the pipelines will be monitored continuously to ensure gas quality
parameters are met at the receipt points. In addition, construction design and operations
procedures for the Projects will limit the potential for NGLs to occur in the pipelines. Filter
separators will be installed at the receipt points and at the compressor stations. These filter
separators will remove those trace amounts of liquids that may be in the gas stream.
Additionally, pigging of the pipeline will be conducted to remove fluids from the pipeline in a
controlled manner. When the ACP and SHP are pigged, the NGLs will be collected in vessels
that are enclosed within secondary containment equipped with alarm systems to notify the
operators if levels change. The fluids in the tanks will hauled to approved -disposal facilities.
Additionally, SPCC Plans which outline the training, procedures, processes and
equipment to be utilized by Atlantic and DTI and/or contractors pertaining to spill response
during operations will be established for the facilities. In the event of an inadvertent NGL
release, Atlantic and DTI will have spill kits staged at work locations where trained employees
and contractors are able to ensure compliance and that safety requirements are met during the
spill cleanup process.
The new pipelines and aboveground facilities are not expected to result in impacts on
groundwater use or quality under typical operating conditions. Impacts could occur if
maintenance activities require excavation or repair in proximity to water supply wells or springs.
In such a case, the impacts and mitigation would be similar to those described above for
construction activities.
9 In comments filed with the FERC the ACSA commen ed that blasting near the Augusta Regional Landfill could damage monitoxing wells.
2-21

Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
2.2 SURFACE WATER RESOURCES
2.2.1 Existing Watersheds
The USGS has organized watersheds of the United States into seven successively smaller
levels of subdivisions using hydrologic unit codes (HUC). Regions (level one) are the largest
watersheds (two -digit HUCs), followed by sub -regions (four -digit HUCs), basins (six -digit
HUCs), and sub -basins (eight -digit HUCs), which are further divided into smaller watersheds.
Information on the basins and watersheds crossed by the proposed ACP and SHP facilities is
described below and summarized in Table 2.2.1-1.
The proposed ACP facilities will cross three regional watersheds (the Ohio, Mid -Atlantic,
and South Atlantic -Gulf) and eight sub -regions (Monongahela, Kanawha, Lower Chesapeake,
Potomac, Chowan -Roanoke, Neuse-Painlico, Cape Fear, and Pee Dee). The sub -regions are
further broken into 10 basins and 26 sub -basins.
The Ohio Regional Watershed covers approximately 161,250 square miles encompassing
portions of nine States, including Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, New York, North
Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, West Virginia and the Commonwealths of Pennsylvania and Virginia
(USGS, 1994). Major rivers within this regional watershed include the Ohio, Wabash,
Allegheny, Monongahela, Kanawha, and New Rivers.
The Mid -Atlantic Regional Watershed covers approximately 95,360 square miles
encompassing all or portions of eight States, including Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Vermont, West Virginia, and the Commonwealths of
Pennsylvania and Virginia (USGS, 1994). Major rivers in the southern portion of this regional
watershed include the Potomac, James, and Shenandoah Rivers, as well as the beginning of the
Ohio River at the confluence of the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers. The Mid -Atlantic
Regional Watershed also contains the nation's largest estuary, Chesapeake Bay.
The South Atlantic -Gulf Regional Watershed covers approximately 278,680 square miles
encompassing all or portions of eight States including Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and the Commonwealth of Virginia
(USGS, 1994). Major rivers in this regional watershed include the Roanoke, Cape Fear,
Savannah, Ogeechee, and Chattahoochee Rivers. This South Atlantic -Gulf Regional Watershed
also includes the Outer Banks of North Carolina and Florida Everglades.
The proposed SHP facilities are located within the Ohio Regional Watershed and portions
of two sub -regions, Upper Ohio and Monongahela. The sub -regions are further broken into two
basins and three sub -basins.
2.2.2 Waterbodies Crossed
Waterbodies are defined by the FERC as "any natural or artificial stream, river, or
drainage with perceptible flow at the time of crossing, and other permanent waterbodies such as
lakes and ponds." The flow regime for waterbodies may be characterized as perennial,
intermittent, or ephemeral. Perennial waterbodies contain water for all or most of the year and
have flow. Intermittent waterbodies flow seasonally or following rainfall events. Ephemeral
waterbodies flow during or shortly after precipitation events or Spring snowmelt.
2-22

Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
As used in this Resource Report, the tenn "waterbodies" follows the FERC definition
noted above. Through the Clean Water Act permitting process, Atlantic and DTI will determine
with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), EPA, and State/Commonwealth agencies
whether given features are jurisdictional "waters of the U.S." The tenn "waterbodies," as used
here, is best understood as those water features — excluding wetlands — that are potentially
subject to jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act.
TABLE2.2.1-1
Watersheds Crossed by the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply Header Project
Pipeline Segment/Regional Watershed/
Sub -Region Approximate MilepoStS b County/City and State/Commonwealth
ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE
AP -1
Ohio Regional Watershed
Monongahela 0.0-69.7 Harrison, Lewis, Upshur, and Randolph Counties, Wv
Kanawha 697-83 1 Pocahontas County, WV
Mid -Atlantic Regional Watershed
Potomac 83.1 — 85 9; 118.1 — 158.2 Highland and Augusta Counties, VA
Lower Chesapeake 85.9-118.1; 158.2-247.3 Highland, Augusta, Nelson, Buckingham, Cumberland,
Prince Edward and Nottoway Counties, VA
Atlantic -Gulf Regional Watershed
Chowan -Roanoke
AP -2
Atlantic -Gulf Regional Watershed
Chowan -Roanoke
Neuse-Panihco
Cape Fear
Pee Dee
AP -3
Atlantic -Gulf Regional Watershed
Chowan -Roanoke
247.3 — 300.1 Nottoway, Dmwiddie, Brunswick, and Greensville
Counties, VA, and Northampton County, NC
0.0-18.0 Northampton and Halifax Counties, NC
18.0-115.3 Halifax, Nash, Wilson, Johnston, and Sampson
Counties, NC
115.3 — 159.3 Sampson and Cumberland Counties, NC
159.3 — 183.0 Cumberland and Robeson Counties, NC
0 0 — 52 0, and 68.0 — 68 4 Northampton County, NC, Southampton County, VA
and City of Suffolk and City of Chesapeake, VA
Mid -Atlantic Regional Watershed
Lower Chesapeake 52.0 — 68.0, and 68.4 — 79.3 City of Suffolk and City of Chesapeake, VA
AP -4
Atlantic -Gulf Regional Watershed
Chowan -Roanoke
AP -5
Atlantic -Gulf Regional Watershed
Chowan -Roanoke
SUPPLY HEADER PROJECT
TL -635
Ohio Regional Watershed
Monongahela
Upper Ohio
TL -636
Ohio Regional Watershed
Monongahela
Source- USGS, 1994
0.0-0.6 Brunswick County, VA
0.0-1 1 Greensville County, VA
0.0-0.7 Harrison County, WV
0.7-33.6 Wetzel, Tyler, and Doddridge Counties, WV
00-39 Westmoreland County, PA
2-23

Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
The FERC categorizes surface waters as major, intermediate, or minor waterbodies based
on the width of the water's edge at the time of crossing. Major waterbodies are greater than
100 feet wide, intermediate waterbodies are between 10 feet and 100 feet wide, and minor
waterbodies are 10 feet wide or less.
Atlantic and DTI are completing waterbody surveys to document waterbody crossings
along the proposed pipeline routes and in other work areas. Table 2A- I and Table 2A-2 in
Appendix 2A provide a list of the waterbodies crossed by the proposed ACP and SHP facilities,
respectively. For each waterbody crossing, the tables include the field survey designation
(Feature ID), waterbody name, approximate crossing width, flow regime (perennial, intennittent,
ephemeral, or canal/ditch), proposed crossing method, and State/Commonwealth water
classification, and indicates if there is a time of year restriction at the crossing. Waterbodies that
were not surveyed in the field due to a lack of survey permission or recent changes to the
proposed pipeline routes were identified based on the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)
(USGS, 2015) and/or recent aerial photography. These features are designated as "NHD" in the
Feature ID column of each table. Table 2.2.2-1 below provides a summary of the waterbodies
crossed by the Projects. Waterbody and wetland delineation reports for the ACP and SHP are
provided in Appendices 2D and 2E, respectively.
Information on the major waterbodies crossed by the Projects is provided in Table 2.2.2-
2. Site-specific drawings for each of the major waterbodies crossed are provided in Appendix
2F. Information for intermediate and minor waterbody crossings is provided in Appendices 2A -
I and 2A-2. Table 2.2.2-3 summarizes the waterbodies crossed by the ACP on Federal lands.
Table 2A-3 and Table 2A-4 in Appendix 2A provide a listing of the proposed stream crossings
location on U.S. Forest Service (USFS) lands in the MNF and GWNF.
2-24
TABLE 2.2.2-1
waterbodies Affected by the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply Header Project
Waterbody Type
FERC Classification
Open
Canal/
Open Water
Water
Project/Facility
Perennial
Intermittent
Ephemeral
Ditch
Ponds
Major
Intermediate
Minor
Ponds
ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE
Pipeline Facilities
448
434
128
45
22
14
316
725
22
Aboveground
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
Facilities
Access Roads
74
106
23
3
5
0
52
154
5
Pipe Storage and
3
2
0
0
0
0
2
3
0
Contractor Yards
Project Total
526
542
151
48
27
14
371
882
27
SUPPLY HEADER PROJECT
Pipeline Facilities
57
8
0
0
1
0
33
32
1
Aboveground
6
1
0
0
1
0
2
5
1
Facilities
Access Roads
56
15
0
0
0
0
30
41
0
Pipe Storage and
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Contractor Yards
Project Total
119
24
0
0
2
0
65
78
2
2-24

Resource Report 2
Water Use and Quality
TABLE 2 2 2-2
Major waterbodies Crossed by the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply Header Project
Pipeline Segment/County or
Approximate
City/State or Commonwealth
Waterbody Name
Milepost
Flow Type'
Crossing Width (feet)
Crossing Method
AP -1
Federal Land Unit
Crossed (miles) Perennial
Intermittent
Ephemeral
Ditch
Randolph County, WV
Shavers Fork
67.9
Perennial
103
Cofferdam
Nelson and Buckingham
James River
1847
Perennial
387
HDD
Counties, VA
Blue Ridge Parkway
0.1 0
0
0
0
Cumberland and Prince Edward
Appomattox River
220.8
Perennial
104
Coffffdam
Counties, VA
Greensville County, VA
Meherrin River
2863
Perennial
182
Open Cut
AP -2
Northampton and Halifax
Roanoke River
9.8
Perennial
360
HDD
Counties, NC
Halifax and Nash Counties, NC
Fishing Creek
33.9
Perennial
105
Dam and Pump/Flume
Nash County, NC
Swift Creek
406
Perennial
127
Dam and Pump/Flume
Nash County, NC
Tar River
59.4
Perennial
165
Open Cut
Johnston County, NC
Neuse River
984
Perennial
137
Open Cut
Cumberland County, NC
Cape Fear River
149.3
Perennial
325
HDD
AP -3
Greensville and Southampton
Meherrin River
12.4
Perennial
116
Cofferdam
County, VA
Southampton, VA
Nottoway River
32.6
Perennial
240
HDD
Southampton County and City of
BIackwater River
386
Perennial
205
HDD
Suffolk, VA
City of Chesapeake, VA
South Elizabeth River
78.4
Perennial
851
HDD
No major waterbodies are crossed by the Supply Header Project in Pennsylvania or West Virginia.
TABLE 2.2.2-3
waterbodies Crossed by the Atlantic Coast Pipeline on Federal Lands
Waterbody Type
Federal Land
Canal/
Open Water
Federal Land Unit
Crossed (miles) Perennial
Intermittent
Ephemeral
Ditch
Ponds
Monongahela National Forest
18.6 48
52
22
0
2
George Washington National Forest
12.2 16
10
4
0
0
Blue Ridge Parkway
0.1 0
0
0
0
0
Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
17 1
0
0
3
0
2.2.3 Surface Water Standards and Classifications
Each of the States/Commonwealths crossed by the proposed ACP and SHP facilities has
developed its own regulatory system for evaluating, classifying, and monitoring the quality and
uses of surface waters. Each system includes the assignment of "beneficial use designations"
that describe the potential or realized capacity of a waterbody to provide defined ecological and
human population benefits. A summary of the use designation system for each
State/Commonwealth is provided below. The designations for the waterbodies crossed by the
proposed ACP and SHP facilities, respectively, are listed in Tables 2A-1 and 2A-2 in
Appendix 2A.
2-25

Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
2.2.3.1 West Virginia Surface Water Classifications
West Virginia Code of State Regulations (CSR) §47-2-4 (West Virginia Code of State
Regulations [VvrVCSR], 2014) outlines an antidegradation policy that establishes three classes for
waters of the State. The classes are assigned to waters in an effort to maintain quality or existing
uses (WVDEP, 2014a). The three tiers of protection are defined as follows (WVCSR, 2014):
Tier 1 Protection: existing water uses and the level of water quality necessary to
protect the existing uses shall be maintained and protected. Existing uses are
those uses actually attained'in a water on or after November 28, 1975, whether or
not they are included as designated uses within the State code, water quality
standards.
Tier 2 Protection: existing high quality waters of the State must be maintained at
their existing high quality. High quality waters are defined in the State code as
those waters whose quality is equal or better than the minimum levels necessary
to achieve the national water quality goal uses.
Tier 3 Protection: outstanding national resource waters that have been placed on
the highest tier of the State classification to provide greater protection. These
include waters that are in federally designated Wilderness Areas and waters with
naturally reproducing trout in State parks, national parks, and national forests.
West Virginia CSR §47-2-6 further outlines general Water Use Categories and Water
Quality Standards for waters of the State. Under the CSR, waters of the State are designated for
Propagation and Maintenance of Fish and Other Aquatic Life (Category B) and Water Contact
Recreation (Category C) unless otherwise designated. Other use designations assigned under the
CSR include: Public Water (Category A), Warm Water Fishery (Category B 1), Trout Waters
(Category 132), Wetlands (Category B4), Water Contact Recreation (Category C), Agricultural
and Wildlife Uses (Category D), Irrigation (Category Dl), Livestock (Category D2), Wildlife
(Category D3), Water Supply Industrial, Water Transport, Cooling and Power (Category E),
Water Transport (Category El), Cooling Water (Category E2), Power Production (Category E3),
and Industrial (Category E4) (West Virginia CSR, 2014).
The proposed ACP facilities will cross ten Tier 3 streams in West Virginia (Tygart Valley
River, MP 56.5; Becky Creek at two locations, MP 60.3 and MP 60.6; Shavers Fork, MP 67.9;
Unnamed Tributary to West Fork Greenbrier River, MP 70.5; West Fork Greenbrier River, MP
71.4; Mountain Lick Creek, MP 72.2; John's Run, MP 74.8; East Fork Greenbrier River, MP
77.1; and Little River, MP 79.2).10 Construction and operation of the ACP will meet applicable
requirements for Tier 3 outstanding national resource waters. The SHP will not cross Tier 3
streams in West Virginia. According to WVDEP staff Tier 1 and Tier 2 streams are determined
on a case by case basis during permitting and determinations may vary based on the water
quality parameters (Peterson, 2015). For example, a stream could be designated as a Tier 1 for
one parameter and a Tier 2 for a different parameter. Therefore, streams are not able to be
categorized as Tier I or Tier 2 at this time.
10 In comments filed with the FERC the US Forest Service indicated additional Tier 3 streams are present within National Forest Boundaries
based on presence of naturally reproducing trout. Based on additional research Atlantic has included three additional waterbodies.
2-26

Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
1—) 2.2.3.2 Virginia Surface Water Classifications
LI) Title 9 of VAC Agency 25, Chapter 260, Section 30 (9VAC25-260-30) outlines an
antidegradation policy that establishes three classes for waters of the Commonwealth of Virginia
(VLIS, 2014b). The three classes are defined as follows:
Tier 1: waters where existing water quality and uses need to be maintained.
Tier 2: waters that are exceeding water quality standards.
Tier 3: exceptional waters where no new discharges of pollution are allowed;
these waters are required to be listed in the VAC.
The proposed ACP facilities do not cross Tier 3 streams in Virginia (see Appendix 2A).
According to VDEQ staff, Tier I and Tier 2 streams are determined on a case by case basis
during permitting (Barron, 2015). Therefore, streams are not able to be categorized as Tier 1 or
Tier 2 at this time.
Under 9VAC25-260-1 0, Commonwealth of Virginia waters, including wetlands, are
designated for recreational uses; propagation and growth of a balanced, indigenous population of
aquatic life; wildlife; and the production of edible and marketable natural resources.
Subcategories have been established for the propagation and growth of a balanced indigenous
population of aquatic life in Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries. Other subcategories have
not been defined in the VAC (VLIS, 2014c).
2.2.3.3 North Carolina Surface Water Classifications
Title 15A of North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC), Chapter 2, Subchapter 02B
outlines State surface water and wetland standards (15ANCAC 02B.0101). Withinthis
subchapter, classifications for surface waters are defined as follows:
Class C: freshwater protected for secondary recreation, fishing, and aquatic life;
this category includes all freshwater in the State to protect these uses.
Class B: freshwater protected for primary recreation, including swimming and all
Class C uses.
Classes WS -1, WS -II, WS -III, WS -IV, and WS -V: waters that are protected as
water supplies within watersheds of increasing development, ranging from
natural, undeveloped, and upstream watersheds to moderate or highly developed
watersheds.
Class VVL: waters that meet the definition of wetlands, except coastal wetlands.
Classes SC, SB, SA, and SWL: waters including various categories of tidal salt -
waters.
In addition to these classifications, the NCAC defines a number of supplemental classes
for State waters. These include designations for Trout Waters (Tr), Swamp Waters (Sw),
Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters
(HQ), Future Water Supply, and Unique Wetland.
The NCAC (I 5A NCAC 02B.0201 Antidegradation) under subsection 2B, Rule.0201,
establishes an antidegradation policy for North Carolina. This policy requires the establishment
2-27

Resource Report 2
Water Use and Quality
of classes protecting existing uses of State waters. It additionally states that projects affecting
waters shall not be permitted unless existing uses can be protected (NCAC, 1996).
In North Carolina surface waters are assigned a minimum Class C designation. In
addition, the proposed ACP pipeline facilities will cross three Class WS -III, 17 Class WS -IV,
three Class WS -V, 29 Class Sw, and 46 Class NSW waterbodies (see Appendix 2A).
2.2.3.4 Pennsylvania Surface Water Classifications
Provisions of water quality standards in Pennsylvania are provided under Title 25,
Subpart C, Article II, Chapter 93 of the Pennsylvania Code (Pennsylvania Code, 1971). The
general provisions for protected water uses in Chapter 93.3 identifies several categories of water
uses to be protected, including cold water fisheries (C)AT), warm water fisheries (WWF),
migratory fishes, trout stocking, potable water supply (PWS), industrial water supply (IWS),
livestock water supply (LWS), wildlife water supply (AWS), irrigation (IRS), boating (B),
fishing (F), water contact sport (WC), esthetics (E), high quality waters (HQ), exceptional value
waters (EV), and navigation.
Pennsylvania Code chapter 93.4 outlines uses for waters of the Commonwealth. Under
this chapter, the following uses apply to surface waters unless otherwise specified in law or
regulation: WWF, PWS, IWS, LWS, AWS, IRS, B, F, WC, and E. These uses must be protected
in accordance with Chapter 96 of the Pennsylvania Code with regard to water quality standards
and other applicable Commonwealth or Federal laws and regulations.
Pennsylvania Code Chapter 93.4a outlines an antidegradation policy for surface waters of
the Commonwealth. The policy states that existing in -stream water uses and the level of water
quality necessary to protect existing uses shall be maintained and protected. The policy
additionally states that the water quality of HQ and EV streams and lakes shall be maintained
and protected, except as provided in § 93.4c(b)(1)(iii). HQ waters are defined as surface waters
that have long-term water quality to support the propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife as
well as recreation; that support high quality aquatic communities; and/or that meet Class A wild
trout stream qualifications. Surface waters that qualify as EV must meet the requirements of HQ
surface waters as well as one or more of the following:
the water is located within a national wildlife refuge, national natural landmark,
Federal wild river, Federal wilderness area, national recreation area, or areas
designated by the Commonwealth as game propagation and protection areas, park
natural areas, forest natural areas, or wild rivers;
the water is an outstanding national, Commonwealth, regional or local resource
water;
the water is a surface water of exceptional recreational significance;
the water achieves a score of at least 92 percent using the methods and procedures
described in subsection (a)(2)(i)(A) or (B); or
the water is designated as a 'wilderness trout stream' by the Pennsylvania Fish
and Boat Commission.
2-28

Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
In Pennsylvania, the SHP facilities will cross 12 streams with CVVT and HQ designations,
and two streams with trout stocking designations (see Appendix 2A; PADEP, 2013).
Construction and operation of the SHP will meet applicable requirements for HQ waters. None
of the waterbodies within the SHP Project area are classified as EV. -
2.2.4 Contaminated Waters or Sediments
The EPA's List of Sediment Sites with Substantial Contamination identifies Superfarid
sites where remediation includes the dredging or excavation of more than 10,000 cubic yards of
contaminated sediment. According to the EPA, these sites contain sediments associated with
waterbodies that present an unacceptable risk to human health and/or the environment
(EPA, 2013b). Based on a review of the EPA list, no such sites are located in Pennsylvania,
West Virginia, or North Carolina (EPA, 2012a). One such site is listed in the City of Roanoke,
Virginia, but it is located greater the 50 miles from the proposed ACP facilities.
Atlantic and DTI reviewed the list of 303(d) hnpaired Waters for each
State/Commonwealth to identify crossings of waterbodies that may contain contaminated
sediments (WVDEP, 2012a, 2012b; VDEQ, 2015; NC OneMap, 2015a; PADEP, 2015c).
Waterbodies crossed by the proposed ACP or SHP facilities that are included on the EPA
approved 303(d) impaired waters list are identified in Table 2B in Appendix 2B. There are
16 3 03 (d) impaired streams crossed by the ACP in West Virginia, 20 in Virginia, and one in
North Carolina. There are nine 303(d) impaired streams crossed by the SHP pipeline facilities in
West Virginia and nine in Pennsylvania. Atlantic and DTI are evaluating the contaminants listed
within these waterbodies for the probability to encounter contaminated water or sediments during
construction, or to exacerbate impairments during construction. In the event that contaminants
are encountered during construction of the Projects, Atlantic and DTI will implement the
measures identified in the Contaminated Media Plan (see Appendix IF of Resource Report 1).
2.2.5 Public Surface Water Intakes and Surface Water Protection Areas
Atlantic and DTI are consulting with the WVDHHR, VDH-ODW, NCDENR-DWR, and
PADEP in an effort to identify public surface water intakes within 3.0 miles and surface water
protection areas within 250 feet of the proposed ACP and SHP facilities.
Similar to the public supply wells discussed in Section 2.1.3 above, surface water intake
data are not publicly available from the WVDHHR. At Atlantic's and DTI's request, however,
the WVDHHR (2015a) reviewed maps of the Projects and determined that there are four surface
water intakes within 3.0 miles of the ACP and there is one surface water intake within 3.0 miles
of the SHP. The WVDHHR also determined that there are four surface water protection areas
within 250 feet of the ACP and none within 250 feet of the SHP (WVDHHR, 2015a). During a
supplemental review, the VTVDHHR (2015b) determined that the Projects do not intersect any
drinking water sources; however, the Projects intersect multiple protection areas and zones
associated with six public water systems. The WVDHHR (2015b) provided a shapefile for a
three mile buffers around protection areas and zones associated with the ACP and SHP.
Atlantic and DTI reviewed Source Water Assessment Reports, prepared by the
VYVDHHR Office of Environmental Health Services Source Water Protection Unit, for each of
the surface water intake facilities outlined in the WVDHHR (2015a) correspondence letter
2-29

Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
(VVVDHHR, 2003a -e). The Source Water Assessment Reports identify the Source Water
Protection Watershed for each intake, which includes the entire watershed area upstream of the
intake structure. The reports and shapefile provided by the VV'VDHHR (2015b) also identify
Zones of Critical Concern (ZCC), which are considered surface water protection areas in
corridors along waterbodies within Source Water Protection Watersheds. The ZCC is based on a
protection zone of five hours above the water intake. The Zones of Peripheral Concern (ZPC)
were provided in a shapefile from the WVDHHR (2015b) and are considered surface water
protection areas in corridors along waterbodies Source Water Protection Watersheds. The ZPC
is based on a protection zone of ten hours above the water intake. The ZCCs and ZPCs warrant a
more detailed inventory and management due to their proximity to the source water and the
susceptibility to potential contaminants. ZCCs, Wellhead Protection Areas, and Zones of
Peripheral Concern within three miles of the Projects were included in the shapefile provided by
the WVDHHR (WVDHHR, 2015b). Table 2.2.5-1 lists the surface water intake facilities within
3.0 miles of the Projects.
The VDH-ODW provided Atlantic with location data for public surface water intakes
(Soto, 2015). Based on a review of these data, Atlantic identified four public surface water
intakes located within 3.0 miles downstream of the proposed ACP facilities (see Table 2.2.5-1).
The ACP will cross the Zone 1 assessment watershed associated with each of the four surface
water intakes. The VDH-ODW identifies Zone I assessment watersheds as the area within a
5 mile radius of the raw water intake. Two additional Zone 1 assessment watersheds for a
surface water intake are crossed by both the AP- I mainline and AP -5 lateral, and the AP- 1
mainline, but the ACP is further than 3.0 miles upstream from the intakes. The ACP also crosses
a shoreline protection buffer of approximately 30 feet around Lake Kilby, a source waterbody
owned and managed by the City of Portsmouth (Umphlette, 2015).
The NCDENR-DWR provided Atlantic with digital data on the locations of public
surface water intakes in North Carolina. Based on a review of this data, Atlantic determined that
there are no public surface water intakes within 3.0 miles downstream of waterbody crossings
along the proposed ACP pipelines and other facilities in North Carolina. The nearest public
surface water intake is approximately 3.5 miles from the Project.
In addition to maintaining data pertaining to surface water intakes, the NCDENR-DWR
has established public water source watersheds for areas that drain to public surface water
intakes. Atlantic evaluated these data and determined that seven of these watersheds are crossed
by the proposed ACP facilities (see Table 2.2.5-2). Similar data are not available for West
Virginia, Virginia, or Pennsylvania.
Based on a review of geographic information system (GIS) data available from the
Pennsylvania Spatial Data Access website and the PADEP's eMapPA, there are no public
surface water intakes within 3.0 miles of the SHP (PADEP, 2015a and 2015b). However, the
SHP facilities are located within two public water systems service areas. Public water systems
service areas are defined as a system that provides water to the public for human consumption,
which has at least 15 service connections or regularly serves an average of at least 25 individuals
daily at least 60 days out of the year (PADEP, 2015a). The TL -636 loop and the JB Tonkin
Compressor Station are located within the Westmoreland County Municipal Authority public
water systems service area. The Crayne Compressor Station is located within the Southwestern
Pennsylvania Municipal Authority public water systems service area.
2-30

Resource Report 2
Water Use and Quality
TABLE 2 2.5-1
Surface Water Intake Facilities Within 3.0 Miles Downstream of and Water Protection or Assessment Watersheds Crossed by the
Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply Header Project
Length of Source
Waterbody
Milepost of
Length of Zones of
Water Protection or
Associated with
Project
Critical Concem/Length
Assessment
Pipeline Segment/ County or
Surface Water
Public Water
Crossing of
of Zone of Peripheral
Watershed Crossed
City/State or Commonwealth
Intake Facility
Intake
Waterbody'
Concern Crossed (miles)
(miles)
ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE
AP -1
Upshur County, WV
Quality hin
TBD
26.4
0.0/0.2
N/A
Upshur County, V*rV
Buckhannon
Buckhannon River
28.3
41/46
124
Water Board
Upshur County, WV
Grand Badger
Buckhannon River
339
2.2/22
6.1
Community
Hawthorne
Randolph County, WV
Mill Creek Water
Mill Creek
53.4
0.8/0.8
2.0
Department
Randolph County, WV
Town of Beverly
TBD
53.5
0.0/2.5
N/A
Randolph County, WV
Huttonsville
Tygart River
55.2
2.8/3.8
64
Medium Security
Valley
Prison
Augusta County, VA
City of Staunton
Middle River
1292
N/A
6.7
Greensville County, VA
City of Emporia
Mehenin River
2863 b
N/A
3 2
Nelson County, VA
NCSA — Schuyler
Johnson's Branch
175 2
N/A
18 8
AP -2
None Identified
AP -3
City of Suffolk, VA
Lake Kilby-
Lake Kilby and
569
N/A
5.6
Pitchkettle Creek
City of Suffolk, VA
Lake Meade'
Lake Kilby and
56.9
N/A
55
Pitchkettle Creek
City of Suffolk, VA
Pitchkettle Raw
Lake Kilby and
56.9
N/A
4.3
Watet'
Pitchkettle Creek
AP -4
None Identified
AP -5
Greensville County, VA
City of Emporia
Mehenin River
N/Ad
N/A
0.2
SUPPLY HEADER PROJECT
TL -635
Wetzel County, WV
Pine Grove Water
North Fork
N/A
N/A
N/A
Fishing Creek
TL -636
None Identified
Sources: V*rVDHHR, 2015a, 2015b, 2003 a -e; Soto, 2015; NCDENR, 2014a,
a Milepost of project crossing of waterbody or if associated with a Zone of Critical Concern or Zone of Peripheral Concern it is the
imlepost where the Project first enters the zone.
b Pipeline crossing is not within 3.0 miles upstream of the public surface water intake.
C The three water intake facilities within the City of Suffolk, Virginia, are operated by the City of Portsmouth.
d AP -5 crosses within the Assessment Watershed, but does not cross the Mehenin River
N/A Zones of Critical Concern are identified in West Virginia and do not apply in Virginia.
2-31

Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
TABLE 2 2 5-2
Water Source Watersheds Crossed by the Atlantic Coast Pipeline in North Carolina
Water Supply Classifications in North Carolina (NCDENR-DWR, 2014):
WS -III = Waters used as sources of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food processing purposes; generally in low to moderately
developed watersheds.
WS -IV = Waters used as sources of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food processing purposes; generally in moderately to highly
developed watersheds
NSW — Nutrient Sensitive Waters, supplemental classification where additional nutrient management is needed due to potential for
excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation.
2.2.6 Horizontal Directional Drill Mud Water Use
Atlantic and DTI are proposing to cross six waterbodies, one water impoundment, and
two road rights-of-way using the HDD method. In addition, the HDD method is proposed to
cross beneath both the Blue Ridge Parkway and the Appalachian National Scenic Trail at the
same time. A detailed description of the HDD method is provided in Section 1.5.2.1 of Resource
Report 1. Geotechnical studies will be conducted at each of the planned HDD crossings. To the
extent possible, these studies will identify subsurface conditions along the proposed drill paths
and at the entry and exit sides of each of the respective crossings.
Throughout the drilling process, a fluid mixture consisting of water and bentonite clay (a
naturally occurring mineral) will be pumped into the drill hole to lubricate the bit, transport
cuttings to the surface, and maintain the integrity of the hole. Small pits will be dug at or near
the entry and exit points for the HDD to temporarily store the drilling fluid and cuttings, which
will consist of a non-toxic slurry of water, bentonite, and native ground substrate (rock and
soil). The fluid and cuttings will be pumped from the pits to an on-site recycling unit where the
fluid will be processed for reuse. After completion of the HDD operations, the recovered drilling
mud will be recycled or disposed of at an approved upland location or disposal facility in
accordance with Federal and State/Commonwealth regulations. The estimated water
requirements and withdrawal location for each of the proposed HDDs are summarized in
Table 2.2.6-1. Withdrawals will be conducted in accordance with State/Commonwealth
regulations and permit requirements.
2.2.7 Hydrostatic Test Water and Fugitive Dust Control Water
After backfilling and other construction activities that could affect the proposed ACP and
SHP pipelines are complete, each pipeline will be hydrostatically tested, in accordance with
49 CFR 192 and applicable permit conditions, to verify that each pipeline is free from leaks and
will provide the required margin of safety at operating pressures. Additional information about
hydrostatic testing is provided in Section 1.5.1.6 of Resource Report 1.
2-32
Approximate Mileposts
Watershed Name
(AP -2 Mainline)
County
Water Supply Classification'
Fishing Creek (Enfield)
30 1 to 39.5
Halifax and Nash Counties
WS -IV, NSW
Tar River (Tar River Res.)
5 1.0 to 60.4
Nash County
WS -IV, NSW
Toisnot Swamp
60.4 to 63.8
Nash County
WS -111, NSW
Cape Fear River (Fayetteville)
130.6 to 134.8
Cumberland County
Ws_iv
Cape Fear F iver (Smithfield Packing Co)
155 9 to 159.3
Cumberland County
WS -1v
Lumber River (Lumberton)
173.1 to 180.4
Robeson County
WS -1v
Water Supply Classifications in North Carolina (NCDENR-DWR, 2014):
WS -III = Waters used as sources of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food processing purposes; generally in low to moderately
developed watersheds.
WS -IV = Waters used as sources of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food processing purposes; generally in moderately to highly
developed watersheds
NSW — Nutrient Sensitive Waters, supplemental classification where additional nutrient management is needed due to potential for
excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation.
2.2.6 Horizontal Directional Drill Mud Water Use
Atlantic and DTI are proposing to cross six waterbodies, one water impoundment, and
two road rights-of-way using the HDD method. In addition, the HDD method is proposed to
cross beneath both the Blue Ridge Parkway and the Appalachian National Scenic Trail at the
same time. A detailed description of the HDD method is provided in Section 1.5.2.1 of Resource
Report 1. Geotechnical studies will be conducted at each of the planned HDD crossings. To the
extent possible, these studies will identify subsurface conditions along the proposed drill paths
and at the entry and exit sides of each of the respective crossings.
Throughout the drilling process, a fluid mixture consisting of water and bentonite clay (a
naturally occurring mineral) will be pumped into the drill hole to lubricate the bit, transport
cuttings to the surface, and maintain the integrity of the hole. Small pits will be dug at or near
the entry and exit points for the HDD to temporarily store the drilling fluid and cuttings, which
will consist of a non-toxic slurry of water, bentonite, and native ground substrate (rock and
soil). The fluid and cuttings will be pumped from the pits to an on-site recycling unit where the
fluid will be processed for reuse. After completion of the HDD operations, the recovered drilling
mud will be recycled or disposed of at an approved upland location or disposal facility in
accordance with Federal and State/Commonwealth regulations. The estimated water
requirements and withdrawal location for each of the proposed HDDs are summarized in
Table 2.2.6-1. Withdrawals will be conducted in accordance with State/Commonwealth
regulations and permit requirements.
2.2.7 Hydrostatic Test Water and Fugitive Dust Control Water
After backfilling and other construction activities that could affect the proposed ACP and
SHP pipelines are complete, each pipeline will be hydrostatically tested, in accordance with
49 CFR 192 and applicable permit conditions, to verify that each pipeline is free from leaks and
will provide the required margin of safety at operating pressures. Additional information about
hydrostatic testing is provided in Section 1.5.1.6 of Resource Report 1.
2-32

Resource Report 2
Water Use and Quality
TABLE 2.2.6-1
Water Requirements for Horizontal Directional Drills for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline
Pipeline
Approximate Water
County or City / State or
Segment
Requirement
Locations of Water
Project/HDD
Commonwealth
Milepost
(thousands of gallons)'
Withdrawals
ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE
Blue Ridge Parkway/ Appalachian
Augusta County, Virginia
AP -1 Mainline/
336
Water will be
National Scenic Trail
MP 158.2
Trucked In
James River
Nelson and Buckingham
AP-IMamlme/
229
James River
Counties, Virginia
MP 184.7
Roanoke River
Northampton and Halifax
AP -2 Mainline/
73
Roanoke River
Counties, North Carolina
MP 9.9
Cape Fear River
Cumberland County, North
AP -2 Mainline/
146
Cape Fear River
Carolina
MP 149.3
Nottoway River
Southampton, Virginia
AP -3 Lateral/
15
Nottoway River
MP 32.6
Blackwater River
Southampton County and City
AP -3 Lateral/
17
Blackwater River
of Suffolk, Virginia
MP 38.6
1-64 Crossing
City of Chesapeake, Virginia
AP -3 Lateral/
28
Water will be
MP 74.4
Trucked In
US Route 17
City of Chesapeake, Virginia
AP -3 Lateral/
27
Water will be
MP 75.3
Trucked In
VEPCO Impoundment
City of Chesapeake, Virginia
AP -3 Lateral/
17
Water Impoundment
MP 75.6
South Elizabeth River
City of Chesapeake, Virginia
AP -3 Lateral/
37
Elizabeth River
MP 78.5
SUPPLY HEADER PROJECT
No HDI)s proposed
N/A
N/A
a Atlantic and DTI continue
to review waterbodies for supply capacity
Water for hydrostatic testing will be withdrawn and discharged in accordance with
State/Commonwealth regulations and required permits. To minimize impacts of the short
duration of larger volume withdrawals of water from streams, Atlantic and DTI will construct
water impoundment structures adjacent to several of the water withdrawal points. Use of the
water holding areas will allow for a longer duration of withdrawal at lower rates to minimize
impacts on stream flows. Extending the timeframe for withdrawal of water and complying with
State/Commonwealth regulations and permit requirements will minimize impacts on the aquatic
resources within streams used for water withdrawal." Table 2.2.7-1 summarizes the water
withdrawal and discharge locations for the proposed hydrostatic testing of ACP and SHP
facilities.
During water withdrawal, surface water intakes will be set in areas of flowing water to
avoid sedimentation. The rate of withdrawal will be controlled to assure a continued flow within
the surface water source. Typically, water will be withdrawn at a rate of 1,500 to 3,000 gallons
per minute at each withdrawal location, unless otherwise specified in applicable permits. To
minimize impacts, water will be drawn out with a low-pressure pump. Screening on the intakes
will be sized according to withdrawal permit requirements. Secondary containment will be used
on all pumps.
In comments filed with the FERC, the USFS commented that the effects of water withdrawals on aquatic resources on National Forest lands
should be discussed.
2-33

