20181638 Ver 2_Appdx E Alternatives Analysis_20190208

Appendix E
Alternatives Analysis
Alternatives
February 2019

17 Mountain Valley
PIPELINE ttc Alternatives
The Division will consider whether the variance is the minimum possible deviation from the terms of the
applicable Buffer Rule that shall make reasonable use of the property possible. In the context of a linear
project, Mountain Valley assumes this calls for a demonstration that it is not reasonably practical to change
the alignment of the right-of-way such that the impact would be deemed a perpendicular crossing—for
which no variance would be required because 15A NCAC 2B.0267(9) footnotes 1 and 4 would not be
applicable. Appendix D demonstrates why compliance with those footnotes is not feasible for the Project.
This analysis also demonstrates that buffer impacts have been reduced the maximum extent practical.
The Project attempted to make all crossings perpendicular or as close to perpendicular as reasonably
possible. Perpendicular alternatives are presented below for each non -perpendicular crossing within the
Jordan Watershed where Mountain Valley is requesting a variance. While routing the pipeline, the project
used field reconnaissance, aerial photography, project specific LiDAR data, and biological and cultural
field surveys during the route identification and evaluation processes to maximize constructability,
minimize impacts to sensitive resources and landowners, and to avoid encroachments.
In developing the current route, a number of factors were considered, with a heavy emphasis placed on co -
locating with and utilizing existing infrastructure corridors such as existing pipeline or powerline rights-of-
way to the maximum extent practicable. When collocated with existing infrastructure or utility corridors,
the incremental impacts of an additional pipeline are typically less compared to routing through a greenfield
area. Benefits of co -locating include:
• minimize the amount of tree clearing and forest fragmentation
• minimizing impacts to landowners by preventing segments of their property from being isolated by
the route (islanding)
• minimizing impacts to landowners by limiting new corridors for access to their land,
• minimizing the acreage of construction impacts and maximizing temporary impacts
• reducing the length of pipe needed to deliver the gas to receipt points, and
• minimizing new linear corridors where future land activities would be limited.
The amount of existing cleared right-of-way (ROW) within existing infrastructure or utility corridors that
is available for use as temporary workspace varies through areas of co -location but will be used to the
maximum extent allowed by working agreements with the existing utility companies to minimize tree
clearing and new impacts to landowners. Minimizing tree clearing is prioritized, because the 50 -foot
permanent maintenance corridor will be revegetated using approved native seed mixes, and with the
exception of forested areas, the permanent maintenance corridor will be returned to its existing use and
riparian buffer impacts will be temporary.
As part of its joint permit application to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and DEQ for Nationwide Permit
12 verification, 401 Water Quality Certification, and Riparian Buffer Authorization, the Project evaluated
two alternative crossing methods that have the potential to reduce construction -related temporary buffer
impacts (MVP Southgate Project, Pre -Construction Notification – Joint Permit Application (Nov. 2018)).
It must be noted, however, that even if alternative crossing methods are used, the Project would still need
to maintain a 50 -foot permanent maintenance corridor within the buffer above the pipeline. The evaluation
of alternative crossing methods was conducted independently for every stream and wetland crossed by the
Project in North Carolina, including the buffered streams at issue in this variance request. The alternatives
analysis determined that neither of these alternative crossing methods is practicable for any of the buffered
streams included in this variance request. The following summarizes these two alternative crossing methods
E-1 February 2019

17 Mountain Valley
PIPELINE ttc Alternatives
and the key technical and logistical considerations that resulted in this conclusion. Please refer to the
application on file with DEQ for additional details.
The first evaluated alternative crossing method evaluated is a conventional bore. The conventional bore
method for cased or uncased pipeline crossings is typically employed under roads or railroad crossings, but
may also be employed at shallow wetland or waterbody crossings. Soil conditions, the length of the flight
auger string, and equipment torque generally limit this method to a maximum length of approximately 400
feet. This installation method involves digging a bore pit on each side of the feature to be crossed, and
typically requires a minimum setback from the feature for worker safety and slope stability purposes. The
bore pit and receiving pit vary in size but are usually about 20 feet wide by 60 feet long. This provides the
necessary space for the boring machine to insert a pipe joint or pipe string (two or more joints welded
together) into the borehole. The depth of the bore pits generally ranges from 10 to 12 feet but may be
greater, depending upon topography, to accommodate the minimum of 5 feet of cover over the bored
pipeline segment. The depth would be greater for wetlands or waterbodies with an adjacent slope.
While the pipeline industry considers this a dependable method for crossing under elevated road beds,
highways, and railroad beds, it is not generally preferred for use in areas with shallow or near -surface
groundwater. These crossings require large bore pits adjacent to saturated areas with potentially low soil
shear strength, particularly near wetlands. Large bore pits in these areas would require shoring of pit walls
and implementation of significant dewatering measures. Crossings of these features also would result in an
increased risk of the bore -pit walls slumping and/or borehole misalignment due to track settlement. The
duration of construction for bored crossings of wetlands and waterbodies typically ranges from three to
more than four weeks, depending on the crossing length, topography, soil conditions, and the need for
blasting in areas of shallow bedrock. A conventional open -cut crossing of wetlands and waterbodies is
generally much quicker, taking days rather than weeks, which minimizes the duration of disturbance of the
feature. For these reasons, the conventional bore method is generally not considered as a preferred
construction method for crossing wetlands, forested areas, and waterbodies where conventional trenching
construction is feasible. No conventional bore crossings were found to be practicable in the Jordan Lake
Watershed.
The second alternative crossing method evaluated is horizontal directional drilling ("HDD"). HDD is
another method that allows for trenchless construction across an area by pre -drilling a hole below the depth
of a conventional pipeline lay and then pulling the pipeline through the pre -drilled borehole. Currently, the
Project has determined it practicable and is proposing to use this method at the Dan River and Stony Creek
Reservoir crossings.
The length of pipeline that can be installed by HDD depends upon topography, soil conditions, geology,
and pipe diameters and is limited by available technology and equipment sizes. Typically for HDD
crossings, electric -grid guide wires will be hand -laid across the land surface along the pipeline right-of-way
to help guide the drill bit along the predetermined HDD route. In thickly vegetated riparian areas, a swath
approximately two to three feet wide may be cleared across the land surface for the placement of guide
wires to monitor the track of the drill alignment, resulting in ground and vegetation disturbance. Following
guide wire installation, a directional drilling rig will be set up and a small -diameter pilot hole will be drilled
along a prescribed profile. During this process, drilling fluid consisting of bentonite clay and water will be
continuously pumped into the hole to remove cuttings and maintain the integrity of the hole.
E-2 February 2019

17 Mountain Valley
PIPELINE ttc Alternatives
However, because it is necessary to prefabricate a section of pipe aboveground that is equal to the length
of the HDD, and because existing surface features such as roads and railroads could restrict the length of
the prefabricated section to less than that of the HDD, the HDD method may not be appropriate for every
site condition encountered. Other technical limitations on the use of HDD include the need for proper
geotechnical properties to minimize the potential for inadvertent returns of drilling fluids and limitations
imposed by the bend radius of the pipe. Although the HDD method is a proven technology for pipe
installation, the potential exists for a HDD installation to fail for a number of reasons, including
encountering soil conditions not conducive to boring, caving of the borehole, loss of the drill string in the
borehole, loss of circulation, and pullback refusal. Only one HDD crossing is currently proposed in the
Jordan Lake Watershed at Stony Creek Reservoir (Impact 26 - VAR: AS -B18-16 / S -B18-16) due to the
unique features of the waterbody crossing. The HDD method was not determined to be practicable for any
other stream within the watershed.
The proposed riparian buffer crossings will comply with the majority of the performance standards
associated with the Utility, non -electric classification in the Jordan Watershed Buffer Rules' Table of Uses.
However, the Project will require a major variance to complete certain activities associated with all linear
pipeline installations. Footnote 1 states that:
• "No heavy equipment is used in Zone One"; however, based on the size of the pipeline and required
depth of burial, heavy equipment is necessary to safely install the pipe through the Jordan Lake
area.
• While felled trees could be removed by chain, this would slow the process down unnecessarily
since heavy equipment and travel lanes would already be present to install the pipeline system.
• Permanent felling of trees would need to occur across the operational "maintained" corridor.
Hardship conditions associated with Footnote 4 include land grubbing and grading. To protect the pipe
from being compromised by growing root systems, tree roots need to be removed in the 50' operational
corridor. The exceptions to this are in wetland areas where the operation width is reduced to 10 feet
(centered over the pipeline) in emergent wetlands, scrub shrub wetlands, and within 25 feet of waterbodies;
and 30 feet in forested wetlands. Fertilizer may need to be utilized more than once if adequate re -vegetation
is not established in the first growing season.
To facilitate the Department's review of this variance request, Mountain Valley has provided an individual
analysis of each non -perpendicular crossing where a variance is being proposed, which includes an
alternative that would cross at a perpendicular angle and rationale as to why it is not feasible for the Project.
E-3 February 2019

Impact Specific Analysis
Impact 1 — Variance (VAR): S-A 18-60
Alternatives
The perpendicular alternative to the currently designed crossing S -A18-60 requires an additional 135' of
pipe, would increase the acreage of impacts to landowner(s), and extends through two planned additional
temporary workspaces (ATWS) that would need to be relocated in the vicinity, with ATWS 1450 being
moved west into the riparian buffers of S -A18-60, and ATWS 1449 moving northeast into the riparian
buffers to avoid a water detention area for the adjacent solar facility.
Constructability concerns include: additional ATWS will be required to support the additional bends in the
pipe and relocation of the two ATWS existing into less desirable areas closer to the waterbody. Without
considering the impacts from the ATWS moves, the alternative route would result in a decrease in impacts
of 705 square feet in Zone 1 and 330 square feet in Zone 2. There is no change in the number of
Waterbodies, or residences in close proximity, but one additional parcel is affected.
Due to additional pipe footage, additional ATWS required to support additional pipe bends, increased
acreage of landowner impacts, additional impacted tracts, and the need to find suitable locations and the
associated impacts of moving the two existing ATWS areas. There is no reasonable and practical alternative
to the proposed alignment, and Mountain Valley believes that a variance is warranted at this crossing to
minimize overall impacts.
Comparison of the Proposed Route and Perpendicular Alternative at S -A18-60
Feature
Proposed
Perpendicular
Difference
Crossing
Alternative
Parallel or adjacent to existing ROW
No
No
-
Pipeline length (feet)
883
1018
+135
Zone 1 buffertotal impacts (sq ft)
5225
4520
-705
Zone 2 buffertotal impacts (sq ft)
3344
3014
-330
Number of waterbodies crossed a/
1
1
0
NWI wetland impact (sq ft) b/
0
0
0
Total number of parcels crossed
1
2
+1
Number of residences within 25 and 50 feet of the edge
of the construction ROW (and associated additional
0/0
0/0
0/0
temporary workspace)
a/ Waterbodies regulated by the Buffer Rule
b/ Assumes entire width of construction impacts
ROW = right-of-way.
Information Sources:
GIS —Analysis based on Geodatabase layers and shapefiles.
NC Parcel Boundaries and Standard Fields -
http://data. nconemap.gov/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details. page
NLCD — 2006 National Land Cover Data - http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd-2006.html
NWI — National Wetlands Inventory - http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
USGS — U.S. Geological Survey - http://www.usgs.gov/
NHD — National Hydrography Dataset - http://nhd.usgs.gov/
ESRI - GIS Mapping - http://www.esri.com/
E-4 February 2019

