20140957 Ver 1_RR2_20150710

� " "ml�s�w ndc ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE, LLC
On't ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE
Plpeli n e Docket No. PF15 -6 -000
and
DOMINION TRANSMISSION, INC.
SUPPLY HEADER PROJECT
Docket No. PF15 -5 -000
Resource Report 2
Water Use and Quality
Draft

Resource Report 2
Water Use and Quality
Summary of Required Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Report Information
Minimum Filing Requirements:
Report Section Reference
1. 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
• 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 2B
• Identify by milepost.
• Include offshore sediments.
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
• Identify by milepost.
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 2G
acreage and acreage of each wetland type that would be affected by construction. (§ 380.12(d)(1 &4))
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. (§ 380.12(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 Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation
Procedures. (§ 380.12(d)(2))
• 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 2F
NWI maps are not available, that show all proposed facilities and include milepost locations for
proposed pipeline routes. (§ 380.12(d)(4))
8. Identify all U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) — or state - designated aquifers crossed. (§ Sections 2.1.2, 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 2.1.4 -1;
feet of construction. Figure 2.1
Additional Information:
Identify proposed mitigation for impacts on groundwater resources.
Discuss the potential for blasting to affect water wells, springs, and wetlands, and associated mitigation.
Identify all sources of hydrostatic test water, the quantity of water required, methods for withdrawal, and
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
disposed.
If salt caverns are proposed for storage of natural gas, identify the source locations, the quantity required, the
method and rate of water withdrawal, and disposal methods.
For each waterbody greater than 100 feet wide, provide site - specific construction, mitigation, and restoration
plans.
Indicate mitigation measures to be undertaken to ensure that public or private water supplies are returned to
their former capacity in the event of damage resulting from construction.
Describe typical staging area requirements at waterbody and wetland crossings.
If wetlands would be filled or permanently lost, describe proposed measures to compensate for permanent
wetland losses.
If forested wetlands would be affected, describe proposed measures to restore forested wetlands following
construction.
Describe techniques to be used to minimize turbidity and sedimentation impacts associated with offshore
trenching, if any.
2 -I
Report Section Reference
Section 2.1.6
Sections 2.1.6, 2.2.10, and 2.3.5
Section 2.2.6; Table 2.2.6 -1
Not applicable
Not applicable
Section 2.2.2; Table 2.2.2 -2;
Appendix 1Gin Resource
Report 1
Section 2.1.6
Sections 2.2. 10 and 2.3.5
Section 2.3.6
Section 2.3.6
Not applicable

Resource Report 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Water Use and Quality
2.0 RESOURCE REPORT 2 — WATER USE AND QUALITY ...... ............................... 2 -1
2.1 GROUNDWATER
RESOURCES ....................................... ...............................
2 -3
2.1.1
Principal Aquifers ..................................................... ...............................
2 -3
2.1.1.1 Pennsylvanian and Early Mesozoic Basin Aquifers ...................
2 -4
2.1.1.2 Mississippian and Valley and Ridge Aquifers ...........................
2 -4
2.1.1.3 Piedmont and Blue Ridge Crystalline -rock Aquifers .................
2 -7
2.1.1.4 North Atlantic Coastal Plain Aquifer System ............................
2 -7
2.1.2
Designated Sole or Principal Source Aquifers .......... ...............................
2 -8
2.1.3
Water Supply Wells .................................................. ...............................
2 -9
2.1.3.1 Public Wells ................................................ ...............................
2 -9
2.1.3.2 Private Wells ............................................. ...............................
2 -10
2.1.3.3 Wellhead Protection Areas ........................ ...............................
2 -11
2.1.4
Springs .................................................................... ...............................
2 -12
2.1.5
Contaminated Groundwater .................................... ...............................
2 -12
2.1.6
Groundwater Construction Related Impacts and Mitigation .................
2 -15
2.1.7
Facility Operations ...................................................... ...........................2
-17
2.2 SURFACE WATER RESOURCES ................................... ...............................
2 -17
2.2.1
Existing Watersheds ................................................ ...............................
2 -17
2.2.2
Waterbodies Crossed .............................................. ...............................
2 -19
2.2.3
Surface Water Standards and Classifications ......... ...............................
2 -21
2.2.3.1 West Virginia Surface Water Classifications ...........................
2 -21
2.2.3.2 Virginia Surface Water Classifications ..... ...............................
2 -22
2.2.3.3 North Carolina Surface Water Classifications .........................
2 -23
2.2.3.4 Pennsylvania Surface Water Classifications ............................
2 -23
2.2.4
Contaminated Waters or Sediments ........................ ...............................
2 -24
2.2.5
Public Surface Water Intakes and Surface Water Protection Areas ......
2 -25
2.2.6
Horizontal Directional Drill Mud Water Use ......... ...............................
2 -27
2.2.7
Hydrostatic Test Water Withdrawal and Discharge ..............................
2 -28
2.2.8
Sensitive Surface Waters ........................................ ...............................
2 -28
2.2.9
Waterbody Construction Procedures ...................... ...............................
2 -29
2.2.10
Waterbody Construction - Related Impacts and Mitigation ....................
2 -29
2.2.11
Facility Operations ...................................................... ...........................2
-32
2.3 WETLANDS
........................................................................... ...........................2
-33
2.3.1
Wetland Types ........................................................ ...............................
2 -33
2.3.2
Existing Wetland Resources ................................... ...............................
2 -33
2.3.3
Wetland Reserve Program ...................................... ...............................
2 -34
2.3.4
Wetland Crossings .................................................. ...............................
2 -34
2.3.4.1 Pipeline Facilities ...................................... ...............................
2 -34
2.3.4.2 Aboveground Facilities ............................. ...............................
2 -38
2.3.4.3 Access Roads ............................................. ...............................
2 -38
2.3.4.4 Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards ........... ...............................
2 -38
2.3.5
Wetland Crossing Methods ..................................... ...............................
2 -38
2.3.6
Wetland Impacts and Mitigation ............................. ...............................
2 -40
2.3.6.1 Wetland Vegetation ....................................... ...........................2
-42
2.3.6.2 Compaction and Topsoil Mixing ............... ...............................
2 -42
2 -ii

Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
2.3.6.3 Wetland Hydrology ................................... ............................... 2 -43
2.3.6.4 Erosion and Sediment Control .................. ............................... 2 -43
2.3.6.5 Hazardous Material Spills ......................... ............................... 2 -43
2.3.6.6 Blasting .......................................................... ...........................2 -44
2.3.6.7 Permanent Wetland Fill ............................. ............................... 2 -44
2.3.7 Compensatory Mitigation ....................................... ............................... 2 -44
2.4 REFERENCES ................................................................... ............................... 2 -45
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
2 -iii
andSupply Header Project ....................................................... ............................2
-9
Table 2.1.3 -2
Private Water Wells Within 150 Feet of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and
SupplyHeader Project ............................................................ ...........................2
-10
Table 2.1.3 -3
Wellhead Protection Areas Crossed by the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply
HeaderProject ......................................................................... ...........................2
-11
Table 2.1.4 -1
Springs Located Within 150 Feet of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply
HeaderProject ......................................................................... ...........................2
-12
Table 2.1.5 -1
Contaminated Sites, Landfills, and Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Near the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply Header Project ............................
2 -13
Table 2.2.1 -1
Watersheds Crossed by the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply Header
Project................................................................................. ...............................
2 -18
Table 2.2.2 -1
Waterbodies Affected by the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply Header
Project................................................................................. ...............................
2 -20
Table 2.2.2 -2
Major Waterbodies Crossed by the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply
HeaderProject ......................................................................... ...........................2
-20
Table 2.2.2 -3
Waterbodies Crossed by the Atlantic Coast Pipeline on Federal Lands............
2 -21
Table 2.2.5 -1
Surface Water Intake Facilities within 3.0 Miles of the Atlantic Coast
Pipeline and Supply Header Project ....................................... ...........................2
-26
Table 2.2.5 -2
Water Source Watersheds Crossed by the Atlantic Coast Pipeline in North
Carolina............................................................................... ...............................
2 -26
Table 2.2.6 -1
Water Requirements for Horizontal Directional Drills for the Atlantic Coast
Pipeline............................................................................... ...............................
2 -27
Table 2.2.7 -1
Water Requirements for Hydrostatic Testing for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline
andSupply Header Project ...................................................... ...........................2
-28
Table 2.3.4 -1
Summary of Wetland Types Affected by Construction and Operation of the
Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply Header Project ........... ...............................
2 -36
Table 2.3.4 -2
Summary of Wetland Types Affected by Construction and Operation of the
Atlantic Coast Pipeline on Federal Lands ........................... ...............................
2 -37
Table 2.3.4 -3
Summary of Wetlands Affected by Access Road Construction for the
Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply Header Project ........... ...............................
2 -39
2 -iii