Resource Report 2
Water Use and Quality
Once hydrostatic testing is complete, the test water will be discharged to well -vegetated
upland areas or back to the same source from which it was obtained, which will eliminate the
translocation of invasive aquatic species that may be present. In addition, this practice will also
prevent transporting water from impaired streams (i.e., 3 03 d listed waters) to other waterbodies.
Water discharged over land will be directed through containment structures such as hay bales
and/or filter bags. The discharge rate will be regulated using valves and energy dissipation
devices to prevent erosion. Water will be discharged at a rate commensurate with agency
consultations and permit requirements, but will typically range from 1,500 to 2,500 gallon per
minute.
No chemicals will be added to the test water during hydrostatic testing. Water will be
tested prior to introducing it in the pipeline. The water will be tested again prior to discharge
once the hydrostatic test is complete. The water will then be discharged in accordance with the
Plan and Procedures and applicable permits through an approved discharge structure to remove
turbidity or suspended sediments (i.e., dirt left in the pipe during construction) and to prevent
scour and erosion. Alternatively, the water will be hauled offsite for disposal at an approved
location (Resource Report 1, Section 1.5.1.6). Construction related water discharges in karst
areas will be directed to well -vegetated upland areas with no karst features present or to
approved discharge structures. Water will not be discharged directly into sinkholes, and
discharged water will be directed away from known karst features with a direct connection to the
phreatic zone of the karst. 12 Where required, Atlantic and DTI will verify coverage under each
State's/Commonwealth's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) or
State/Commonwealth-equivalent general permit prior to discharge of hydrostatic test water.
In addition to the water required for hydrostatic testing, approximately 3 8.2 million and
3.4 million gallons of water will be required for dust control during construction of the ACP and
SHP, respectively. The water needed for dust control will vary based on site and weather
conditions and will be obtained in relatively small volumes throughout the construction and
restoration phases of the Projects. The sources for this water are still being evaluated; the
majority will be identified during construction. The withdrawals will be in accordance with
State/Commonwealth regulations and required permits. Typically, water for dust control will be
withdrawn at a rate of 1,500 to 3,000 gallons per minute.
Water for hydrostatic testing will generally be withdrawn from August through October;
however, this schedule will be dependent on the timing of permit approvals and construction
schedules for the Projects and may be subject to adjustment. Water for fugitive dust control will
generally be withdrawn between the months of May and September.
2.2.8 Sensitive Surface Waters
Waterbodies can be considered sensitive to pipeline construction for several reasons,
including the presence of critical aquatic habitat or special status species; high-quality
recreational, visual resource, or historic value (e.g., waterbodies listed in the Nationwide Rivers
Inventory [NRI]); sensitive State/Conunonwealth use or high quality designations (e.g.,
coldwater fishery or trout water, Tier 3 waterbodies); or an important riparian area. NRI rivers
12 In comments filed with the FERC, the Virginia Cave Board raised concerns about discharging hydrostatic test water within the Jackson
River Valley Atlantic is currently proposing one discharge location with the Jackson River Valley. ( )
2-34

Resource Report 2
Water Use and Quality
crossed are summarized in Resource Report 8. Additionally, waterbodies that have special
fisheries designations and/or protected species are addressed in greater detail in Resource
Report 3, and time of year restrictions associated with State/Commonwealth designated streams
are included in Appendix 2A. Waterbodies can also be considered sensitive if they are of special
interest to a land management agency, resource agency, or Native American Tribe.
TABLE 2.2.7-1
Water Requirements for Hydrostatic Testing for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and
Header Project
State or
Approximate Water
Commonwealth/
Requirement
Locations of Discharges
Spread
(Millions of Gallons)'
Locations of Water Withdrawals (Milepost)
(Milepost)
ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE
West Virginia
Spread 1
4.1
West Fork River (MP 8.2)
113; 21.7; 26 9; 29 79
Spread 2
3.0
Buckhannon River (MP 31.7)
38.7, 46.8; 54.1; 55.8; 57.2
Spread 3
2.8
Tygart Valley River (MP 56 5)
58.1; 63.1
Spread 3
25
Shaver's Fork River (MP 67 .9) b
703 b ; 77.3
Spread 3
13
West Fork Greenbrier River (MP 71.4) b
84.0; 90.7
Spread 3
13
East Fork Greenbrier River (MP 77. 1)
93.2
Virginia
Spread 4
3.2
BuIlpasture Creek (MP 102 9)
103 9; 109.9 b; 1157,1214 b, 125.5
Spread 5
32
Middle River (MP 130 4)
129 5, 132. 1; 134.2; 14 1. 1; 149 6; 159.9;
165.9
Spread 5
36
Rockfish Creek (MP 163.7)
168 8, 172 8; 178.9; 183.4
Spread 6
8.1
James River (MP 184.7)
183.4; 205.0
Spread 6
7.5
Appomattox River (MP 220.8)
222.9,2396
Spread 7
7.8
Nottoway River (MP 260.7)
239.6; 260.7; 280.1; 300 1
Spread I 1
1.1
Meherrin River(MP 12.4)
0.0; 12.4
Spread 11
0032
Nottoway River (MP 32 7)
24 3; 35.7, 37.8, 38.3
Spread 11
12
Blackwater River (MP 38.6)
38.6; 53.2, 55 9
Spread 11
0.5
South Branch Elizabeth River (MP 78.5)
76.1; 78.5
North Carolina
Spread 8
8.1
Roanoke River (MP 9.9)
0 0; 9 85; 40.0; 47.6; 50.9, 52 7; 56.4
Spread 8
39
Tar River (MP 59.4)
59.7; 63 0; 64 2; 65.6
Spread 9
5.3
Neuse River (MP 98.5)
65 6; 67.1; 74.7; 79 1, 88 0; 93 3; 98.5;
100.9; 105 0, 107.6; 117.8; 124.0
Spread 10
62
Cape Fear River (MP 149.3)
126.7; 137 5; 144. 1; 149.3; 160.7; 167. 1;
177.8, 181 0; 182 3
SUPPLY HEADER PROJECT
West Virginia
Spread 13 09 South Fork Fishing Creek (MP 29.0)
Spread 13 2.1 McElroy Creek (MP 18.5)
Pennsylvania
Spread 14 0.7 Municipal Water Trucked In (MP 2.7)
a Atlantic and DTI continue to review waterbodies; for supply and discharge capacity.
b Located on USFS lands
29.0; 30 4; 33 6
0 0, 7 4; 10.4; 10.9; 18.5, 29 0
0.0; 2.7; 3.9
The proposed ACP and SHP pipeline facilities will cross 129 and 17 waterbodies,
respectively, which are considered sensitive based on the criteria described above. In addition,
ACP will cross four drainages with rare fish species. A list of these waterbodies and drainages is
2-35

Resource Report 2
Water Use and Quality
provided in Table 2C in Appendix 2C. Applicable timing restrictions, permit requirements and
conditions, and best management practices will be utilized to minimize impacts on these waters.
The USFS stated in a comment letter to the FERC that between October I through June 1
potential sediment -producing ground disturbing activities within the Monongahela National
Forest that are within 100 feet of a perennial trout streams require the use of additional erosion
control measures and seeding or mulching, applied concurrently with the activity. Atlantic will
implement these measures which are required by the USFS. Additional details are included in
Resource Report 3. 1
2.2.9 Waterbody Construction Procedures
Atlantic and DTI will use the open -cut, flume, dam -and -pump, cofferdam, conventional
bore, or HDD methods to construct the proposed ACP and SHP pipelines across waterbodies.
Atlantic and DTI will utilize the least environmentally damaging approach in conjunction with
available best management practices for each waterbody crossing to minimize impacts on the
waterbody itself and any receiving waters. In each case and for each method, Atlantic and DTI
will adhere to the measures specified in the Procedures; site-specific modifications to the
Procedures requested by Atlantic and DTI and approved by the FERC; and additional
requirements identified in Federal or State/Commonwealth waterbody crossing permits. Permits
required for the ACP and SHP are provided in Table 1. 12-1 in Resource Report 1. Atlantic and
DTI will prepare a Plan of Development (POD) or Construction, Operation, and Maintenance
Plan (COM Plan), which will identify construction procedures and mitigation measures to be
implemented on federally managed lands. Atlantic and DTI will submit preliminary draft PODs
or COM Plans to the Bureau of Land Management, USFS, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) in September 2015.
The proposed construction method for each waterbody crossing along the proposed ACP
and SHP pipelines are identified in Appendix 2A. Detailed descriptions of the proposed crossing
methods are provided in Section 1.5.2.1 in Resource Report 1. Construction methods for
waterbodies that isolate the pipeline trench from flowing water (e.g. flume, dam -and -pump, or
cofferdam) will be utilized where these methods are proposed and perceptible flow is present at
the time of the crossing.
2.2.10 Waterbody Construction -Related Impacts and Mitigation
Impacts on waterbodies crossed by the proposed ACP and SHP facilities could occur as a
result of construction activities in stream channels and on adjacent banks. Clearing and grading
of stream banks, blasting (if required), in -stream trenching, trench dewatering, and backfilling
could each result in temporary, local modifications of aquatic habitat involving sedimentation,
increased turbidity, and decreased dissolved oxygen concentrations. In almost all cases, these
impacts will be limited to the period of in -stream construction, and conditions will return to
normal shortly after stream restoration activities are completed. Agency recommended time of
year restrictions are listed in Appendix 2A and discussed further in Resource Report 3.
Additionally, Atlantic and DTI have reviewed the route and made ad ustments to provide for
additional avoidance and minimization of impacts on stream crossings, such as avoiding multiple
crossings of the same stream, where feasible.
2-36

Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
Site-specific questions pertaining to avoidance and minimization are common and often
can be resolved by reviewing site-specific competing constraints. For example, a comment
received by the West Virginia Department of Natural Resources recommended minimization of
the number of crossings of Becky Creek near MP 58.7. 13 Close examination of this area
indicates there is a nearby home site and many out buildings that require crossing of Becky
Creek twice to avoid crossing thru this landowner home site. Similar evaluations have been
completed across the Projects and details pertaining to the alternatives review are provided in
Resource Report 10.
Vegetative clearing, grading for construction, and soil compaction by heavy equipment
near stream banks could promote erosion of the banks and the transport of sediment into
waterbodies by stormwater runoff. To minimize these potential impacts, Atlantic and DTI will
install equipment bridges, mats, and pads, as necessary. Temporary bridges will be installed
across waterbodies in accordance with the Procedures to allow construction equipment and
personnel to cross. The bridges may include clean rock fill over culverts, timber mats supported
by flumes, railcar flatbeds, flexi-float apparatuses, or other types of spans. Additionally, Atlantic
and DTI will locate additional temporary workspace (ATWS) at least 50 feet from stream banks
(with the exception of site-specific modifications requested by Atlantic and DTI and approved by
the FERC).
To meet with the requirements within the Forest Plans for both the Monongahela
National Forest and George Washington National Forest, ATWS will be setback 100 feet from
in -stream waterbody crossings that occur on USFS lands. Temporary sediment barriers will be
installed around disturbed areas as outlined in the Plan and Procedures. Upon completion of
construction, Atlantic and DTI will install permanent erosion control measures at stream crossing
locations to provide long-term protection of water quality according to the Plan and Procedures
and permit requirements. Atlantic and DTI will require equipment used during construction to
be cleaned prior to working on the ACP and SHP, as required by applicable permits and the Plan
and Procedures.
Sedimentation and increased turbidity can occur as a result of in -stream construction
activities, trench dewatering, or stormwater runoff from construction areas. In slow moving
waters, increases in suspended sediments (turbidity) may increase the biochemical oxygen
demand and reduce levels of dissolved oxygen in localized areas during construction. Suspended
sediments also may alter the chemical and physical characteristics of the water column (e.g.,
color and clarity) on a temporary basis. Atlantic and DTI will use material excavated from the
pipeline trench to backfill the trench once the pipe is installed to avoid introduction of foreign
substances into waterbodies. Potential effects on fisheries due to increased turbidity and
sedimentation resulting from in -stream construction activities are addressed in
Resource Report 3.
As noted above, Atlantic and DTI will install temporary equipment bridges to reduce the
potential for turbidity and sedimentation resulting from construction equipment and vehicular
traffic crossing waterbodies. Temporary bridges will be installed across waterbodies in
13 In comments filed with the FERC, the West Virginia Department of Natural Resources recommended avoiding multiple crossmgs of Becky
Creek near MP 58 7.
2-37

Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
accordance with the Procedures to allow construction equipment and personnel to cross. The
bridges may include clean rock fill over culverts, timber mats supported by flumes, railcar
flatbeds, flexi-float apparatuses, or other types of spans. Construction equipment will be
required to use the bridges, except that the clearing and bridge installation crews will be allowed
one pass through waterbodies before bridges are installed. The temporary bridges will be
removed when construction and restoration activities are complete.
In -stream construction will typically be completed within 24 to 48 hours at each stream
crossing where waterbodies are less than 100 feet in width. After the pipeline is installed across
a waterbody using one of the methods described above, the trench will be backfilled with native
material excavated from the trench. The strearnbed profile will be restored to pre-existing
contours and grade conditions to prevent scouring. The stream banks will then be restored as
near as practicable to pre-existing conditions and stabilized. Stabilization measures could
include seeding, tree planting, installation of erosion control blankets, or installation of riprap
materials, as appropriate. Temporary erosion controls will be installed immediately following
bank restoration. The waterbody crossing area will be inspected and maintained until restoration
of vegetation is complete.
In addition, according to the Plan and Procedures, Atlantic and DTI will install temporary
erosion control devises in uplands adjacent to waterbody crossings subsequent to construction
and until there is successful revegetation of the construction right-of-way. Permanent erosion
controls will be installed, such as slope breakers, to aid long-term stabilization along with the
restored vegetation. Within riparian corridors on lands managed by the GWNF, in-strearn and
terrestrial woody debris will be.replaced during restoration of the pipeline right-of-way as
practicable. Additional details regarding restoration of upland vegetation adjacent to
waterbodies on USFS lands are provided in Resource Report 3. 14
Construction methods for waterbodies are described in Section 1.5.2. 1. The specific
construction method proposed for each waterbody crossing is listed in Appendix 2A. The
method proposed for each crossing is dependent on topography, soil conditions, subsurface
geology, and the width and depth of the waterbody.
HDD is a proven method for minimizing impacts on surface resources, including
waterbodies, given the appropriate conditions. 15 The radius of curvature, subsurface geology,
and right-of-way configuration are all considered in assessing the feasibility of an HDD. Right-
of-way configuration is an important consideration because HDD requires assembly of a drill
string (i.e., the segment of pipeline to be installed beneath the waterbody) in line with the
alignment of the HDD. This can require clearing a "false" right-of-way, which can affect
riparian and/or wetland vegetation adjacent to the waterbody.
In routing the pipeline and selecting crossing methods for waterbodies, Atlantic and DTI
attempted to minimize the number and lengths of crossings, as well as, potential impacts on
wildlife, vegetation, and water quality. Many waterbodies, for example, are proposed to be
In comments filed with the FERC, the USFS expressed concerns about sedimentation in streams due to exposed slopes subsequent to
construction.
In comments filed with the FERC, the EPA identified the HDD method as the least disruptive construction method in many situations.
2-38

Resource Report 2
Water Use and Quality
crossed using a dry crossing method, such as flume, dam-and-purnp, or cofferdam, to avoid or
minimize impacts on water quality due to sedimentation and turbidity and impacts on fisheries
by proving uninterrupted access for fish to swim across or around the construction area.
During construction, the open trench may accumulate water, either from a high water
table and seepage of groundwater into the trench or from precipitation. In accordance with the
Plan and Procedures, and when necessary, trench water will be removed and discharged into an
energy dissipation/sediment filtration device, such as a geotextile filter bag and/or straw bale
structure, to minimize the potential for erosion and sedimentation.
The application of concrete coating will generally occur in contractor yards identified for
the Projects. In areas where concrete coating of pipe is required within the construction right-of-
way, the concrete coating activities will occur in accordance with the SPCC Plan (see
Appendix 1F of Resource Report 1). Concrete coating activities will occur a minimum of
100 feet from wetlands, waterbodies, and springs, and 300 feet from karst features. 16 Concrete -
coated pipe will be installed after the concrete is dried and will not be dispersed when submerged
in water. Concrete coating is used to create negative buoyancy along the pipeline when required
for waterbody or wetland crossings and would only be required on USFS lands if necessitated by
site-specific conditions.
Based on analysis of the Soil Survey Geographic Database, approximately I I percent
(67.8 miles) of the proposed ACP and SHP pipeline routes will cross areas with hard bedrock at
depths of less than 60 inches (Soil Survey Staff, 2015). Construction in these areas may require
blasting or other special construction techniques (see Section 6.2 of Resource Report 6).
Individual stream,crossing locations where blasting may be necessary will be identified during
construction based on site-spccific conditions.
Blasting in streams will only be used when traditional means of trenching (e.g., ripper
shanks, excavators, rock hammers) have failed or are deemed impractical due to constraints
imposed by stream crossing time limits. If required, blasting will primarily occur at dry
crossings, after the work area has been isolated from stream flow. If blasting is necessary in a
flowing waterbody, the use of controlled blasting techniques, where small, localized detonations
are utilized, will avoid or minimize the impacts of blasting and limit rock fracture to the
immediate vicinity of these activities. Immediately following blasting, Atlantic and DTI will
remove shot rock that impedes stream flow. Blasting techniques will be in compliance with
Federal, State/Commonwealth, and local regulations governing the use of explosives and in
accordance with the Blasting Plan (see Appendix 1 F of Resource Report 1) and the Plan and
Procedures.
Preparation of the rock for blasting (e.g., drilling shot holes) is expected to cause enough
disturbance in waterbodies to displace most aquatic organisms from the immediate vicinity of the
blast. To further reduce the potential for impacts on aquatic organisms in flowing waterbodies,
Atlantic and DTI will use techniques such as scare charges or banging on a submerged piece of
pipe before the blast to disperse mobile aquatic organisms from the blast area before the blast is
16 In comments filed with the Conmussion, the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries said that in-st,. use of concrete should
be done only m dry con(htions, allowmg concrete to harden prior to returning stream flow
2-39

Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
conducted. These steps will avoid or minimize the impact of blasting, if necessary, on aquatic
organisms; nonetheless, organisms that are not displaced by pre -blast measures could be
impacted.
The SPCC Plan for the Projects (see Appendix 1F of Resource Report 1) will describe
measures that personnel and contractors will implement to prevent and, if necessary control,
inadvertent spill of fuels, lubricants, solvents, and other hazardous materials that could affect
water quality. As required in the Procedures and the SPCC Plan, hazardous materials, chemicals,
lubricating oils, and fuels used during construction will be stored in upland areas at least 100 feet
from wetlands and waterbodies. Refueling of construction equipment will be conducted at least
100 feet from wetlands and waterbodies, whenever possible. However, there will be certain
instances where equipment refueling and lubricating may be necessary in or near waterbodies.
For example, stationary equipment, such as water pumps for withdrawing hydrostatic test water,
may need to be operated continuously on the banks of waterbodies and may require refueling in
place. The SPCC Plan will address the handling of fuel and other materials associated with the
Projects. As required by the Procedures, the SPCC Plan will be available during construction on
each construction spread.
As noted above, it is possible that previously undocumented sites with contaminated soils
or groundwater could be discovered during construction of the Projects. Atlantic and DTI have
prepared and will implement a Contaminated Media Plan (see Appendix 1 F of Resource Report
1) to address these circumstances. The Contaminated Media Plan will describe measures to be
implemented in the event that signs of contaminated soil and/or groundwater are encountered
during construction. Signs of potential contamination could include discoloration of soil,
chemical -like odors, or sheens on soils or water. Containment measures will be implemented to
isolate and contain the suspected soil or groundwater contamination and collect and test samples
of the soil or groundwater to identify the contaminants. Once the contaminants are identified, a
response plan will be developed for crossing or avoiding the site.
Use of the HDD method may avoid impacts on waterbodies because it allows for the pipe
to be installed underneath the ground surface without disturbance of the streambed or banks.
However, a temporary, localized increase in turbidity could occur in the event of an inadvertent
release of drilling fluid to the waterbody. Drilling fluid to be used on the ACP will be composed
of water and bentonite clay (a naturally occurring mineral). The EPA does not list bentonite as a
hazardous substance, and no long-term adverse environmental impacts are expected should an
inadvertent release occur. Similarly, while native soils may mix with the drilling fluid as a result
of the drilling process, no adverse environmental impacts from these materials are expected
should an inadvertent return occur.
Due to the possibility of drilling fluid loss during HDD operations, Atlantic and DTI have
prepared and will implement a Horizontal Directional Drill Fluid Monitoring, Operations, and
Contingency Plan (see Appendix 1F of Resource Report 1). The plan will describe measures to
prevent, detect, and respond to inadvertent returns, including but not limited to, monitoring
during drilling operations, the types of equipment and materials that must be readily available to
contain and clean up drilling mud, containment and mitigation measures, notification
requirements, and guidelines for abandoning the directional drill, if necessary.
2-40

Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
Once construction is complete, the pipeline will be buried below the ground surface and,
therefore, will not impact water retention or floodplain storage within riparian corridors.
Atlantic and DTI are routing the proposed pipelines to avoid sharp angle crossings or crossing
streams where high stream energy could result in bank erosion. Atlantic and DTI will implement
measures outlined in the Procedures to minimize impacts on the waterbodies crossed, including
the installation of trench plugs to prevent water from flowing along the trenchline during and
after construction. These measures will minimize potential impacts on surface and below ground
hydrology. All waterbody crossings will be in accordance with the requirements identified in the
Federal or State/Commonwealth waterbody crossing permits obtained for the Projects.
During operations, the proposed pipelines will transport natural gas, which primarily is
methane. Methane is buoyant at atmospheric temperatures and pressure, and disperses rapidly in
air. The proposed pipelines will not carry liquids. Therefore, in the unlikely event of a leak,
impacts on surface waters or groundwater from methane are not anticipated. Moreover, Atlantic
and DTI will utilize a rigorous Integrity Management Plan, as discussed in Section 11.2.3 of
draft Resource Report 11, to prevent leaks on the system. 17
2.2.11 Facility Operations
In some cases, construction of aboveground facilities and access roads will require
permanent impacts on waterbodies. Where permanent access roads cross perennial streams
within USFS lands, the access road and associated drainage structures (i.e., culverts) will be
designed and constructed in accordance with USFS requirements. These permanent impacts
could include the placement of a culvert or bridge across the waterbody to accommodate a
permanent access road or the relocation of a watercourse to allow for the siting of an
aboveground facility. Atlantic and DTI will continue to adjust the footprint and/or location of
the aboveground facilities and access roads in order to reduce or eliminate impacts on
waterbodies. Where pennanent impacts are required, Atlantic and Dominion will comply with
all Federal and State/Commonwealth permit requirements. To stabilize improved access roads,
Atlantic and DTI will implement erosion and sediment controls according to the Plan and
Procedures and allow stabilization of access road slopes adjacent to waterbodies.
Impacts during operation of the proposed facilities will be limited to instances where
maintenance activities require excavation or repair in the vicinity of a waterbody. In such a case,
the impacts and mitigation will be similar to those described above for construction activities.
As part of the POD and/or the COM Plan for a Right -of -Way Grant to cross Federal
lands, Atlantic will consult with the USFS and applicable Federal agencies to develop a stream
crossing monitoring plan and a water quality monitoring plan.
Under the FERC requirements for construction and operation of a new interstate natural
gas transmission pipeline, Atlantic will be required to comply with the Procedures that provide
strict requirements associated with natural gas pipeline construction and restoration of streams
and rivers. The FERC staff has developed these Procedures over the past 27 years in conjunction
17 In comments filed with the Commission, several individuals said that leaks in the pipeline could contaminate groundwater and surface water
over time.
2-41

Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
with numerous Federal and State/Commonwealth agencies, including the USFS, to ensure that
interstate natural gas pipeline construction and mitigation, including restoration, in the United
States is conducted while implementing the most environmentally protective and acceptable best
management practices.
Atlantic will be required to utilize environmental inspectors during construction to ensure
compliance with the environmental requirements of not only the FERC authorization, but also of
all other Federal and State/Commonwealth permits, as well as the requirements of federal and
state land managers.
During operations, line patrols will ensure that the integrity of the pipeline is maintained
and leaks are rapidly detected and repaired. Atlantic will inspect the transmission pipeline and
associated aboveground facilities monthly via aircraft. The aircraft patrols provide information
on erosion, exposed pipe, possible encroachment, possible leaks, and other conditions that could
affect the safety and operation of the pipeline systems. Atlantic and DTI will incorporate an
aerial patrol -based mechanical leak detection system capable of measuring methane, total
hydrocarbons, and carbon dioxide at sub -parts -per -million concentrations. The system uses a
monitoring rate of 50 samples per second to immediately pinpoint gas leaks, which are then
logged via Global Positioning System (GPS). Ground-based surveillance activities will also be
conducted on an annual basis and additional periodic patrols will be conducted on an as needed
basis.
Both the stream crossing and water quality monitoring plans will include monitoring
requirements to be implemented in the MNF and GWNF. For the stream crossing monitoring
plan, Atlantic will conduct an examination of the waterbody crossings on USFS lands annually
as part of its ground-based surveillance program to ensure stream stability and maintenance of
river banks. Atlantic will report the results of these inspections to the relevant Federal agencies.
Regarding water quality monitoring, as part of its aerial and ground-based surveillance
activities, Atlantic will identify pipeline integrity issues (erosion, leaks, etc.) and institute
immediate corrective action. As such, no long-term effects to water quality are anticipated as a
result of pipeline operations. Atlantic will report the results of pipeline inspections to the
relevant Federal agencies and will work with them as needed to implement the water quality
monitoring plan.
2.3 WETLANDS
The USACE and EPA jointly define wetlands as "those areas that are inundated or
saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that
under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions." The FERC defines wetlands as "any area that is not actively
cultivated or rotated cropland and that satisfies the requirements of the current Federal
methodology for identifying and delineating wetlands."
Wetland delineations for the ACP and SHP were conducted using a definition of "waters
of the U.S." that is consistent with, and at least as stringent as, the final Clean Water Rule:
Definition of "Waters of the United States, " 80 Federal Register 37054 (June 29, 2015). Atlantic
2-42

Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
and DTI will obtain preliminary jurisdictional determinations from the USACE for these
delineations.
The ACP will cross four USACE Districts: Pittsburgh, Huntington, Norfolk, and
Wilmington. ACP facilities in Harrison, Lewis, Upshur, and Randolph Counties, West Virginia
are in the Pittsburgh District. ACP facilities in Pocahontas County, West Virginia are in the
Huntington District. ACP facilities in Virginia are in the Norfolk District. ACP facilities in
North Carolina are in the Wilmington District.
The SHP will cross two USACE Districts: Pittsburgh and Huntington. SHP facilities in
Pennsylvania and in Harrison and Marshall Counties, West Virginia are in the Pittsburg District.
SHP facilities in Wetzel, Tyler, and Doddridge Counties, West Virginia are in the Huntington
District.
2.3.1 Wetland Types
The proposed ACP Project area contains palustrine and estuarine wetlands, while the
proposed SHP Project area only contains palustrine and riverine wetlands. Palustrine wetlands
include all non -tidal wetlands dominated by lichens, emergent mosses, persistent emergents,
shrubs, or trees. Salinity in these wetlands is below 0.5 percent. Estuarine wetlands are
deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands which are at least occasionally diluted by
freshwater runoff. Salinity gradients can range from hyperhaline to oligohaline. Riverine
wetlands include all wetlands and deepwater habitats contained within a channel, with the
exception of wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses, or
lichens and habitats with water containing ocean -derived salts in excess of 0.5 percent
(Cowardin et al., 1979).
Based on field survey data augmented by FWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI) data,
the proposed ACP facilities will cross palustrine emergent (PEM), palustrine scrub -shrub (PSS),
palustrine forested (PFO), palustrine aquatic bed (PAB), palustrine unconsolidated bottom
(PUB), and estuarine intertidal emergent (E2E) wetland types. Based on the same data sources,
the proposed SHP pipeline facilities will cross PEM, PSS, and PFO wetlands. NWI maps for the
ACP and SHP are provided in Appendix 2G.
2.3.2 Existing Wetland Resources
During the routing phase of the Projects, NWI data was used to provide a preliminary
analysis of wetland resources and to assess where wetland impacts could be avoided or
minimized. NWI data was also used to estimate the number, size, and locations of wetlands
along the proposed pipeline routes prior to conducting wetland delineations in the fi6ld.
Atlantic and DTI began conducting field surveys during the 2014 field season, on
properties where survey permission was granted by the landowner, to identify and delineate
wetlands within the ACP and SHP pipeline construction corridors and other work areas. The
wetland delineation study area for the ACP and SHP consisted of a 300 -foot -wide corridor
centered on the proposed pipeline centerlines, a 50 -foot -wide corridor centered over access
roads, and the construction footprints at aboveground facility sites. The wetland delineation for
the Projects encompassed all areas required for installation of the proposed pipelines (i.e., the
construction right-of-way, additional temporary workspace, staging areas, and access roads) and
2-43

Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
the aboveground facilities (i.e., compressor and M&R stations and other facilities). Table 2.3.2-
I summarizes the survey progress for the ACP and SHP pipeline and aboveground facilities. In
addition, approximately 135 miles of access roads have been surveyed on ACP, and 33 miles of
access roads have been surveyed on SHP.
Wetlands were delineated in accordance with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region (Version 2.0) or the Regional
Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal
Plain Region (Version 2.0) (USACE, 1987, 2010, 2012), as appropriate. All wetlands within the
survey corridors were delineated regardless of the delineator's opinion regarding its
jurisdictional status. Observations of vegetation, hydrology, and soils were recorded, and
photographs were taken at each wetland. A more detailed description of the methodology used
for wetland delineations is included in the wetland and waterbody delineation reports for the
Projects (see Appendices 2D and 2E). Where field surveys were not able to be completed due to
lack of access to properties, a desktop assessment was completed to delineate wetlands and
waterbodies using a combination of NWI data, USGS topographic maps, Soil Survey Geographic
Database (SSURGO) data, and high resolution aerial photography. Field surveys in these areas
will be completed as access to properties is obtained.
2.3.3 Wetland Reserve Program
The Wetland Reserve Program was a program in which the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) provided technical and
financial support to private landowners who wanted to restore wetlands on their property. The
program offered landowners a means to establish long-term conservation practices while
achieving the greatest wetland functions and values for every acre enrolled in the program.
Conservation easement options included 30 -year easements and permanent easements (USDA
NRCS, 2008). The WRP program was repealed in the Agricultural Act of 2014 with the
establishment of a new program, the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP).
However, the change does not affect the validity or terms of the conservation easements
established through the WRP (USDA NRCS, 2014a). Based on a review of NRCS conservation
easement data, no VV`RP or ACEP conservation easements will be crossed by the proposed ACP
or SHP facilities (USDA NRCS, 2014b).
2-44
TABLE 2.3.2-1
wetland and waterbody Survey Status — Percentage Complete
Project/Facility Type
West Virginia
Virginia
North Carolina
Pennsylvania
Total
ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE
Mainline Pipeline
94
62
98
N/A
79
Compressor Stations
100
100
100
N/A
100
M&R and Pig Launcher/Receiver Sites
50
50
100
NIA
78
Contractor Yards
0
0
0
N/A
0
SUPPLY HEADER PROJECT
Mainline Pipeline
92
N/A
N/A
100
93
Compressor Stations
100
N/A
N/A
100
100
Pig Launcher/Receiver Sites
100
N/A
N/A
100
100
Contractor Yards
100
N/A
N/A
100
100
Wetlands were delineated in accordance with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region (Version 2.0) or the Regional
Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal
Plain Region (Version 2.0) (USACE, 1987, 2010, 2012), as appropriate. All wetlands within the
survey corridors were delineated regardless of the delineator's opinion regarding its
jurisdictional status. Observations of vegetation, hydrology, and soils were recorded, and
photographs were taken at each wetland. A more detailed description of the methodology used
for wetland delineations is included in the wetland and waterbody delineation reports for the
Projects (see Appendices 2D and 2E). Where field surveys were not able to be completed due to
lack of access to properties, a desktop assessment was completed to delineate wetlands and
waterbodies using a combination of NWI data, USGS topographic maps, Soil Survey Geographic
Database (SSURGO) data, and high resolution aerial photography. Field surveys in these areas
will be completed as access to properties is obtained.
2.3.3 Wetland Reserve Program
The Wetland Reserve Program was a program in which the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) provided technical and
financial support to private landowners who wanted to restore wetlands on their property. The
program offered landowners a means to establish long-term conservation practices while
achieving the greatest wetland functions and values for every acre enrolled in the program.
Conservation easement options included 30 -year easements and permanent easements (USDA
NRCS, 2008). The WRP program was repealed in the Agricultural Act of 2014 with the
establishment of a new program, the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP).
However, the change does not affect the validity or terms of the conservation easements
established through the WRP (USDA NRCS, 2014a). Based on a review of NRCS conservation
easement data, no VV`RP or ACEP conservation easements will be crossed by the proposed ACP
or SHP facilities (USDA NRCS, 2014b).
2-44

Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
2.3.4 Wetland Crossings
2.3.4.1 Pipeline Facilities
Based on field and NWI data, there will be a total of 1,068 wetland crossings by the
proposed ACP pipeline routes. Where the route crosses a single wetland more than once, each
separate crossing was counted. The proposed ACP mainline facilities will have 406 wetland
crossings along AP -1 (125 wetland crossings in West Virginia and 281 wetland crossings in
Virginia), and 421 wetland crossings along AP -2 in North Carolina. The proposed ACP lateral
pipeline facilities will have 239 wetland crossings along AP -3 (44 in North Carolina and 195 in
Virginia), no wetland crossings along AP -4 in Virginia, and two wetland crossings along AP -5 in
Virginia.
The combined linear crossing distance of all wetlands is 69.9 miles, accounting for
approximately 12.4 percent of the combined length of the pipeline routes. Approximately
9.6 percent (6.7 miles) of the wetlands crossed by the ACP pipeline facilities are characterized as
PEM, 76.1 percent (53.2 miles) are characterized as PFO, and 14.2 percent (9.9 miles) are
characterized as P S S. The remaining less than 0. 1 percent (0. 1 mile) of wetlands consists of
estuarine, and unconsolidated bottom wetland types. Based on a combination of survey data and
land use data for unsurveyed areas, 12 wetlands crossed by the ACP mainlines are characterized
as farmed wetlands (two on AP -1 in West Virginia; nine on AP -1 in Virginia; and one on AP -2
in North Carolina). In total, approximately 656.7 acres of wetlands will be temporarily impacted
by construction of the ACP pipeline facilities. Maintenance activities along the pipeline right-of-
way will impact approximately 204.4 acres of wetlands due to the conversion of PFO and PSS
wetlands to PEM wetland types. The proposed Project will result in the conversion of
approximately 192.4 acres of PFO wetlands and 12.0 acres of PSS wetlands.
Based on field and NWI data, there will be a total of 24 wetland crossings by the
proposed SHP pipeline loops. The TL -635 pipeline loop in West Virginia will have five PFO,
six PEM, and one PSS wetland crossings. The TL -636 pipeline loop in Pennsylvania will have
seven PEM and five PFO wetland crossings. The combined linear crossing distance of all
wetlands is 0.3 mile, accounting for approximately 0.8 percent of the combined length of the
pipeline loops. Approximately 2.6 acres of wetlands will be temporarily disturbed during
construction of the SHP pipeline facilities. Maintenance activities along the pipeline right-of-
way will impact approximately 0.3 acre of wetlands due to the conversion of PFO and PSS
wetlands to PEM wetland types.
Table 2.3.4-1 provides a summary of wetland impacts by wetland type along the
proposed ACP and SHP pipeline routes. Tables 2H-1 and 2H-2 in Appendix 2H provide a
complete list of wetlands identified along the proposed pipeline routes with their MP locations,
classification, crossing length, and area affected by construction and operation of the Projects.
2-45

Resource Report 2
Water Use and Quality
TABLE 2.3.4-1
Summary of Wetland Types Affected by Construction and Operation of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply Header Project
Temporary
Cowardin.
Crossing
Construction
Permanent
Operational
Pipeline Facility/State or Commonwealth
Classification
Length (feet)
Impact (acres) b
Easement (acres)'
Impact (acres) d
ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE
AP -1
West Virginia
PEM
6,091
11.8
10.2
0.0
PFO
685
1.5
1.2
0.5
PSS
80
0.2
0.2
<0 I
West Virginia Total
6,856
13.4
11.6
0.5
Virginia
PEM
6,029
12.6
9.3
0.0
PFO
23,506
52.0
39.3
15.7
PSS
8,077
170
13.7
1.8
PUB
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Virginia Total
37,611
81.6
62.3
17.5
AP -2
North Carolina
PEM
5,572
9.8
69
0.0
PFO
178,806
3103
2054
122.9
PSS
33,015
57.1
37.7
7.6
PUB
85
0.1
0.1
0.0
North Carolina Total
217,477
377.4
250.0
130.5
AP -3
North Carolina
PEM
3,426
4.1
3.4
0.0
PFO
5,746
120
7.1
4.1
PSS
235
0.6
03
0.1
North Carolina Total
9,406
16.7
10.8
4.2
Virgima
E2E
48
0.2
0.1
0.0
PEM
14,394
26.7
16.9
0.0
PFO
72,073
121.7
818
49.0
PSS
11,008
18.8
12.5
2.5
Virginia Total
97,522
167.3
111.3
51.5
AP4
No wetlands identified
AP -5
Virginia
PFO
171.
0.3
0.2
0.1
Virginia Total
171
0.3
0.2
0.1
ACP PROJECT TOTAL
369,044
656.7
446.3
204.4
SUPPLY HEADER PROJECT
TL -635
West Virginia
PEM
880.3
0.9
0.7
00
PFO
299.6
05
0.3
0.2
PSS
64.5
01
0.1
<0.1
West Virginia Subtotal
1244.4
1.5
1.1
0.2
2-46

Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
TABLE 2.3.4-1
(cont'd)
Summary of Wetland Types Affected by Construction and Operation of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply Header Project
Temporary
Cowardin Crossing Construction Permanent Operational
Pipeline Facility/State or Commonwealth Classification a Length (feet) Impact (acres) b Easement (acres) impact (acres) d
TL -636
Pennsylvania PEM 391.0 0.7 04 0.0
PFO 198.3 0.4 0.2 0.1
Pennsylvania Subtotal 589.3 1.1 0.6 0.1
SHP PROJECT TOTAL 1,833.7 2.6 1.7 0.3
a Wetland types according to Cowardin et al. (1979).
PFO = palustrine forested
PSS = palustrine scrub -shrub
PEM = palustrine emergent
PUB = palustrine unconsolidated bottom
E = estuarine
b Temporary wetland impacts associated with the construction right-of-way.
C Includes acres of wetlands within the permanent pipeline easement.
d Operational impacts are associated with scrub -shrub and forested wetlands. Operational requirements allow a 10 -foot -wide corridor
centered over the pipeline to be maintained in an herbaceous state, and for the removal of trees within 15 feet on either side of the
pipeline To determine conversion impacts on scrub -shrub wetlands, a 10 -foot -wide corridor centered over the pipeline was assessed
A 30 -foot -wide corridor centered over the pipeline was assessed for forested wetlands. Because the easement will be maintained in an
herbaceous state, there will be no operational impacts on emergent wetlands.
Note: The totals shown in this table may not equal the sum of addends due to rounding.
The data summarizing wetland crossings in Table 2.3.4-1 and the tables located in
Appendix 2H are based on field surveys conducted to date. In areas where survey has not yet
been completed, NWI data was used to estimate the size and location of wetlands along the
proposed ACP and SHP pipeline routes. For these wetlands, the Wetland ID shown in the tables
in Appendix 2H is identified as NWI. Maps showing the proposed ACP and SHP pipeline routes
and field surveyed wetlands are provided in the ACP and SHP wetland delineation reports
located in Appendix 2D and 2E, respectively. NWI wetlands are shown on maps provided in
Appendix 2G.
Federal Lands
The ACP crosses four areas of federally managed land: the Monongahela National
Forest; George Washington National Forest (which includes the Appalachian National Scenic
Trail); Blue Ridge Parkway; and Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge (GDS-NWR).
Additional inforination about these lands is provided in Section 8.7.1 of Resource Report 8.
Table 2.3.4-2 provides a summary of wetlands crossed within each of these Federal land units.
The SHP does not cross Federal Lands.
2.3.4.2 Aboveground Facifities
Aboveground facilities (i.e., compressor stations, M&R stations, and valves) have been
sited such that impacts on wetlands will be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
practicable.
2-47

Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
TABLE 2.3.4-2
Summary of wetland Types Affected by Construction and Operation of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline on Federal Lands
Temporary
Lewis County, YVV
PEM
Federal Land
Cowardin
Wetland Crossing
Construction impact
Operational
Federal Land Unit
Crossed (miles)
Classification a
Length (Feet)
(acres) b
Impact (acres)'
Monongahela NF
18.6
PEM/PFO/PSS
2,919/365/56
5.2/0.7/0.1
0.0/0.1/<O.l
George Washington NF
12.2
PFO
12
<0. 1
<0. I
Blue Ridge Parkway
0.1
None
0
00
0.0
Great Dismal Swamp NWR d
17
PEM/PFO
586/5,046
0.6/9.7
0.0/3.4
ACP Project Total
<0.1
Mockingbird Hill Compressor Station
8,984
16.4
3.5
a Wetland types according to Cowardin et al. (1979).
PFO palustrme forested
PEM palustrine emergent
b Temporary wetland impacts associated with the construction right-of-way.
c Operational impacts are associated with scrub -shrub and forested wetlands. Operational requirements allow a 10 -foot -wide corridor
centered over the pipeline to be maintained in an herbaceous state, and for the removal of trees within 15 feet on either side of the
pipeline. To determine conversion impacts on scrub -shrub wetlands, a 10 -foot -wide corridor centered over the pipeline was assessed.
A 30 -foot -wide corridor centered over the pipeline was assessed for forested wetlands
d Except for approximately 1,000 feet, the entire proposed line will be located within 300 feet of existing pipelines or electric
transmission lines.
Note: The totals shown in this table may not equal the sum of addends due to rounding.
Construction of ACP Compressor Stations I and 2, two of the M&R stations, and one of
the pig launcher sites will impact 3.0 acres of wetlands, of which 0.4 acre will be permanently
filled for operation of the facility (see Table 2.3.4-3). The construction and operation of the
remaining aboveground facilities will not impact wetlands. Modification and expansions at the
existing SHP compressor stations and construction of one of the pig launchers will impact
0.2 acre of wetlands, of which 0. 1 acre will be permanently filled for operation the facilities.
The construction and operation of the remaining aboveground facilities for the ACP and SHP
will not impact wetlands.
TABLE 2.3.4-3
Summary of Wetlands Affected by Aboveground Facilities for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline
County or City/ State or Cowardin Construction Permanent Impacts
Facility Commonwealth Classification a Impacts (acres) (acres)
ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE
Compressor Station I
Lewis County, YVV
PEM
<0. 1
00
Compressor Station 2
Buckingham County, VA
PFO/PSS/PEM/
05/1.3/0.8
0.0
Long Run M&R Station
Randolph County, WV
PEM
<0. I
<0. I
Elizabeth River M&R Station
City of Chesapeake, VA
PFO
0.3
0.3
Site I Pig Launcher
Harrison County, WV
PSS/PEM
<0. 1 /0. 1
<0.1/0 I
ACPTOTAL
3.0
0.4
SUPPLY HEADER PROJECT
JB Tonkin Compressor Station
Westmoreland County, PA
PEM
<0.1
<0.1
Mockingbird Hill Compressor Station
Wetzel County, WV
PFO/PEM
<0. 1/<O. 1
0.0
Marts Junction Pig Receiver
Harrison County, WV
PEM
0.1
0.1
SHPTOTAL
0.2
0.1
a Wetland types according to Cowardin et al. (1979) -
PFO palustrine forested
PEM palustrine emergent
2-48

I �J
Resource Report 2
2.3.4.3 Access Roads
Water Use and Quality
Atlantic and DTI have worked to identify existing roads to the maximum extent feasible
for use as access roads during project construction and operation. Approximately 87 percent of
the access roads identified at the time of filing are located on existing roads (private and/or
public). Approximately 7 percent of access roads are extensions of existing roads and
approximately 6 percent are new roads proposed where insufficient access is provided through
existing roads.
Improvements for access roads will be identified during the refinement phase of the
Projects. Iinprovements to roads will be identified based on the need; not all roads will require
improvements for full size truck and trailers. Typical improvements will involve adding gravel
and grading existing roads. Those roads identified for larger trucks and trailers will be evaluated
on a case-by-case basis.
Based on NWI maps and field surveys, access roads for the ACP will cross a total of
20,648 feet of wetlands and will result in 14.2 acres of impacts. Access roads for the SHP
Project will cross a total of 560 feet of wetlands and will result in 0.4 acre of impacts. A
summary of impacts associated with access roads is included in Table 2.3.4-4. Additional
information is provided in Appendix 2H.
2.3.4.4 Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards
The pipe storage and contractor yards identified for the ACP and SHP will not impact
wetlands.
2.3.5 Wetland Crossing Methods
In general, Atlantic and DTI will minimize impacts on wetlands by following the
Procedures, site-specific modifications to the Procedures requested by Atlantic and DTI and
approved by the FERC, and additional requirements identified in Federal or
State/Commonwealth wetland crossing permits. Atlantic and DTI will prepare a POD or COM
Plan, which will identify construction procedures and mitigation measures to be implemented on
federally managed lands. Atlantic and DTI will submit preliminary draft PODs or COM Plans to
the Bureau of Land Management, USFS, and FWS in September 2015.
Both Projects will be constructed using a 75 -foot wide construction right-of-way for
pipelines where they cross wetlands, with ATWS on both sides of the upland border to stage
construction equipment, fabricate the pipelines, and store materials and excavated spoil. ATWS
will be located in upland areas a minimum of 50 feet from the wetland edge (with the exception
of site-specific modifications requested by Atlantic and DTI and approved by the FERC; see
Appendix 1E of Resource Report 1).
Detailed descriptions of wetland crossing methods (e.g., the open cut and push-pull
methods) are provided in Section 1.5.2.2 of Resource Report 1. These crossing methods are
consistent with the requirements of the Procedures.
The crossing method for each wetland during construction will depend on site-specific
weather conditions, soil saturation, and soil stability. Tables 2H- I and 2H-2 in Appendix 2H
identify the proposed crossing method for each wetland along the proposed ACP and SHP
pipeline routes and in other work areas.
2-49

Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
TABLE 2.3.44
Summary of Wetlands Affected by Access Road Construction for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline
Cowardin
Crossing
Permanent Impacts
Facility/State or Commonwealth
County/City
Classification a
Length (feet)
(acres)
ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE
AP -1
West Virginia
Lewis County
PUB
184
0.1
PEM
611
0.4
Upshur County
PEM
234
0.2
Randolph County
PEM
592
0.3
PFO
67
<0.1
Pocahontas County
PEM
331
02
PSS
0
<0. I
PFO
284
0.2
West Virginia Total
2,303
1.5
Virginia
Highland County
PEM
37
0.1
PSS
0
<0 I
Buckingham County
PEM
17
<0.1
PSS
22
<0.1
PFO
840
0.6
Cumberland County
PFO
32
<0.1
Brunswick County
PFO
126
0.1
Greensville County
PEM
210
01
PFO
661
0.5
Virginia Total
1,944
1.4
AP -2
North Carolina
Halifax County
PFO
1,145
0.8
Nash County
PFO
110
0.1
Johnston County
PEM
176
0.1
PFO
2,700
2.1
Cumberland County
PFO
1,759
1.2
North Carolina Total
5,890
4.3
AP -3
North Carolina
Northampton County
PEM
141
0.1
PFO
20
<0. 1
North Carolina Total
161
0.1
Virginia
Southampton County
PEM
0
<0.1
PSS
172
0.1
PFO
1,376
0.9
City of Suffolk
PFO
1,790
1.2
City of Chesapeake
PEM
2,776
18
PSS
0
<0 1
2-50

Q Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
TABLE 2.3 4-4 (cont'd)
Summary of Wetlands Affected by Access Road Construction for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline
Cowardin
Crossing
Permanent impacts
Facihty/State or Commonwealth
County/City
Classification
Length (feet)
(acres)
PFO
4,184
2.8
Virginia Total
10,298
6.9
AP -5
Virginia
Greensville County
PFO
52
<0.1
Virginia Total
52
<0.1
ACP PROJECT TOTAL
20,648
14.2
SUPPLY HEADER PROJECT
TL -635 Access Roads
West Virginia
Doddridge, County
PFO
76
<0.1
Wetzel, County
PEM
372
0.3
West Virginia Total
448
0.3
TL -636 Access Roads
Pennsylvania
Westmoreland, County
PFO
65
<0.1
PEM
47
<0.1
SHP PROJECT TOTAL
560
0.4
a Wetland types according to Cowardin et al. (1979):
PFO = palustrine forested
PSS = palustrine scrub -shrub
PEM = palustrine emergent
PUB = palustrine unconsolidated bottom
Notes: The totals shown in this table may not equal the sum of addends due to rounding. The area of impact for wetlands along access roads was
based on the crossing length of wetlands and an assumed width of 30 feet for each access road
Horizontal Directional Drill
Several wetlands will be crossed as part of the proposed HDD river crossing discussed in
Section 2.2.8 above. Utilization of the HDD method in these areas would avoid direct impacts
on 3.9 acres of wetland, including 2.5 acres of PFO, 0.2 acre of PSS, and 1.2 acres of PEM
wetlands.
Blasting
Blasting may be necessary along portions of the proposed ACP and SHP pipeline routes
where bedrock is located at or near the ground surface (see Section 6.2 of Resource Report 6).
As noted above, Atlantic and DTI have prepared and will implement a Blasting Plan which
identifies procedures for the use, storage, and transportation of explosives consistent with safety
requirements defined by Federal, State/Commonwealth, and local agency regulations. The
Blasting Plan is provided in Appendix IF of Resource Report 1.
2.3.6 Wetland Impacts and Mitigation
Construction activities can affect wetlands in several ways. Clearing and grading of
wetlands, trenching, backfilling, and trench dewatering can affect wetlands through the alteration
2-51