Impact 2 - VAR: S -A18-183
Alternatives
The perpendicular alternative to the currently designed crossing S -A18-183 would no longer be co -located
with the Duke transmission line. There is an additional 157' of pipe, but the entire 1,006 feet of the
alternative is through existing forested tracts, would increase the acreage of impacts to landowner(s), and
would create an islanding effect between the existing Duke corridor and the new corridor. Additionally,
the alternative route extends through two planned ATWS that would need to be relocated in the vicinity.
Constructability concerns include: additional ATWS will be required to support the additional bends in the
pipe, additional tree clearing, and additional side slope construction. The alternative route would result in
a decrease in impacts of 1,952 square feet in Zone 1 and 3,938 square feet in Zone 2. There is no change in
the number of waterbodies or residences in close proximity, but one additional parcel is affected.
Due to additional pipe footage, additional ATWS required to support additional pipe bends, increased
acreage of landowner impacts, additional impacted tracts, islanding of landowner tracts, and the need to
find suitable locations for the two existing ATWS areas. There is no reasonable and practical alternative to
the proposed alignment, and Mountain Valley believes that a variance is warranted at this crossing to
minimize overall impacts.
Comparison of the Proposed Route and Perpendicular Alternative at S -A18-183
Feature
Proposed Crossing
Perpendicular
Difference
Alternative
Parallel or adjacent to existing ROW
Yes
No
Pipeline length (feet)
849
1006
+157
Zone 1 buffertotal impacts (sq ft)
7318
5366
-1952
Zone 2 buffertotal impacts (sq ft)
7121
3183
-3938
Number of waterbodies crossed a/
1
1
0
NWI wetland impact (sq ft) b/
0
0
0
Total number of parcels crossed
1
2
+1
Number of residences within 25 and 50
feet of the edge of the construction ROW
0/0
0/0
0/0
(and associated additional temporary
workspace)
a/ Waterbodies regulated by the Buffer Rule
b/ Assumes entire width of construction impacts
ROW = right-of-way.
Information Sources:
GIS —Analysis based on Geodatabase layers and shapefiles.
NC Parcel Boundaries and Standard Fields -
http://data. nconemap.gov/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.
page
NLCD — 2006 National Land Cover Data - http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd-2006.html
NWI — National Wetlands Inventory - http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
USGS — U.S. Geological Survey - http://www.usgs.gov/
NHD — National Hydrography Dataset - http://nhd.usgs.gov/
ESRI - GIS Mapping - http://www.esri.com/
E-5 February 2019

Impact 3 - VAR: SS -SOIL 18-02
Alternatives
The perpendicular alternative to the currently designed crossing SS-SOIL18-02 would no longer be co -
located with the Duke transmission line. There is an additional 47 F of pipe, but the maj ority of the 1,006
feet of the alternative is through existing forested tracts, would increase the acreage of impacts to
landowner(s), and would create an islanding effect between the existing Duke corridor and the new corridor.
Constructability concerns include: additional ATWS will be required to support the additional bends in the
pipe and additional tree clearing. The alternative route would result in a decrease in impacts of 1,083 square
feet in Zone 1 and 512 square feet in Zone 2. There is no change in the number of NWI waterbodies,
residences in close proximity, or additional parcels affected.
Due to additional pipe footage, additional ATWS required to support additional pipe bends, increased
acreage of landowner impacts, and islanding of landowner tracts. There is no reasonable and practical
alternative to the proposed alignment, and Mountain Valley believes that a variance is warranted at this
crossing to minimize overall impacts.
Comparison of the Proposed Route and Perpendicular Alternative at SS-SOM8-02
Feature
Proposed Crossing
Perpendicular
Difference
Alternative
Parallel or adjacent to existing ROW
No
Yes
Pipeline length (feet)
1336
1807
+471
Zone 1 buffertotal impacts (sq ft)
5681
4598
-1083
Zone 2 buffertotal impacts (sq ft)
3759
3247
-512
Number of waterbodies crossed a/
1
1
0
NWI wetland impact (sq ft) b/
0
0
0
Total number of parcels crossed
3
3
0
Number of residences within 25 and 50
feet of the edge of the construction ROW
0/0
0/0
0/0
(and associated additional temporary
workspace)
a/ Waterbodies regulated by the Buffer Rule
b/ Assumes entire width of construction impacts
ROW = right-of-way.
Information Sources:
GIS —Analysis based on Geodatabase layers and shapefiles.
NC Parcel Boundaries and Standard Fields -
http://data. nconemap.gov/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.
page
NLCD — 2006 National Land Cover Data - http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd-2006.html
NWI — National Wetlands Inventory - http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
USGS — U.S. Geological Survey - http://www.usgs.gov/
NHD — National Hydrography Dataset - http://nhd.usgs.gov/
ESRI - GIS Mapping - http://www.esri.com/
E-6 February 2019

Impact 4 - VAR: AS-NHD-305
Alternatives
The perpendicular alternative to the currently designed crossing AS-NHD-305 would no longer be co -
located with the Duke transmission line. There is an additional 254' of pipe, but the entire 1,387 feet of the
alternative is located through existing forested and residential tracts, would increase the acreage of impacts
to the landowner(s) property while also creating a corridor for access to the landowner's yard from the
Duke corridor that is currently separated by forest, and would create an islanding effect between the existing
Duke corridor and the new corridor. Additionally, the alternative route would extend through a currently
designed ATWS that would need to be relocated.
Constructability concerns include: an additional ATWS will be required to support the additional bends in
the pipe and additional tree clearing. The alternative route would result in a decrease in impacts of 1,947
square feet in Zone 1 and 5,129 square feet in Zone 2. There is no change in the number of Waterbodies,
residences in close proximity, or additional parcels affected.
Due to the loss of co -location, additional pipe footage, additional ATWS required to support additional pipe
bends, increased acreage of landowner impacts and creating an access corridor from the Duke corridor that
does not currently exist, islanding of landowner tracts, and the need to find a suitable location for the
existing ATWS. There is no reasonable and practical alternative to the proposed alignment, and Mountain
Valley believes that a variance is warranted at this crossing to minimize overall impacts.
Comparison of the Proposed Route and Perpendicular Alternative at AS-NHD-305
Feature
Proposed Crossing
Perpendicular
Difference
Alternative
Parallel or adjacent to existing ROW
Yes
No
Pipeline length (feet)
1133
1387
+254
Zone 1 buffertotal impacts (sq ft)
7864
5917
-1947
Zone 2 buffertotal impacts (sq ft)
8421
3292
-5129
Number of waterbodies crossed a/
1
1
0
NWI wetland impact (sq ft) b/
0
0
0
Total number of parcels crossed
2
2
0
Number of residences within 25 and 50
feet of the edge of the construction ROW
0/0
0/0
0/0
(and associated additional temporary
workspace)
a/ Waterbodies regulated by the Buffer Rule
b/ Assumes entire width of construction impacts
ROW = right-of-way.
Information Sources:
GIS —Analysis based on Geodatabase layers and shapefiles.
NC Parcel Boundaries and Standard Fields -
http://data. nconemap.gov/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.
page
NLCD — 2006 National Land Cover Data - http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd-2006.html
NWI — National Wetlands Inventory - http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
USGS — U.S. Geological Survey - http://www.usgs.gov/
NHD — National Hydrography Dataset - http://nhd.uscis.ciov/
ESRI - GIS Mapping - http://www.esri.com/
E-7 February 2019

Impact 5 - VAR: S -C18-15
Alternatives
The perpendicular alternative to the currently designed crossing S -C18-15 would no longer be co -located
with the Duke transmission line. There is an additional 253' of pipe, but the entire 933 feet of the alternative
is through existing forested tracts, would increase the acreage of impacts to landowner(s), and would create
an islanding effect between the existing Duke corridor and the new corridor. Additionally, the alternative
route extends through a planned ATWS that would need to be relocated to the southeast and would likely
result in additional riparian buffer impact.
Constructability concerns include: additional ATWS will be required to support the additional bends in the
pipe, additional tree clearing, additional side slope construction. The alternative route would result in a
decrease in impacts of 11,495 square feet in Zone 1 and 5,349 square feet in Zone 2. There is no change in
the number of Waterbodies, residences in close proximity, or additional parcels affected.
Due to additional pipe footage, additional ATWS required to support additional pipe bends, increased
acreage of landowner impacts, islanding of landowner tracts, and the need to find a suitable location for the
existing ATWS areas. There is no reasonable and practical alternative to the proposed alignment, and
Mountain Valley believes that a variance is warranted at this crossing to minimize overall impacts.
Comparison of the Proposed Route and Perpendicular Alternative at S -C18-15
Feature
Proposed Crossing
Perpendicular
Difference
Alternative
Parallel or adjacent to existing ROW
Yes
No
Pipeline length (feet)
680
933
+253
Zone 1 buffertotal impacts (sq ft)
16615
5120
-11495
Zone 2 buffertotal impacts (sq ft)
8547
3198
-5349
Number of waterbodies crossed a/
1
1
0
NWI wetland impact (sq ft) b/
0
0
0
Total number of parcels crossed
4
4
0
Number of residences within 25 and 50
feet of the edge of the construction ROW
0/0
0/0
0/0
(and associated additional temporary
workspace)
a/ Waterbodies regulated by the Buffer Rule
b/ Assumes entire width of construction impacts
ROW = right-of-way.
Information Sources:
GIS —Analysis based on Geodatabase layers and shapefiles.
NC Parcel Boundaries and Standard Fields -
http://data. nconemap.gov/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.
page
NLCD — 2006 National Land Cover Data - http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd-2006.html
NWI — National Wetlands Inventory - http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
USGS — U.S. Geological Survey - http://www.usgs.gov/
NHD — National Hydrography Dataset - http://nhd.usgs.gov/
ESRI - GIS Mapping - http://www.esri.com/
E-8 February 2019

Impact 6 - VAR: S -B 18-94
Alternatives
The perpendicular alternative to the currently designed crossing S -B 18-94 has an additional 59' of pipe,
but the entire 756 feet of the alternative is through existing forested tracts, would increase the acreage of
impacts to landowner(s), and extends through a planned ATWS that would need to be relocated in the
vicinity.
Constructability concerns include: an additional ATWS will be required to support the additional bends in
the pipe, additional tree clearing, additional side slope construction, and relocation of an existing ATWS.
Without considering the impacts from the ATWS move, the alternative route would result in a decrease in
impacts of 1510 square feet in Zone 1 and 763 square feet in Zone 2. There is no change in the number of
Waterbodies, or residences in close proximity, but two additional parcels are crossed.
Due to additional pipe footage, additional ATWS required to support additional pipe bends, increased
acreage of landowner impacts, additional impacted tracts, and the need to find a suitable location and the
associated impacts of moving the ATWS areas. There is no reasonable and practical alternative to the
proposed alignment, and Mountain Valley believes that a variance is warranted at this crossing to minimize
overall impacts.
Comparison of the Proposed Route and Perpendicular Alternative at S -B18-94
Feature
Proposed Crossing
Perpendicular
Difference
Alternative
Parallel or adjacent to existing ROW
No
No
Pipeline length (feet)
697
756
+59
Zone 1 buffertotal impacts (sq ft)
6894
5384
-1510
Zone 2 buffertotal impacts (sq ft)
4239
3476
-763
Number of waterbodies crossed a/
1
1
0
NWI wetland impact (sq ft) b/
0
0
0
Total number of parcels crossed
2
4
+2
Number of residences within 25 and 50
feet of the edge of the construction ROW
0/0
0/0
0/0
(and associated additional temporary
workspace)
a/ Waterbodies regulated by the Buffer Rule
b/ Assumes entire width of construction impacts
ROW = right-of-way.
Information Sources:
GIS —Analysis based on Geodatabase layers and shapefiles.
NC Parcel Boundaries and Standard Fields -
http://data. nconemap.gov/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.
page
NLCD — 2006 National Land Cover Data - http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd-2006.html
NWI — National Wetlands Inventory - http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
USGS — U.S. Geological Survey - http://www.usgs.gov/
NHD — National Hydrography Dataset - http://nhd.usgs.gov/
ESRI - GIS Mapping - http://www.esri.com/
E-9 February 2019

Impact 7 - VAR: S-A 18-87
Alternatives
The perpendicular alternative to the currently designed crossing S -A18-87 would no longer be co -located
with the Duke transmission line. There is an additional 35' of pipe, but the entire 519 feet of the alternative
is through existing forested and agricultural tracts, would increase the acreage of impacts to landowner(s)
including operational workspace in agricultural field, and would create an islanding effect between the
existing Duke corridor and the new corridor. Additionally, the alternative route extends through a planned
ATWS that would need to be relocated, either requiring additional acreage of agricultural land, or additional
clearing of forested tracts.
Constructability concerns include: an additional ATWS will be required to support the additional bends in
the pipe and additional tree clearing. The alternative route would result in a decrease in impacts of 5,145
square feet in Zone 1 and 2,531 square feet in Zone 2. There is no change in the number of waterbodies,
residences in close proximity, or additional parcels affected.
Due to additional pipe footage, additional ATWS required to support additional pipe bends, increased
acreage of landowner impacts, islanding of landowner tracts, increased impacts in forested and agricultural
areas, and the need to find a suitable location for the existing ATWS. There is no reasonable and practical
alternative to the proposed alignment, and Mountain Valley believes that a variance is warranted at this
crossing to minimize overall impacts.
Comparison of the Proposed Route and Perpendicular Alternative at S -A18-87
Feature
Proposed Crossing
Perpendicular
Difference
Alternative
Parallel or adjacent to existing ROW
Yes
No
Pipeline length (feet)
484
519
+35
Zone 1 buffertotal impacts (sq ft)
10169
5024
-5145
Zone 2 buffertotal impacts (sq ft)
5738
3207
-2531
Number of waterbodies crossed a/
1
1
0
NWI wetland impact (sq ft) b/
0
0
0
Total number of parcels crossed
1
1
0
Number of residences within 25 and 50
feet of the edge of the construction ROW
0/0
0/0
0/0
(and associated additional temporary
workspace)
a/ Waterbodies regulated by the Buffer Rule
b/ Assumes entire width of construction impacts
ROW = right-of-way.
Information Sources:
GIS —Analysis based on Geodatabase layers and shapefiles.
NC Parcel Boundaries and Standard Fields -
http://data. nconemap.gov/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.
page
NLCD — 2006 National Land Cover Data - http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd-2006.html
NWI — National Wetlands Inventory - http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
USGS — U.S. Geological Survey - http://www.usgs.gov/
NHD — National Hydrography Dataset - http://nhd.uscis.ciov/
ESRI - GIS Mapping - http://www.esri.com/
E-10 February 2019

Impacts 8, 9,& 10 -VAR: S -C18-60, 62, and 63
Alternatives
The perpendicular alternative to the currently designed crossings S-08-60, 62, and 63 would no longer be
co -located with the Duke transmission line. There is an additional 823' of pipe, but the entire 4,817 feet of
the alternative is through existing forested and agricultural tracts, including operational workspace in
agricultural fields. The alternative would significantly increase the acreage of impacts to landowner(s),
while also creating a corridor for access to several landowner's tracts from the Duke corridor that is
currently separated by forest. It would also create an islanding effect between the existing Duke corridor
and the new corridor. Additionally, the alternative route would require five planned ATWS to be relocated
along the new route.
Constructability concerns include: an additional ATWS will be required to support the additional bends in
the pipe and additional tree clearing. The alternative route would result in a decrease in impacts of 15,156
square feet in Zone 1 and 8,927 square feet in Zone 2. There is no change in the number of waterbodies or
residences in close proximity, or additional parcels affected, but a decrease of 22,510 square feet would
occur along the alternative.
Due to additional pipe footage, additional ATWS required to support additional pipe bends, increased
acreage of landowner impacts, islanding of landowner tracts, creating a corridor for access to several
landowner's tracts from the Duke corridor, and the need to find suitable locations and the associated impacts
of moving the five existing ATWS areas. There is no reasonable and practical alternative to the proposed
alignment, and Mountain Valley believes that a variance is warranted at this crossing to minimize overall
impacts.
Comparison of the Proposed Route and Perpendicular Alternative at S -C18-60,62,63
Feature
Proposed Crossing
Perpendicular
Alternative
Difference
Parallel or adjacent to existing ROW
Yes
No
Pipeline length (feet)
3994
4817
+823
Zone 1 buffertotal impacts (sq ft)
19836
4680
-15156
Zone 2 buffertotal impacts (sq ft)
12047
3120
-8927
Number of waterbodies crossed a/
3
3
0
NWI wetland impact (sq ft) b/
22510
0
-22510
Total number of parcels crossed
4
4
0
Number of residences within 25 and 50
feet of the edge of the construction ROW
(and associated additional temporary
workspace)
0/0
0/0
0/0
E-11 February 2019

17 Mountain Valley
PIPELINE ttc Alternatives
Comparison of the Proposed Route and Perpendicular Alternative at S -C18-60,62,63
Feature Proposed Crossing Perpendicular Difference
Alternative
a/ Waterbodies regulated by the Buffer Rule
b/ Assumes entire width of construction impacts
ROW = right-of-way.
Information Sources:
GIS —Analysis based on Geodatabase layers and shapefiles.
NC Parcel Boundaries and Standard Fields -
http://data. nconemap.gov/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details. page
NLCD — 2006 National Land Cover Data - http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd-2006.html
NWI — National Wetlands Inventory - http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
USGS — U.S. Geological Survey - http://www.usgs.gov/
NHD — National Hydrography Dataset - http://nhd.usgs.gov/
ESRI - GIS Mapping - http://www.esri.com/
Impact 11&12 -VAR: S -B18-59 & SS-SOIL18-04
The perpendicular alternative to the currently designed crossing S -B18-59 & SS-SOIL18-04 would no
longer be co -located with the Duke transmission line, while the proposed route is for over half of the span.
There is an additional 1,339' of pipe, but the majority of the 5,876 feet of the alternative is through existing
forested tracts, would increase the acreage of impacts to the landowner(s) property while also creating a
corridor for access to a number of landowner's pastures from the Duke corridor that is currently separated
by forest. The alternative would create an islanding effect between the existing Duke corridor and the new
corridor. Additionally, the alternative route would require relocating five planned ATWS.
Constructability concerns include: an additional ATWS will be required to support the additional bends in
the pipe and additional tree clearing. The alternative route would result in a decrease in impacts of 27,940
square feet in Zone 1 and 16,042 square feet in Zone 2. There alternative crosses four fewer waterbodies,
has the same number of residences in close proximity, and crosses four fewer parcels.
Due to the loss of co -location, additional ATWS required to support additional pipe bends, additional pipe
footage, increased acreage of landowner impacts and creating an access corridor from the Duke corridor
that does not currently exist, islanding of landowner tracts, and the need to find suitable locations for the
ATWS areas. There is no reasonable and practical alternative to the proposed alignment, and Mountain
Valley believes that a variance is warranted at this crossing to minimize overall impacts.
Comparison of the Proposed Route and Perpendicular Alternative at S -B18-59 & SS-SOIL18-04
Feature
Proposed Crossing
Perpendicular
Alternative
Difference
Parallel or adjacent to existing ROW
No
No
Pipeline length (feet)
4537
5876
+1339
Zone 1 buffer total impacts (sq ft)
32606
4666
-27940
Zone 2 buffer total impacts (sq ft)
19153
3111
-16042
Number of waterbodies crossed a/
5
1
-4
E-12 February 2019