Resource Report 2
Water Use and Quality
of wetland vegetation and hydrology; loss or change to wildlife habitat (see Section 3.3.1.2 in
Resource Report 3); erosion and sedimentation; and accidental spills of fuels and lubricants.
Atlantic and DTI will minimize impacts on wetlands by following the wetland
construction and restoration guidelines contained in the Plan and Procedures. The proposed
wetland mitigation measures are intended to avoid wetland impacts to the greatest extent
practicable; minimize the area and duration of disturbance; reduce soil disturbance; and enhance
wetland revegetation after construction. Some of the measures proposed include:
limiting the construction right-of-way width to 75 -feet through wetlands (unless
alternative, site-specific measures are requested by Atlantic and DTI and
approved by the FERC and other applicable agencies);
locating ATWS at least 50 feet away from wetland boundaries (unless alternative,
site-specific measures are requested by Atlantic and DTI and approved by the
FERC and other applicable agencies);
limiting the operation of construction equipment within wetlands to only
equipment essential for clearing, excavation, pipe installation, backfilling, and
restoration;
preventing the compaction and ratting of wetland soils by operating equipment
off of equipment mats or timber riprap in wetlands that are not excessively
saturated;
restricting grading in wetlands to the area directly over the trenchline, except
where necessary to provide necessary safety;
installing trench breakers or trench plugs at the boundaries of wetlands to prevent
draining of wetlands;
segregating topsoil from the trench in non -saturated wetlands and returning
topsoil to its original location during backfilling to avoid changes in the
subsurface hydrology and to promote re-establishment of the original plant
community by replacing the seed bank found in the topsoil;
installing temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control devices, and re-
establishing vegetation on adjacent upland areas, to avoid erosion and
sedimentation into wetlands;
removing woody stumps only from areas directly above the trenchline, or where
they will create a safety hazard, to facilitate the re-establishment of woody species
by existing root structures;
returning graded areas to their preconstruction contours to the greatest extent
practicable, and returning excavated soil from the trench within the wetlands back
to their original soil horizon to maintain hydrologic characteristics;
prohibiting the storage of chemicals, fuels, hazardous materials, and lubricating
oils within 100 feet of a wetland;
2-52

Resource Report 2
Water Use and Quality
prohibiting parking and/or fueling of equipment within 100 feet of a wetland;
unless the Environmental Inspector determines there is no reasonable alternative,
and appropriate steps (such as secondary containment structure) are taken;
dewatering the trench at a controlled rate into an energy dissipation/sediment
filtration device, such as a geotextile filter bag or properly installed straw bale
structure, to minimize the potential for erosion and sedimentation;
preventing the invasion or spread of undesirable exotic vegetation as described in
the Invasive Plant Species Management Plan (see Appendix IF of Resource
Report 1);
limiting post -construction maintenance of vegetation to removal of trees with
roots that could compromise the integrity of the pipeline within 15 feet of the
pipeline centerline, and the maintenance of a I 0 -foot wide corridor centered over
the pipeline as herbaceous vegetation; and
annual monitoring of the success of wetland revegetation following construction
until wetland revegetation is successful.
Restoration/revegetation of wetlands will be considered successful when the affected
wetland satisfies the Federal definition of a wetland (i.e., soils, hydrology, and vegetation); the
vegetation is at least 80 percent of the cover documented for the wetland prior to construction, or
at least 80 percent of the cover in adjacent, undisturbed areas of the wetland; or the plant species
composition is consistent with early successional wetland plant communities in the affected
ecoregion (if natural rather than active revegetation is used); and invasive plant species are
absent, unless they are abundant in adjacent areas that were not disturbed by construction.
Applicable regional conditions associate with USACE permitting will also be complied with as
they pertain to revegetation and monitoring requirements.
Atlantic and DTI have evaluated numerous major route alternatives (greater than 5 miles
in length), route variations (I to 5 miles in length) and minor route adjustments to optimize the
baseline route as a result of ongoing routing, biological, cultural resources, and civil field
surveys. The primary criterion for comparing major route alternatives and route variations to the
baseline route was cumulative impact avoidance relative to the objective of the route alternative
or variation. The route adjustments were adopted without a formal alternatives analysis, but the
need for the adjustment was intuitive and practical (e.g., a slight shift in the centerline to avoid a
wetland). Individually, the adjustments to the routes are small, but collectively they reduce
impacts on environmental resources. Resource Report 10 documents the results of these routing
alternatives, variations, and adjustments. In addition to the route alternatives, variations, and
adjustments, Atlantic and DTI continue to optimize the route at a localized scale to further
minimize impacts on wetlands and waterbodies where feasible.
2.3.6.1 Wetland Vegetation
The alteration of wetland vegetation is the primary impact of pipeline construction and
right-of-way maintenance activities on wetlands. Most impacts associated with construction
activities are considered temporary, but long-term impacts on wetland vegetation may occur
depending on the time required for reestablishment of wetland functions associated with
2-53

Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
vegetation cover. Impacts on herbaceous wetlands (PEM) will be temporary as vegetation is
expected to fully regenerate within one to three years. Impacts on PSS wetlands will take longer
to reestablish to preconstruction conditions and may take five or more years depending on the
age and complexity of the system. The impacts on PFO wetlands will be long-term due to the
length of time required for a forest community to regenerate. However, many wetland functions
such as surface water detention, nutrient recycling, particle retention, and some wildlife habitat
will be restored prior to the full regeneration of the forest.
Where necessary, wetlands will be planted with native vegetation and/or seeded with
predetermined seed mixes (approved by the appropriate agencies) to promote the reestablishment
of wetland vegetation. Atlantic and DTI will also restore wetlands according the conditions of
applicable pen -nits, including the specific regional conditions specific to restoration and
revegetation within each of the USACE Districts. An Invasive Plant Species Management Plan
(see Appendix IF o ' f Resource Report 1) will be implemented to reduce and control the spread of
invasive non-native species in the Project areas, including wetlands. Conversion of forested
wetlands will be mitigated through compensatory mitigation as discussed in Section 2.3.7 below.
Loss of forested cover and fragmentation concerns raised by the EPA are address in detail within
Resource Report 3.
Following pipeline construction, Atlantic and DTI will periodically remove woody
species from wetlands to facilitate post -construction monitoring and inspections of the
maintained pipeline right-of-way. In accordance with the Plan and Procedures, Atlantic and DTI
will maintain a 1 0 -foot wide corridor centered over the pipeline in an herbaceous condition.
Additionally, woody species within 15 feet of the pipeline with roots that could compromise the
integrity of the pipeline will be removed. These maintenance activities will not allow PSS and
PFO wetlands to fully reestablish within the maintained right-of-way, which will alter these
wetlands by changing their structure and function. Based on a combination of field survey data
and NWI data, approximately 204.4 acres of PFO and PSS wetlands will be converted to
herbaceous wetlands by the ACP and less than approximately 0.3 acre of PFO and PSS wetlands
will be converted to herbaceous wetlands by the SHP.
In order to reduce impacts on wetlands, Atlantic and DTI will make minor route
adjustments, where practicable, based on the results of biological field surveys to minimize or
avoid impacts on wetlands. Additionally, as discussed above, Atlantic and DTI will reduce the
construction right-of-way to 75 -feet in wetlands and will cross some wetlands using the HDD
crossing method. Atlantic and DTI will allow the majority of wetlands impacted during
construction to return to their preconstruction condition as described above. In addition, Atlantic
and DTI will review vegetative contr ' ol measures at all collocation areas and ensure that restored
areas will not be impacted by spraying activity.
2.3.6.2 Compaction and Topsoil Mixing
During construction, heavy machinery used for construction and transport of pipe
sections can cause compaction and rutting of soils. Soil compaction can inhibit seed germination
and increase the potential for runoff and siltation. To reduce the risk of compaction and rutting,
construction equipment will work off of equipment mats or timber riprap in wetlands that are not
excessively saturated.
2-54

Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
Topsoil mixing in non -saturated wetlands without construction mats can result in the
mixing of topsoil with subsoil where topsoil is not segregated (topsoil is only segregated over the
trenchline). This can result in changes to biological activities and chemical conditions in the
wetland soils. Mixing of soil layers can also impede the reestablishment and natural recruitment
of native vegetation following restoration. To reduce mixing in unsaturated wetlands, topsoil
will be removed from the trench, segregated, and stored within the wetland adjacent to the
trench. Upon completion of the work, subsoil will be returned to the trench, followed by topsoil.
2.3.6.3 Wetland Hydrology
The type and quality of a wetland may change if permanent surface and/or subsurface
hydrology alterations occur due to construction activities. To minimize impacts on wetlands
from changes in surface hydrology, disturbed areas will be returned to their preconstruction
elevations and contours. To minimize impacts on subsurface hydrology in unsaturated wetlands,
subsoil will be backfilled first, followed by topsoil. Where necessary, trench plugs will also be
installed at the wetland/upland interface to maintain wetland hydrology.
2.3.6.4 Erosion and Sediment Control
The clearing of the construction right-of-way adjacent to and within -a wetland, and
grading in adjacent upland areas, can cause erosion of soil and the deposition of sediment into
the wetland. Compaction of soil by construction equipment can affect runoff and may contribute
to more erosion and sedimentation. To minimize impacts during clearing activities, Atlantic and
DTI will cut the existing wetland vegetation to ground level, leaving existing root systems intact.
Erosion and soil compaction will be minimized by the use of timber mats, timber riprap, or straw
mats within a wetland, if wetland soils are not excessively saturated at the time of construction
and can support construction equipment. Erosion will further be minimized by the installation of
temporary erosion control devices, according to the Plan and Procedures and stormwater
pennitting requirements, between the upland construction areas and the wetland to limit the
potential for soil to leave the right-of-way or enter a wetland. hi addition, permanent erosion
controls will be installed, such as slope breakers, to aid long-term stabilization along with the
restored vegetation adjacent to wetlands. Additional details regarding restoration of upland
vegetation adjacent to wetlands on USFS lands are provided in Resource Report 3. 18
When excavating the trench, trench spoil will be placed a minimum of 50 feet away from
wetland boundaries wherever possible. If dewatering of the trench is necessary, silt -laden trench
water will be discharged into an energy dissipation/sedimentation filtration device, such as a
geotextile filter bag or straw bale structure, to minimize the potential for erosion and
sedimentation. Dewatering structures will be removed as soon as practicable after completion of
dewatering activities.
In comments filed with the FERC, the USFS expressed concerns about sedimentation to streams due to exposed slopes subsequent to
construction.
2-55

Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
2.3.6.5 Hazardous Material Spills
The use of heavy equipment to complete pipeline installation across wetlands increases
the potential for accidental releases of fuels, lubricants, and coolants. The accidental release of
these materials could contaminate wetland soils and vegetation. Atlantic and DTI will minimize
the potential impact of spills of hazardous materials by adhering to the SPCC Plan (see
Appendix 1F of Resource Report 1). Some examples of preventive measures include regular
inspection of storage areas for leaks, replacement of deteriorating containers, and construction of
containment systems around hazardous liquids storage facilities. The SPCC Plan also will
restrict refueling or other liquid transfer areas within 100 feet of wetlands.
2.3.6.6 Blasting
Resource Report 6 identifies areas along the proposed pipeline routes where hard shallow
bedrock is anticipated and blasting could be required. Where bedrock is encountered in wetland
trenches, the type of bedrock will determine the method of excavation. Blasting could impact
wetlands by causing a fissure in the rock that would drain the wetland. Blasting could also result
in a wetland conversion through the introduction of a new water source. Wetlands will be
monitored after blasting to determine that no fissures are created. Impacts on wetlands due to
blasting will be addressed as part of the compensatory mitigation for the Projects.
2.3.6.7 Permanent Wetland Fill
In some cases, construction of aboveground facilities and access roads will require the
permanent filling of wetlands. A total of 0.5 acres of wetlands will be filled for construction of
aboveground facilities and 14.5 acres of impacts will be required for construction of access
roads. Where permanent impacts are required, Atlantic and Dominion will comply with all
applicable Federal and State/Commonwealth pen -nit requirements.
2.3.7 Compensatory Mitigation
Atlantic and DT1 will prepare a compensatory wetland mitigation plan for impacts on
each single and complete crossing of Waters of the U.S. and Waters of the State for the Projects
with assistance from each of the USACE District offices. Ratios for unavoidable impacts to
Waters of the U.S. and Waters of the State will be determined by the USACE and applied as
necessary to calculate the amount of compensatory mitigation credits needed to compensate for
both forested and shrub wetlands conversions and permanent losses of Waters of the U.S. Where
available, mitigation bank credits will be utilized to mitigate impacts as a preferred option. In
the event that mitigation bank credits are unavailable for purchase, or to make up the balance of
credits needed, participation in an In -lieu Fee Program will be used to satisfy remaining
compensatory mitigation requirements.
2-56