Alternatives
Comparison of the Proposed Route and Perpendicular Alternative at S -B18-59 & SS-SOIL18-04
Feature
Proposed Crossing
Perpendicular
Difference
Parallel or adjacent to existing ROW
Yes
Alternative
NWI wetland impact (sq ft) b/
0
0
0
Total number of parcels crossed
8
4
-4
Number of residences within 25 and 50
1925
1577
-348
feet of the edge of the construction ROW
0/0
0/0
0/0
(and associated additional temporary
workspace)
a/ Waterbodies regulated by the Buffer Rule
b/ Assumes entire width of construction impacts
ROW = right-of-way.
Information Sources:
GIS —Analysis based on Geodatabase layers and shapefiles.
NC Parcel Boundaries and Standard Fields -
http://data. nconemap.gov/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.
page
NLCD — 2006 National Land Cover Data - http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd-2006.html
NWI — National Wetlands Inventory - http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
USGS — U.S. Geological Survey - http://www.usgs.gov/
NHD — National Hydrography Dataset - http://nhd.usgs.gov/
ESRI - GIS Mapping - http://www.esri.com/
Impact 13 - VAR: S-A 18-120
The perpendicular alternative to the currently designed crossing S -A18-120 would no longer be co -located
with the Duke transmission line. There is an additional 36' of pipe, but the majority of the 392 feet of the
alternative is through existing forested tracts, would increase the acreage of impacts to landowner(s), and
would create an islanding effect between the existing Duke corridor and the new corridor.
Constructability concerns include: additional ATWS will be required to support the additional bends in the
pipe and additional tree clearing. The alternative route would result in a decrease in impacts of 955 square
feet in Zone 1 and 348 square feet in Zone 2. There is no change in the number of waterbodies, residences
in close proximity, or additional parcels affected.
Due to additional pipe footage, additional ATWS required to support additional pipe bends, increased
acreage of landowner impacts, and islanding of landowner tracts. There is no reasonable and practical
alternative to the proposed alignment, and Mountain Valley believes that a variance is warranted at this
crossing to minimize overall impacts.
Comparison of the Proposed Route and Perpendicular Alternative at S -A18-120
Feature
Proposed Crossing
Perpendicular
Alternative
Difference
Parallel or adjacent to existing ROW
Yes
No
Pipeline length (feet)
356
392
+36
Zone 1 buffertotal impacts (sq ft)
5680
4725
-955
Zone 2 buffer total impacts (sq ft)
1925
1577
-348
E-13 February 2019

Alternatives
Comparison of the Proposed Route and Perpendicular Alternative at S -A18-120
Feature
Proposed Crossing
Perpendicular
Difference
Alternative
Number of waterbodies crossed a/
2
2
0
NWI wetland impact (sq ft) b/
0
0
0
Total number of parcels crossed
1
1
0
Number of residences within 25 and 50
feet of the edge of the construction ROW
0/0
0/0
0/0
(and associated additional temporary
workspace)
a/ Waterbodies regulated by the Buffer Rule
b/ Assumes entire width of construction impacts
ROW = right-of-way.
Information Sources:
GIS —Analysis based on Geodatabase layers and shapefiles.
NC Parcel Boundaries and Standard Fields -
http://data. nconemap.gov/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.
page
NLCD — 2006 National Land Cover Data - http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd-2006.html
NWI — National Wetlands Inventory - http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
USGS — U.S. Geological Survey - http://www.usgs.gov/
NHD — National Hydrography Dataset - http://nhd.usgs.gov/
ESRI - GIS Mapping - http://www.esri.com/
Impact 14 -VAR: S -A18-125
The perpendicular alternative to the currently designed crossing S -A18-125 would no longer be co -located
with the Duke transmission line. There is an additional 616' of pipe, but the entire 1,673 feet of the
alternative is through existing forested or agricultural tracts. The alternative would increase the acreage of
impacts to landowner(s), and would create an islanding effect between the existing Duke corridor and the
new corridor. Additionally, the alternative route extends stream S -A18-123, S -A18-129, and WB -A18-128
that were previously avoided, and requires two planned ATWS to be relocated.
Constructability concerns include: additional ATWS will be required to support the additional bends in the
pipe, additional tree clearing, and additional waterbody crossings. The alternative route would result in a
decrease in impacts of 2,202 square feet in Zone 1 and 6,685 square feet less in Zone 2, however SA -18-
129 is ephemeral and does not have a buffer despite being crossed. There is no change in the number of
residences in close proximity, but one additional parcel is affected, one additional waterbody is crossed,
and 7,473 square feet more of NWI wetlands are impacted by the alternative.
Due to additional pipe footage, additional ATWS required to support additional pipe bends, increased
acreage of landowner impacts, additional waterbody crossings, additional wetland impacts, islanding of
landowner tracts, additional wetland impacts, and the need to find suitable locations for the two ATWS
areas. There is no reasonable and practical alternative to the proposed alignment, and Mountain Valley
believes that a variance is warranted at this crossing to minimize overall impacts.
E-14 February 2019

Alternatives
Comparison of the Proposed Route and Perpendicular Alternative at S -A18-125
Feature
Proposed Crossing
Perpendicular
Difference
Alternative
Parallel or adjacent to existing ROW
Yes
No
Pipeline length (feet)
1057
1673
+616
Zone 1 buffertotal impacts (sq ft)
17902
15700
-2202
Zone 2 buffertotal impacts (sq ft)
12855
6170
-6685
Number of waterbodies crossed a/
1
2
+1
NWI wetland impact (sq ft) b/
0
7473
+7473
Total number of parcels crossed
1
2
+1
Number of residences within 25 and 50
feet of the edge of the construction ROW
(and associated additional temporary
0/0
0/0
0/0
workspace)
a/ Waterbodies regulated by the Buffer Rule
b/ Assumes entire width of construction impacts
ROW = right-of-way.
Information Sources:
GIS —Analysis based on Geodatabase layers and shapefiles.
NC Parcel Boundaries and Standard Fields -
http://data. nconemap.gov/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.
page
NLCD — 2006 National Land Cover Data - http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd-2006.html
NWI — National Wetlands Inventory - http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
USGS — U.S. Geological Survey - http://www.usgs.gov/
NHD — National Hydrography Dataset - http://nhd.usgs.gov/
ESRI - GIS Mapping - http://www.esri.com/
Impact 15&16 -VAR: S -A18-132; S -A18 -136 -Zone Impact
The perpendicular alternative to the currently designed crossing S -A18-132; S -A18 -136 -Zone Impact
would no longer be co -located with the Duke transmission line. There is an additional 320' of pipe, but the
entire 1,244 feet of the alternative is through existing forested tracts, would increase the acreage of impacts
to landowner(s), and would create an islanding effect between the existing Duke corridor and the new
corridor. Additionally, the alternative route extends stream S -A18-134 that was previously avoided, has
significant more Zone 1 impacts, stream S -A18-136 goes from a buffer impact with no waterbody crossing
to a perpendicular waterbody crossing, and requires a planned ATWS to be relocated.
Constructability concerns include: additional ATWS will be required to support the additional bends in the
pipe, additional tree clearing, and additional waterbody crossings. The alternative route would result in an
increase in impacts of 6,340 square feet in Zone 1 and a decrease in impacts of 1,861 square feet Zone 2.
There is no change in the number of residences in close proximity or additional parcels affected, but two
additional waterbodies are crossed.
Due to additional pipe footage, additional ATWS required to support additional pipe bends, increased
acreage of landowner impacts, additional waterbody crossings, islanding of landowner tracts, and the need
to find a suitable location for the existing ATWS areas. There is no reasonable and practical alternative to
E-15 February 2019

17 Mountain Valley
PIPELINE ttc Alternatives
the proposed alignment, and Mountain Valley believes that a variance is warranted at this crossing to
minimize overall impacts.
Comparison of the Proposed Route and Perpendicular Alternative at S -A18-132,134,136
Feature
Proposed Crossing
Perpendicular
Difference
Alternative
Parallel or adjacent to existing ROW
Yes
No
Pipeline length (feet)
924
1244
+320
Zone 1 buffer total impacts (sq ft)
8864
15204
+6340
Zone 2 buffer total impacts (sq ft)
11582
9721
-1861
Number of waterbodies crossed a/
1
3
+2
NWI wetland impact (sq ft) b/
0
0
0
Total number of parcels crossed
2
2
0
Number of residences within 25 and 50 feet
of the edge of the construction ROW (and
0/0
0/0
0/0
associated additional temporary workspace)
a/ Waterbodies regulated by the Buffer Rule
b/ Assumes entire width of construction impacts
ROW = right-of-way.
Information Sources:
GIS —Analysis based on Geodatabase layers and shapefiles.
NC Parcel Boundaries and Standard Fields - http://data.nconemap.gov/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/detaiIs.page
NLCD — 2006 National Land Cover Data - http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd-2006.html
NWI — National Wetlands Inventory - http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
USGS — U.S. Geological Survey - http://www.usgs.gov/
NHD — National Hydrography Dataset - http://nhd.usgs.gov/
ESRI - GIS Mapping - http://www.esri.com/
Impact 17 -VAR: SS-SOIL18-06
The perpendicular alternative to the currently designed crossing SS-SOIL18-06 has an additional 471' of
pipe, would increase the acreage of impacts to landowner(s), adding impacts to two tracts on both sides of
the Duke corridor instead of keeping impacts within the tracts on just one side of the existing corridor, and
would require the relocation of four planned ATWS.
Constructability concerns include: crossing the Duke corridor twice in a short span, a significant angle near
a bore to cross Dodd road, an additional ATWS will be required to support the additional bends in the pipe,
additional tree clearing, and relocation of the four ATWS. Without considering the impacts from the ATWS
moves, the alternative route would result in a decrease in impacts of 1,083 square feet in Zone 1 and 512
square feet in Zone 2. There is no change in the number of waterbodies, residences in close proximity, or
additional parcels affected.
Due to additional pipe footage, additional ATWS required to support additional pipe bends, increased
acreage of landowner impacts, impacts to both sides of the Duke corridor on two tracts, and the need to find
suitable locations for the four ATWS areas. There is no reasonable and practical alternative to the proposed
alignment, and Mountain Valley believes that a variance is warranted at this crossing to minimize overall
impacts.
E-16 February 2019

Alternatives
Comparison of the Preferred Route and Perpendicular Alternative at SS-SOIL18-06
Feature
Proposed Crossing
Perpendicular
Difference
Alternative
Parallel or adjacent to existing ROW
No
Yes
Pipeline length (feet)
1336
1807
+471
Zone 1 buffertotal impacts (sq ft)
5681
4598
-1083
Zone 2 buffertotal impacts (sq ft)
3759
3247
-512
Number of waterbodies crossed a/
1
1
0
NWI wetland impact (sq ft) b/
0
0
0
Total number of parcels crossed
3
3
0
Number of residences within 25 and 50
feet of the edge of the construction ROW
(and associated additional temporary
0/0
0/0
0/0
workspace)
a/ Waterbodies regulated by the Buffer Rule
b/ Assumes entire width of construction impacts
ROW = right-of-way.
Information Sources:
GIS —Analysis based on Geodatabase layers and shapefiles.
NC Parcel Boundaries and Standard Fields -
http://data. nconemap.gov/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.
page
NLCD — 2006 National Land Cover Data - http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd-2006.html
NWI — National Wetlands Inventory - http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
USGS — U.S. Geological Survey - http://www.usgs.gov/
NHD — National Hydrography Dataset - http://nhd.usgs.gov/
ESRI - GIS Mapping - http://www.esri.com/
Impact 18 -VAR: S -C18-11
The perpendicular alternative to the currently designed crossing S-08-11 has an additional 153' of pipe,
would increase the acreage of impacts to landowner(s), and would require the relocation of three planned
ATWS. While the riparian buffer for the primary stream impacted is perpendicular with the alternative,
other streams are impacted like AS -C 18-12 that is not buffered because itis ephemeral, but it drains directly
into S -C18-11 the primary stream.
Constructability concerns include: an additional ATWS will be required to support the additional bends in
the pipe, additional tree clearing, and relocation of the four existing ATWS. Without considering the
impacts from the ATWS moves, the alternative route would result in a decrease in impacts of 7,137 square
feet in Zone 1 and 1,081 square feet in Zone 2. There is no change in the number of waterbodies, residences
in close proximity, or additional parcels affected.
Due to additional pipe footage, additional ATWS required to support additional pipe bends, increased
acreage of landowner impacts, additional impacts to non -buffered streams, and the need to find suitable
locations for the four existing ATWS areas. There is no reasonable and practical alternative to the proposed
alignment, and Mountain Valley believes that a variance is warranted at this crossing to minimize overall
impacts.
E-17 February 2019

Alternatives
Comparison of the Proposed Route and Perpendicular Alternative at S -C18-11
Feature
Proposed Crossing
Perpendicular
Difference
Alternative
Parallel or adjacent to existing ROW
No
No
Pipeline length (feet)
1182
1335
+153
Zone 1 buffer total impacts (sq ft)
15018
7881
-7137
Zone 2 buffertotal impacts (sq ft)
4447
3366
-1081
Number of waterbodies crossed a/
2
2
0
NWI wetland impact (sq ft) b/
1
1
0
Total number of parcels crossed
2
2
0
Number of residences within 25 and 50
feet of the edge of the construction
ROW (and associated additional
0/0
0/0
0/0
temporary workspace)
a/ Waterbodies regulated by the Buffer Rule
b/ Assumes entire width of construction impacts
ROW = right-of-way.
Information Sources:
GIS — Analysis based on Geodatabase layers and shapefiles.
NC Parcel Boundaries and Standard Fields -
http://data. nconemap.gov/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details. page
NLCD — 2006 National Land Cover Data - http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd-2006.html
NWI — National Wetlands Inventory - http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
USGS — U.S. Geological Survey - http://www.usgs.gov/
NHD — National Hydrography Dataset - http://nhd.usgs.gov/
ESRI - GIS Mapping - http://www.esri.com/
Impact 19 - VAR: AS-NHD-1549
The perpendicular alternative to the currently designed crossing AS-NHD-1549 has an additional 31' of
pipe, would increase the acreage of impacts to landowner(s), and extends through a planned additional
temporary workspaces (ATWS) that would need to be relocated in the vicinity.
Constructability concerns include: relocation of the ATWS. Without considering the impacts from the
ATWS moves, the alternative route would result in a decrease in impacts of 1,195 square feet in Zone 1
and 764 square feet in Zone 2. There is no change in the number of waterbodies, residences in close
proximity, or additional parcels affected.
Due to additional pipe footage, increased acreage of landowner impacts, and the need to find a suitable
location and the associated impacts of moving the ATWS. There is no reasonable and practical alternative
to the proposed alignment, and Mountain Valley believes that a variance is warranted at this crossing to
minimize overall impacts.
E-18 February 2019

Alternatives
Comparison of the Proposed Route and Perpendicular Alternative at AS-NHD-1549
Feature
Feature Proposed Crossing
Perpendicular
Difference
Parallel or adjacent to existing ROW
Alternative
No
Parallel or adjacent to existing ROW Yes
No
599
Pipeline length (feet) 490
521
+31
Zone 1 buffer total impacts (sq ft) 5702
4507
-1195
Zone 2 buffer total impacts (sq ft) 3768
3004
-764
Number of waterbodies crossed a/ 1
1
0
NWI wetland impact (sq ft) b/ 0
0
0
Total number of parcels crossed 2
2
0
Number of residences within 25 and 50 feet
of the edge of the construction ROW (and 0/0
0/0
0/0
associated additional temporary workspace)
a/ Waterbodies regulated by the Buffer Rule
b/ Assumes entire width of construction impacts
ROW = right-of-way.
Information Sources:
GIS —Analysis based on Geodatabase layers and shapefiles.
NC Parcel Boundaries and Standard Fields - http://data.nconemap.gov/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/detaiIs.page
NLCD — 2006 National Land Cover Data - http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd-2006.html
NWI — National Wetlands Inventory - http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
USGS — U.S. Geological Survey - http://www.usgs.gov/
NHD — National Hydrography Dataset - http://nhd.usgs.gov/
ESRI - GIS Mapping - http://www.esri.com/
Impact 20&21 - VAR: S -C 18-30, S -C 18-28
The perpendicular alternative to the currently designed crossings S -C 18-30, and S -C 18-28 has an additional
158' of pipe and would increase the acreage of impacts to landowner(s).
Constructability concerns include: an additional ATWS will be required to support the additional bends in
the pipe and additional tree clearing. The alternative route would result in a decrease in impacts of 3,022
square feet in Zone 1 and 2,350 square feet in Zone 2. There is no change in the number of waterbodies,
residences in close proximity, or additional parcels affected.
Due to additional pipe footage, additional ATWS required to support additional pipe bends, and increased
acreage of landowner impacts. There is no reasonable and practical alternative to the proposed alignment,
and Mountain Valley believes that a variance is warranted at this crossing to minimize overall impacts.
Comparison of the Proposed Route and Perpendicular Alternative at S -C18-28,30
Feature
Proposed Crossing
Perpendicular
Alternative
Difference
Parallel or adjacent to existing ROW
No
No
Pipeline length (feet)
599
757
+158
Zone 1 buffertotal impacts (sq ft)
14435
11413
-3022
Zone 2 buffer total impacts (sq ft)
8787
6437
-2350
E-19 February 2019

Alternatives
Comparison of the Proposed Route and Perpendicular Alternative at S -C18-28,30
Feature
Proposed Crossing
Perpendicular
Difference
Alternative
Number of waterbodies crossed a/
2
2
0
NWI wetland impact (sq ft) b/
0
0
0
Total number of parcels crossed
2
2
0
Number of residences within 25 and 50
feet of the edge of the construction ROW
0/0
0/0
0/0
(and associated additional temporary
workspace)
a/ Waterbodies regulated by the Buffer Rule
b/ Assumes entire width of construction impacts
ROW = right-of-way.
Information Sources:
GIS —Analysis based on Geodatabase layers and shapefiles.
NC Parcel Boundaries and Standard Fields -
http://data. nconemap.gov/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.
page
NLCD — 2006 National Land Cover Data - http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd-2006.html
NWI — National Wetlands Inventory - http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
USGS — U.S. Geological Survey - http://www.usgs.gov/
NHD — National Hydrography Dataset - http://nhd.usgs.gov/
ESRI - GIS Mapping - http://www.esri.com/
Impact 22 - VAR: S-A 18 -76 -Zone Impact
The perpendicular crossing of S -A18-78 causes the construction workspace to impact the buffer of S -A18-
76. Adjusting the alignment away from the S-A 18-76 buffer would create a non -perpendicular crossing at
S -A18-78.
Impact 23 - VAR: S-A 18 -76 -Zone Impact -3
The perpendicular crossing of S -A18-77 causes the construction workspace to impact the buffer of S -A18-
76. Adjusting the alignment away from the S-A 18-76 buffer would create a non -perpendicular crossing at
S-A 18-77.
Impact 24 -VAR: S -A18-70 & S -A18-72
The perpendicular alternative to the currently designed crossing S -A18-70 & S -A18-72 would no longer be
co -located with the existing access road on the edge of the landowner's property. There is an additional 40'
of pipe, but the alternative route would run through the middle of the landowner's pasture and all be
greenfield impacts instead of staying on the edge of the property and utilizing the existing access road as
workspace. The alternative would increase the acreage of impacts to landowner(s), and would create an
islanding effect between the existing property boundary and access road, and the new corridor.
The constructability concerns include additional side slope construction. The alternative route would result
in a decrease in impacts of 3,823 square feet in Zone 1 and 31 square feet in Zone 2. There is no change in
the number of residences in close proximity or additional parcels affected, and one fewer NWI waterbody
is affected.
E-20 February 2019

17 Mountain Valley
PIPELINE ttc Alternatives
Due to additional pipe footage, increased acreage of landowner impacts, loss of co -location with the existing
access road, and islanding of a tract. There is no reasonable and practical alternative to the proposed
alignment, and Mountain Valley believes that a variance is warranted at this crossing to minimize overall
impacts.
Comparison of the Proposed Route and Perpendicular Alternative at S -A18-70 & S -A18-72
Feature
Proposed Crossing
Perpendicular
Difference
Alternative
Parallel or adjacent to existing ROW
No
No
Pipeline length (feet)
1734
1774
+40
Zone 1 buffertotal impacts (sq ft)
9206
5383
-3823
Zone 2 buffertotal impacts (sq ft)
3394
3425
+31
Number of waterbodies crossed a/
2
1
-1
NWI wetland impact (sq ft) b/
0
0
0
Total number of parcels crossed
3
3
0
Number of residences within 25 and 50
feet of the edge of the construction ROW
0/0
0/0
0/0
(and associated additional temporary
workspace)
a/ Waterbodies regulated by the Buffer Rule
b/ Assumes entire width of construction impacts
ROW = right-of-way.
Information Sources:
GIS —Analysis based on Geodatabase layers and shapefiles.
NC Parcel Boundaries and Standard Fields -
http://data. nconemap.gov/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.
page
NLCD — 2006 National Land Cover Data - http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd-2006.html
NWI — National Wetlands Inventory - http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
USGS — U.S. Geological Survey - http://www.usgs.gov/
NHD — National Hydrography Dataset - http://nhd.usgs.gov/
ESRI - GIS Mapping - http://www.esri.com/
Impact 25 -VAR: S -B18-12
The perpendicular alternative to the currently designed crossing S -B18-12 has an additional 779' of pipe,
would increase the acreage of impacts to landowner(s), and require a relocation of three planned ATWS.
Constructability concerns include: an additional ATWS will be required to support the additional bends in
the pipe and additional tree clearing, and relocation of the three ATWS. Without considering the impacts
from the ATWS moves, the alternative route would result in a decrease in impacts of 30,110 square feet in
Zone 1 and 14,959 square feet in Zone 2. There is no change in the number of waterbodies, or residences
in close proximity, but one less parcel is affected.
Due to additional pipe footage, additional ATWS required to support additional pipe bends, increased
acreage of landowner impacts, and the need to find suitable locations and the associated impacts of moving
E-21 February 2019

17 Mountain Valley
PIPELINE ttc Alternatives
the two ATWS areas. There is no reasonable and practical alternative to the proposed alignment, and
Mountain Valley believes that a variance is warranted at this crossing to minimize overall impacts.
Comparison of the Proposed Route and Perpendicular Alternative at S-11318-12
Feature Proposed Crossing
Perpendicular
Difference
Alternative
Parallel or adjacent to existing ROW No
No
Pipeline length (feet) 1989
2768
+779
Zone 1 buffer total impacts (sq ft) 34803
4693
-30110
Zone 2 buffer total impacts (sq ft) 18087
3128
-14959
Number of waterbodies crossed a/ 2
1
-1
NWI wetland impact (sq ft) b/ 0
0
0
Total number of parcels crossed 4
3
-1
Number of residences within 25 and 50 feet
of the edge of the construction ROW (and 0/0
0/0
0/0
associated additional temporary workspace)
a/ Waterbodies regulated by the Buffer Rule
b/ Assumes entire width of construction impacts
ROW = right-of-way.
Information Sources:
GIS —Analysis based on Geodatabase layers and shapefiles.
NC Parcel Boundaries and Standard Fields - http://data.nconemap.gov/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/detaiIs.page
NLCD — 2006 National Land Cover Data - http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd-2006.html
NWI — National Wetlands Inventory - http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
USGS — U.S. Geological Survey - http://www.usgs.gov/
NHD — National Hydrography Dataset - http://nhd.usgs.gov/
ESRI - GIS Mapping - http://www.esri.com/
Impact 26 - VAR: AS -B18-16 / S -B18-16
This is proposed to be an HDD crossing. Trees will be felled to allow line of sight and a guide wire, but
impacts in the riparian buffer are expected to be minimal since the drill pits will be outside the riparian
buffer.
Impact 27 - VAR: AS-NHD-1547
The perpendicular alternative to the currently designed crossing AS-NHD-1547 has an additional 242' of
pipe, would increase the acreage of impacts to landowner(s) and move the operational acreage from the
edge of the existing pasture out into the area currently being utilized. Additionally, the alternative would
impact forest adjacent to the larger Deep Creek south of the proposed location, and require a relocation of
one planned ATWS.
Constructability concerns include: an additional ATWS will be required to support the additional bends in
the pipe and additional tree clearing, and relocation of the ATWS. Without considering the impacts from
the ATWS moves, the alternative route would result in a decrease in impacts of 2,263 square feet in Zone
1 and 1,545 square feet in Zone 2. There is no change in the number of Waterbodies, residences in close
proximity, or additional parcels affected.
E-22 February 2019

17 Mountain Valley
PIPELINE ttc Alternatives
Due to additional pipe footage, additional ATWS required to support additional pipe bends, increased
acreage of landowner impacts, impacts moved from the edge of the pasture, clearing of trees in the current
Deep Creek Buffer, and the need to find a suitable location and the associated impacts of moving the ATWS
areas. There is no reasonable and practical alternative to the proposed alignment, and Mountain Valley
believes that a variance is warranted at this crossing to minimize overall impacts.
Comparison of the Proposed Route and Perpendicular Alternative at AS-NHD-1547
Feature
Proposed Crossing
Perpendicular
Difference
Alternative
Parallel or adjacent to existing ROW
No
No
Pipeline length (feet)
817
1059
+242
Zone 1 buffertotal impacts (sq ft)
8361
6098
-2263
Zone 2 buffertotal impacts (sq ft)
4593
3048
-1545
Number of waterbodies crossed a/
1
1
0
NWI wetland impact (sq ft) b/
0
0
0
Total number of parcels crossed
3
3
0
Number of residences within 25 and 50
feet of the edge of the construction ROW
0/0
0/0
0/0
(and associated additional temporary
workspace)
a/ Waterbodies regulated by the Buffer Rule
b/ Assumes entire width of construction impacts
ROW = right-of-way.
Information Sources:
GIS —Analysis based on Geodatabase layers and shapefiles.
NC Parcel Boundaries and Standard Fields -
http://data. nconemap.gov/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.
page
NLCD — 2006 National Land Cover Data - http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd-2006.html
NWI — National Wetlands Inventory - http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
USGS — U.S. Geological Survey - http://www.usgs.gov/
NHD — National Hydrography Dataset - http://nhd.usgs.gov/
ESRI - GIS Mapping - http://www.esri.com/
Impact 28 - VAR: AS-NHD-3040
The perpendicular alternative to the currently designed crossing AS-NHD-3040 has an additional 27' of
pipe, but the entire length of the alternative is through existing forested tracts and would increase the acreage
of impacts to landowner(s), and extend through a planned ATWS that would need to be relocated.
Constructability concerns include: additional ATWS required to support additional pipe bends and
relocation of the ATWS. Without considering the impacts from the ATWS move, the alternative route
would result in a decrease in impacts of 217 square feet in Zone 1 and 120 square feet in Zone 2. There is
no change in the number of waterbodies, residences in close proximity, or additional parcels affected.
Due to additional pipe footage, additional ATWS required to support additional pipe bends, increased
acreage of landowner impacts, and the need to find a suitable location for the ATWS areas. There is no
E-23 February 2019

17 Mountain Valley
PIPELINE ttc Alternatives
reasonable and practical alternative to the proposed alignment, and Mountain Valley believes that a variance
is warranted at this crossing to minimize overall impacts.
Comparison of the Proposed Route and Perpendicular Alternative at AS-NHD-3040
Feature
Proposed Crossing
Perpendicular
Difference
Alternative
Parallel or adjacent to existing ROW
No
No
Pipeline length (feet)
696
723
+27
Zone 1 buffer total impacts (sq ft)
4764
4547
-217
Zone 2 buffertotal impacts (sq ft)
3150
3030
-120
Number of waterbodies crossed a/
1
1
0
NWI wetland impact (sq ft) b/
0
0
0
Total number of parcels crossed
2
2
0
Number of residences within 25 and 50
feet of the edge of the construction ROW
0/0
0/0
0/0
(and associated additional temporary
workspace)
a/ Waterbodies regulated by the Buffer Rule
b/ Assumes entire width of construction impacts
ROW = right-of-way.
Information Sources:
GIS —Analysis based on Geodatabase layers and shapefiles.
NC Parcel Boundaries and Standard Fields -
http://data. nconemap.gov/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.
page
NLCD — 2006 National Land Cover Data - http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd-2006.html
NWI — National Wetlands Inventory - http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
USGS — U.S. Geological Survey - http://www.usgs.gov/
NHD — National Hydrography Dataset - http://nhd.usgs.gov/
ESRI - GIS Mapping - http://www.esri.com/
Impact 29 -VAR: S -A18-250
The perpendicular alternative to the currently designed crossing S -A18-250 has an additional 31' of pipe,
but the entire length of the alternative is through existing forested tracts. The alternative would increase the
acreage of impacts to landowner(s), while also creating a corridor for access from the proposed operational
corridor that is currently separated by forest. The alternative also and extends through a planned ATWS
that would need to be relocated.
Constructability concerns include: an additional ATWS will be required to support the additional bends in
the pipe and additional tree clearing, and relocation of the ATWS. Without considering the impacts from
the ATWS move, the alternative route would result in a decrease in impacts of 892 square feet in Zone 1
and 1,194 square feet in Zone 2. There is no change in the number of residences in close proximity, but one
additional parcel is affected, and one less NWI waterbody is impacted.
Due to additional pipe footage, additional ATWS required to support additional pipe bends, increased
acreage of landowner impacts, creating a corridor for access to a landowner tract that would otherwise have
E-24 February 2019

17 Mountain Valley
PIPELINE ttc Alternatives
a forested buffer, and the need to find a suitable location for the ATWS areas. There is no reasonable and
practical alternative to the proposed alignment, and Mountain Valley believes that a variance is warranted
at this crossing to minimize overall impacts.
Comparison of the Proposed Route and Perpendicular Alternative at S -A18-250
Feature Proposed Crossing
Perpendicular
Difference
Alternative
Parallel or adjacent to existing ROW No
No
Pipeline length (feet) 987
1018
+31
Zone 1 buffer total impacts (sq ft) 5944
5052
-892
Zone 2 buffer total impacts (sq ft) 4466
3272
-1194
Number of waterbodies crossed a/ 2
1
-1
NWI wetland impact (sq ft) b/ 0
0
0
Total number of parcels crossed 2
3
+1
Number of residences within 25 and 50 feet
of the edge of the construction ROW (and 0/0
0/0
0/0
associated additional temporary workspace)
a/ Waterbodies regulated by the Buffer Rule
b/ Assumes entire width of construction impacts
ROW = right-of-way.
Information Sources:
GIS —Analysis based on Geodatabase layers and shapefiles.
NC Parcel Boundaries and Standard Fields - http://data.nconemap.gov/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/detaiIs.page
NLCD — 2006 National Land Cover Data - http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd-2006.html
NWI — National Wetlands Inventory - http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
USGS — U.S. Geological Survey - http://www.usgs.gov/
NHD — National Hydrography Dataset - http://nhd.usgs.gov/
ESRI - GIS Mapping - http://www.esri.com/
Impact 30 - VAR: AS-NHD-3025
The perpendicular alternative to the currently designed crossing AS-NHD-3025 has an additional 123' of
pipe, would increase the acreage of impacts to landowner(s), increase forested impacts, and extends through
two planned ATWS that would need to be relocated.
Constructability concerns include: additional ATWS will be required to support the additional bends in the
pipe and relocation of the two ATWS. Without considering the impacts from the ATWS moves, the
alternative route would result in a decrease in impacts of 898 square feet in Zone 1 and 644 square feet in
Zone 2. There is no change in the number of Waterbodies, residences in close proximity, or additional
parcels affected.
Due to additional pipe footage, additional ATWS required to support additional pipe bends, increased
acreage of landowner impacts, increased forested clearing, and the need to find suitable locations for the
two ATWS areas. There is no reasonable and practical alternative to the proposed alignment, and Mountain
Valley believes that a variance is warranted at this crossing to minimize overall impacts.
E-25 February 2019

Alternatives
Comparison of the Proposed Route and Perpendicular Alternative at AS-NHD-3025
Feature Proposed Crossing
Perpendicular
Difference
Alternative
Parallel or adjacent to existing ROW No
No
Pipeline length (feet) 1207
1330
+123
Zone 1 buffer total impacts (sq ft) 5401
4503
-898
Zone 2 buffer total impacts (sq ft) 3646
3002
-644
Number of waterbodies crossed a/ 1
1
0
NWI wetland impact (sq ft) b/ 0
0
0
Total number of parcels crossed 3
3
0
Number of residences within 25 and 50 feet
of the edge of the construction ROW (and 0/0
0/0
0/0
associated additional temporary workspace)
a/ Waterbodies regulated by the Buffer Rule
b/ Assumes entire width of construction impacts
ROW = right-of-way.
Information Sources:
GIS —Analysis based on Geodatabase layers and shapefiles.
NC Parcel Boundaries and Standard Fields - http://data.nconemap.gov/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/detaiIs.page
NLCD — 2006 National Land Cover Data - http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd-2006.html
NWI — National Wetlands Inventory - http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
USGS — U.S. Geological Survey - http://www.usgs.gov/
NHD — National Hydrography Dataset - http://nhd.usgs.gov/
ESRI - GIS Mapping - http://www.esri.com/
Impact 31 -VAR: S -A18-233
The perpendicular alternative to the currently designed crossing S -A18-233 has an additional 65' of pipe,
would increase the acreage of impacts to landowner(s), increase forested clearing, and extends through two
planned ATWS that would need to be relocated.
Constructability concerns include: an additional ATWS will be required to support the additional bends in
the pipe, additional tree clearing, additional side slope construction, and relocation of the two ATWS.
Without considering the impacts from the ATWS moves, the alternative route would result in a decrease in
impacts of 468 square feet in Zone 1 and 340 square feet in Zone 2. There is no change in the number of
waterbodies, residences in close proximity, or additional parcels affected, but there is 271square feet less
NWI wetland impacts.
Due to additional pipe footage, additional ATWS required to support additional pipe bends, increased
acreage of landowner impacts, additional impacted tracts, additional forested clearing, and the need to find
suitable locations for the two ATWS areas. There is no reasonable and practical alternative to the proposed
alignment, and Mountain Valley believes that a variance is warranted at this crossing to minimize overall
impacts.
E-26 February 2019

Alternatives
Comparison of the Proposed Route and Perpendicular Alternative at S -A18-233
Feature Proposed Crossing
Perpendicular
Difference
Alternative
Parallel or adjacent to existing ROW No
No
Pipeline length (feet) 835
900
+65
Zone 1 buffer total impacts (sq ft) 7133
6665
-468
Zone 2 buffer total impacts (sq ft) 3480
3140
-340
Number of waterbodies crossed a/ 1
1
0
NWI wetland impact (sq ft) b/ 1762
1491
-271
Total number of parcels crossed 2
2
0
Number of residences within 25 and 50 feet
of the edge of the construction ROW (and 0/0
0/0
0/0
associated additional temporary workspace)
a/ Waterbodies regulated by the Buffer Rule
b/ Assumes entire width of construction impacts
ROW = right-of-way.
Information Sources:
GIS —Analysis based on Geodatabase layers and shapefiles.
NC Parcel Boundaries and Standard Fields - http://data.nconemap.gov/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/detaiIs.page
NLCD — 2006 National Land Cover Data - http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd-2006.html
NWI — National Wetlands Inventory - http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
USGS — U.S. Geological Survey - http://www.usgs.gov/
NHD — National Hydrography Dataset - http://nhd.usgs.gov/
ESRI - GIS Mapping - http://www.esri.com/
Impact 32 -VAR: AS -A18 -233 -Zone Workspace
This ATWS was moved and there are no buffer impacts.
Impact 33 - VAR: AS-NHD-1551
The perpendicular alternative to the currently designed crossing AS-NHD-1551 has an additional 98' of
pipe, would increase the acreage of impacts to landowner(s), and extends through two planned ATWS that
would need to be relocated.
Constructability concerns include: an additional ATWS will be required to support the additional bends in
the pipe and additional tree clearing, and relocation of the two ATWS. Without considering the impacts
from the ATWS moves, the alternative route would result in a decrease in impacts of 780 square feet in
Zone 1 and 540 square feet in Zone 2. There is no change in the number of waterbodies, residences in close
proximity, or additional parcels affected.
Due to additional pipe footage, additional ATWS required to support additional pipe bends, increased
acreage of landowner impacts, additional impacted tracts, and the need to find suitable locations and the
associated impacts of moving the two ATWS areas. There is no reasonable and practical alternative to the
proposed alignment, and Mountain Valley believes that a variance is warranted at this crossing to minimize
overall impacts.
E-27 February 2019

Alternatives
Comparison of the Proposed Route and Perpendicular Alternative at AS-NHD-1551
Feature
Proposed Crossing
Perpendicular
Difference
Alternative
Parallel or adjacent to existing ROW
No
No
Pipeline length (feet)
484
582
+98
Zone 1 buffertotal impacts (sq ft)
5299
4519
-780
Zone 2 buffertotal impacts (sq ft)
3552
3012
-540
Number of waterbodies crossed a/
1
1
0
NWI wetland impact (sq ft) b/
0
0
0
Total number of parcels crossed
2
2
0
Number of residences within 25 and 50
feet of the edge of the construction ROW
(and associated additional temporary
0/0
0/0
0/0
workspace)
a/ Waterbodies regulated by the Buffer Rule
b/ Assumes entire width of construction impacts
ROW = right-of-way.
Information Sources:
GIS —Analysis based on Geodatabase layers and shapefiles.
NC Parcel Boundaries and Standard Fields -
http://data. nconemap.gov/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.
page
NLCD — 2006 National Land Cover Data - http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd-2006.html
NWI — National Wetlands Inventory - http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
USGS — U.S. Geological Survey - http://www.usgs.gov/
NHD — National Hydrography Dataset - http://nhd.usgs.gov/
ESRI - GIS Mapping - http://www.esri.com/
Impact 34 - VAR: S -B 18 -3 -Zone Impact
S -B 18-3 is between the perpendicular crossing of S -B 18-7 and the perpendicular crossing of Indian Village
Trail, and adjusting the route to avoid the S -B18-3 buffer impact would require additional pipe bends and
ATWS and would push the construction impacts toward the buffer of WB -B 18-1.
Impact 35 - VAR: S -B18-11
The perpendicular alternative to the currently designed crossing S -B 18-11 has an additional 3 F of pipe and
would increase the acreage of impacts to landowner(s).
Constructability concerns include: an additional ATWS will be required to support the additional bends in
the pipe, additional tree clearing, and additional side slope construction. The alternative route would result
in a decrease in impacts of 1,109 square feet in Zone 1 and 64 square feet in Zone 2. There is no change in
the number of waterbodies, residences in close proximity, or additional parcels affected.
Due to additional pipe footage, additional ATWS required to support additional pipe bends, and increased
acreage of landowner impacts. There is no reasonable and practical alternative to the proposed alignment,
and Mountain Valley believes that a variance is warranted at this crossing to minimize overall impacts.
E-28 February 2019

Alternatives
Comparison of the Proposed Route and Perpendicular Alternative at S -B18-11
Feature
Proposed Crossing
Perpendicular
Difference
Alternative
Parallel or adjacent to existing ROW
No
No
Pipeline length (feet)
538
569
+31
Zone 1 buffertotal impacts (sq ft)
5848
4739
-1109
Zone 2 buffertotal impacts (sq ft)
4061
3997
-64
Number of waterbodies crossed a/
1
1
0
NWI wetland impact (sq ft) b/
0
0
0
Total number of parcels crossed
1
1
0
Number of residences within 25 and 50
feet of the edge of the construction ROW
(and associated additional temporary
0/0
0/0
0/0
workspace)
a/ Waterbodies regulated by the Buffer Rule
b/ Assumes entire width of construction impacts
ROW = right-of-way.
Information Sources:
GIS —Analysis based on Geodatabase layers and shapefiles.
NC Parcel Boundaries and Standard Fields -
http://data. nconemap.gov/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.
page
NLCD — 2006 National Land Cover Data - http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd-2006.html
NWI — National Wetlands Inventory - http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
USGS — U.S. Geological Survey - http://www.usgs.gov/
NHD — National Hydrography Dataset - http://nhd.usgs.gov/
ESRI - GIS Mapping - http://www.esri.com/
Impact 36 - VAR: S -A18-15; WB -A18 -16 -Zone Impact
The perpendicular alternative to the currently designed crossing S-A 18-15; WB -A18 -16 -Zone Impact has
an additional 43' of pipe, would move the route closer to homes, and would increase the acreage of impacts
to landowner(s).
Constructability concerns include: an additional ATWS will be required to support the additional bends in
the pipe, and would likely be located within the buffer area of S-A 18-15 due to constraints on space in the
immediate vicinity. Without accounting for additional buffer impacts from another ATWS, the alternative
route would result in a decrease in impacts of 556 square feet in Zone 1 and 1,238 square feet in Zone 2.
There is no change in the number of waterbodies, residences in close proximity, or additional parcels
affected.
Due to additional pipe footage, additional ATWS required to support additional pipe bends, moving the
pipe closer to homes, and increased acreage of landowner impacts. There is no reasonable and practical
alternative to the proposed alignment, and Mountain Valley believes that a variance is warranted at this
crossing to minimize overall impacts.
E-29 February 2019

Alternatives
Comparison of the Proposed Route and Perpendicular Alternative at S -A18-15; WB -A18 -16 -Zone Impact
Feature
Proposed Crossing
Perpendicular
Difference
Alternative
Parallel or adjacent to existing ROW
No
No
Pipeline length (feet)
533
576
+43
Zone 1 buffertotal impacts (sq ft)
5066
4510
-556
Zone 2 buffertotal impacts (sq ft)
4244
3006
-1238
Number of waterbodies crossed a/
1
1
0
NWI wetland impact (sq ft) b/
5431
6185
+754
Total number of parcels crossed
1
1
0
Number of residences within 25 and 50
feet of the edge of the construction ROW
(and associated additional temporary
0/0
0/0
0/0
workspace)
a/ Waterbodies regulated by the Buffer Rule
b/ Assumes entire width of construction impacts
ROW = right-of-way.
Information Sources:
GIS —Analysis based on Geodatabase layers and shapefiles.
NC Parcel Boundaries and Standard Fields -
http://data. nconemap.gov/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.
page
NLCD — 2006 National Land Cover Data - http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd-2006.html
NWI — National Wetlands Inventory - http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
USGS — U.S. Geological Survey - http://www.usgs.gov/
NHD — National Hydrography Dataset - http://nhd.usgs.gov/
ESRI - GIS Mapping - http://www.esri.com/
Impact 37 - VAR: AS -A18-115
The perpendicular alternative to the currently designed crossing AS -A18-115 has an additional 60' of pipe,
would increase the acreage of impacts to landowner(s) in areas that are currently forested, and extends
through a planned ATWS that would need to be relocated.
Constructability concerns include: an additional ATWS will be required to support the additional bends in
the pipe and additional tree clearing and relocation of the ATWS. Without considering the impacts from
the ATWS moves, the alternative route would result in a decrease in impacts of 1,571 square feet in Zone
1 and 765 square feet in Zone 2. There is no change in the number of waterbodies, residences in close
proximity, or additional parcels affected.
Due to additional pipe footage, additional ATWS required to support additional pipe bends, increased
acreage of landowner impacts, and the need to find a suitable location for the ATWS areas. There is no
reasonable and practical alternative to the proposed alignment, and Mountain Valley believes that a variance
is warranted at this crossing to minimize overall impacts.
E-30 February 2019

Alternatives
Comparison of the Proposed Route and Perpendicular Alternative at AS -A18-115
Feature
Proposed Crossing
Perpendicular
Difference
Alternative
Parallel or adjacent to existing ROW
No
No
Pipeline length (feet)
629
689
+60
Zone 1 buffertotal impacts (sq ft)
6661
5090
-1571
Zone 2 buffertotal impacts (sq ft)
3842
3077
-765
Number of waterbodies crossed a/
1
1
0
NWI wetland impact (sq ft) b/
0
0
0
Total number of parcels crossed
1
1
Oc
Number of residences within 25 and 50
feet of the edge of the construction ROW
(and associated additional temporary
0/0
0/0
0/0
workspace)
a/ Waterbodies regulated by the Buffer Rule
b/ Assumes entire width of construction impacts
ROW = right-of-way.
Information Sources:
GIS —Analysis based on Geodatabase layers and shapefiles.
NC Parcel Boundaries and Standard Fields -
http://data. nconemap.gov/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.
page
NLCD — 2006 National Land Cover Data - http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd-2006.html
NWI — National Wetlands Inventory - http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
USGS — U.S. Geological Survey - http://www.usgs.gov/
NHD — National Hydrography Dataset - http://nhd.usgs.gov/
ESRI - GIS Mapping - http://www.esri.com/
Impact 38 - VAR: S -B18-133, S -B18-134
The perpendicular alternative to the currently designed crossing S -B 18-133, 134 has an additional 104' of
pipe and would increase the acreage of impacts to landowner(s).
Constructability concerns include: an additional ATWS will be required to support the additional bends in
the pipe. The alternative route would result in a decrease in impacts of 4,421 square feet in Zone 1 and
2,656 square feet in Zone 2. There is no change in the number of residences in close proximity, or additional
parcels affected, but one fewer waterbody is crossed.
Due to additional pipe footage, additional ATWS required to support additional pipe bends, and increased
acreage of landowner impacts. There is no reasonable and practical alternative to the proposed alignment,
and Mountain Valley believes that a variance is warranted at this crossing to minimize overall impacts.
E-31 February 2019

Alternatives
Comparison of the Proposed Route and Perpendicular Alternative at S -B18-133,134
Feature
Proposed Crossing
Perpendicular
Difference
Alternative
Parallel or adjacent to existing ROW
No
No
Pipeline length (feet)
699
803
+104
Zone 1 buffertotal impacts (sq ft)
9700
5279
-4421
Zone 2 buffertotal impacts (sq ft)
5795
3139
-2656
Number of waterbodies crossed a/
2
1
-1
NWI wetland impact (sq ft) b/
0
0
0
Total number of parcels crossed
2
2
0
Number of residences within 25 and 50
feet of the edge of the construction ROW
(and associated additional temporary
0/0
0/0
0/0
workspace)
a/ Waterbodies regulated by the Buffer Rule
b/ Assumes entire width of construction impacts
ROW = right-of-way.
Information Sources:
GIS —Analysis based on Geodatabase layers and shapefiles.
NC Parcel Boundaries and Standard Fields -
http://data. nconemap.gov/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.
page
NLCD — 2006 National Land Cover Data - http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd-2006.html
NWI — National Wetlands Inventory - http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
USGS — U.S. Geological Survey - http://www.usgs.gov/
NHD — National Hydrography Dataset - http://nhd.usgs.gov/
ESRI - GIS Mapping - http://www.esri.com/
Impact 39&40 -VAR: S-08-81 & S -A18-109
The perpendicular alternative to the currently designed crossing S -C18-81 & S-A 18-109 has an additional
555' of pipe, would increase the acreage of impacts to landowner(s), all of which are forested, and would
require the relocation of five planned ATWS.
Constructability concerns include: an additional ATWS will be required to support the additional bends in
the pipe and additional tree clearing, and the relocation of the five ATWS. Without considering the impacts
from the ATWS moves, the alternative route would result in a decrease in impacts of 7,690 square feet in
Zone 1 and 3,903 square feet in Zone 2. There is no change in the number of residences in close proximity,
but one additional parcel is affected, and one fewer waterbody is crossed.
Due to additional pipe footage, additional ATWS required to support additional pipe bends, increased
acreage of landowner impacts, additional impacted tracts, additional forested clearing, and the need to find
suitable locations and the associated impacts of moving the five ATWS areas. There is no reasonable and
practical alternative to the proposed alignment, and Mountain Valley believes that a variance is warranted
at this crossing to minimize overall impacts.
E-32 February 2019

Alternatives
Comparison of the Proposed Route and Perpendicular Alternative at S -C18-81 &S -A18-109
Feature
Proposed Crossing
Perpendicular
Difference
Alternative
Parallel or adjacent to existing ROW
No
No
Pipeline length (feet)
1835
2390
+555
Zone 1 buffertotal impacts (sq ft)
12291
4601
-7690
Zone 2 buffertotal impacts (sq ft)
6967
3064
-3903
Number of waterbodies crossed a/
3
2
-1
NWI wetland impact (sq ft) b/
0
0
0
Total number of parcels crossed
4
5
+1
Number of residences within 25 and 50
feet of the edge of the construction ROW
(and associated additional temporary
0/0
0/0
0/0
workspace)
a/ Waterbodies regulated by the Buffer Rule
b/ Assumes entire width of construction impacts
ROW = right-of-way.
Information Sources:
GIS —Analysis based on Geodatabase layers and shapefiles.
NC Parcel Boundaries and Standard Fields -
http://data. nconemap.gov/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.
page
NLCD — 2006 National Land Cover Data - http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd-2006.html
NWI — National Wetlands Inventory - http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
USGS — U.S. Geological Survey - http://www.usgs.gov/
NHD — National Hydrography Dataset - http://nhd.usgs.gov/
ESRI - GIS Mapping - http://www.esri.com/
Impact 41 -VAR: SS-SOIL18-10
The perpendicular alternative to the currently designed crossing SS-SOIL18-10 has an additional 97' of
pipe, would increase the acreage of impacts to landowner(s), all of which are forested, and extends through
a planned ATWS that would need to be relocated.
Constructability concerns include: a significant bend in the pipe just before a bore under the road, an
additional ATWS will be required to support the additional bend in the pipe, additional tree clearing, and
the relocation of tan existing ATWS. Without considering the impacts from the ATWS move, the alternative
route would result in a decrease in impacts of 6114 square feet in Zone 1 and 4068 square feet in Zone 2.
There is no change in the number of waterbodies, residences in close proximity, or additional parcels
affected.
Due to additional pipe footage, additional ATWS required to support additional pipe bends, increased
acreage of landowner impacts, additional forested impacts, and the need to find a suitable location for the
ATWS areas. There is no reasonable and practical alternative to the proposed alignment, and Mountain
Valley believes that a variance is warranted at this crossing to minimize overall impacts.
E-33 February 2019

Alternatives
Comparison of the Proposed Route and Perpendicular Alternative at SS-SOIL18-10
Feature
Proposed Crossing
Perpendicular
Difference
Alternative
Parallel or adjacent to existing ROW
No
Yes
Pipeline length (feet)
395
492
+97
Zone 1 buffertotal impacts (sq ft)
10874
4760
-6114
Zone 2 buffertotal impacts (sq ft)
7223
3155
-4068
Number of waterbodies crossed a/
1
1
0
NWI wetland impact (sq ft) b/
0
0
0
Total number of parcels crossed
1
1
0
Number of residences within 25 and 50
feet of the edge of the construction ROW
(and associated additional temporary
0/0
0/0
0/0
workspace)
a/ Waterbodies regulated by the Buffer Rule
b/ Assumes entire width of construction impacts
ROW = right-of-way.
Information Sources:
GIS —Analysis based on Geodatabase layers and shapefiles.
NC Parcel Boundaries and Standard Fields -
http://data. nconemap.gov/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.
page
NLCD — 2006 National Land Cover Data - http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd-2006.html
NWI — National Wetlands Inventory - http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
USGS — U.S. Geological Survey - http://www.usgs.gov/
NHD — National Hydrography Dataset - http://nhd.usgs.gov/
ESRI - GIS Mapping - http://www.esri.com/
Impact 42 -VAR: S -B 18-125
The perpendicular alternative to the currently designed crossing S -B18-125 has an additional 89' of pipe
and would increase the acreage of impacts to landowner(s).
Constructability concerns include: additional ATWS will be required to support the additional bends in the
pipe and additional tree clearing. The alternative route would result in a decrease in impacts of 1,517 square
feet in Zone 1 and 1,109 square feet in Zone 2. There is no change in the number of waterbodies, residences
in close proximity, or additional parcels affected.
Due to additional pipe footage, additional ATWS required to support additional pipe bends, and increased
acreage of landowner impacts. There is no reasonable and practical alternative to the proposed alignment,
and Mountain Valley believes that a variance is warranted at this crossing to minimize overall impacts.
E-34 February 2019

Alternatives
Comparison of the Proposed Route and Perpendicular Alternative a S -B18-125
Feature
Proposed Crossing
Perpendicular
Difference
Alternative
Parallel or adjacent to existing ROW
No
No
Pipeline length (feet)
840
929
+89
Zone 1 buffertotal impacts (sq ft)
6041
4524
-1517
Zone 2 buffer total impacts (sq ft)
4125
3016
-1109
Number of waterbodies crossed a/
1
1
0
NWI wetland impact (sq ft) b/
0
0
0
Total number of parcels crossed
2
2
0
Number of residences within 25 and 50
feet of the edge of the construction ROW
(and associated additional temporary
0/0
0/0
0/0
workspace)
a/ Waterbodies regulated by the Buffer Rule
b/ Assumes entire width of construction impacts
ROW = right-of-way.
Information Sources:
GIS —Analysis based on Geodatabase layers and shapefiles.
NC Parcel Boundaries and Standard Fields -
http://data. nconemap.gov/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.
page
NLCD — 2006 National Land Cover Data - http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd-2006.html
NWI — National Wetlands Inventory - http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
USGS — U.S. Geological Survey - http://www.usgs.gov/
NHD — National Hydrography Dataset - http://nhd.usgs.gov/
ESRI - GIS Mapping - http://www.esri.com/
E-35 February 2019