Resource Report 2 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 Impaired 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 (to be
filed in a supplemental filing or with the final Resource Report 2)
Appendix 2E Wetland and Waterbody Delineation Reports — Supply Header Project (to be
filed in a supplemental filing or with the final Resource Report 2)
Appendix 2F National Wetland Inventory Maps — Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply
Header Project
Appendix 2G Wetlands Crossed and Crossing Methods for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and
Supply Header Project
2 -iv

Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ACEP
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program
ACP
Atlantic Coastline Pipeline
ACRES
Assessment, Cleanup, and Redevelopment Exchange System
AGL
AGL Resources, Inc.
Atlantic
Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC
ATWS
Additional Temporary Workspace
bcf /d
billion cub feet per day
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.
Dth /d
dekatherms per day
DTI
Dominion Transmission, Inc.
Duke Energy
Duke Energy Corporation
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ER
Environmental Report
FERC
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
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
MP
milepost
NCAC
North Carolina Administrative Code
NCDENR -DWR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources —
Division of Water Resources
NHD
National Hydrography Dataset
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRCS
National Resources Conservation Service
NRI
Nationwide Rivers Inventory
NWI
National Wetlands Inventory
PADEP
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
PEM
palustrine emergent wetland
PFO
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
2 -v

Resource Report 2
Water Use and Quality
SHP
Supply Header Project
SPCC Plan
Spill, Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan
USACE
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USDA
U.S. Department of Agriculture
USDOT
U.S. Department of Transportation
USFWS
U.S. Fish and Wildlife 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
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 Critical Concern
2 -vi

ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE — Docket No. PF15 -6 -000 and
SUPPLY HEADER PROJECT — Docket No. PF15 -5 -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). The company was created to develop, own, and operate
the proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP), an approximately 556- mile -long, interstate natural
gas transmission pipeline system designed to meet growing energy needs in Virginia and North
Carolina. The ACP will be capable of delivering 1.5 billion cubic feet per day (bcf /d) 1 of natural
gas to be used to generate electricity, heat homes, and run local businesses. The underground
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 /acpipeline.
Atlantic has contracted with Dominion Transmission, Inc. (DTI), a subsidiary of Dominion, to
permit, build, and operate the ACP on behalf of Atlantic. 2
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:
Mainline Pipeline Facilities:
AP -1: approximately 292.8 miles of 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 181.5 miles of 36 -inch outside diameter natural gas
transmission pipeline in Northampton, Halifax, Nash, Wilson, Johnston,
Sampson, Cumberland, and Robeson Counties, North Carolina.
Lateral Pipeline Facilities:
AP -3: approximately 77.6 miles of 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.
The 1.5 bcf/d is equivalent to approximately 1.5 million dekatherms per day (Dth/d). The bcf/d unit of measurement is used to refer to the
capacity of the ACP system. The Dth/d measurement is used to refer to contractual obligations (as set forth in Table 1.2 -1).
2 As described in this report, DTI actions associated with the ACP are on behalf of Atlantic.
2 -1

Resource Report 2
Water Use and Quality
AP -4: approximately 3.1 miles of 16 -inch outside diameter natural gas lateral
pipeline in Brunswick County, Virginia.
AP -5: approximately 1.0 mile of 16 -inch outside diameter natural gas lateral
pipeline in Greensville County, Virginia.
Compressor Station Facilities:
Compressor Station 1: a new, natural gas -fired compressor station approximately
at milepost (MP) 6.8 of the AP -1 mainline in Lewis County, West Virginia.
Compressor Station 2: a new, natural gas -fired compressor station approximately
at MP 186.0 of the AP -1 mainline in Buckingham County, Virginia.
Compressor Station 3: a new natural gas -fired compressor station approximately
at MP 292.8 of the AP -1 mainline 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 1 and one at
Compressor Station 2).
Twenty -nine 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 11 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.
Supply Header Project
DTI proposes to construct and operate approximately 36.7 miles of pipeline loop and
modify existing compression facilities in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. This Project, referred
to as the Supply Header Project (SHP), will enable DTI to provide firm transportation service of
up to 1.5 bcf /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.
DTI is seeking authorization from the FERC under Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to
construct, own, operate, and maintain the following proposed facilities for the SHP:
2 -2

Resource Report 2
Pipeline Loops:
Water Use and Quality
TL -636: approximately 3.9 miles of 30 -inch outside diameter natural gas pipeline
looping DTI's existing LN -25 pipeline in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania.
TL -635: approximately 32.8 miles of 36 -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:
• JB Tonkin Compressor Station: modifications at DTI's existing JB Tonkin
Compressor Station in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania.
• Crayne Compressor Station: modifications at DTI's existing Crayne Compressor
Station in Greene County, Pennsylvania.
• Burch Ridge Compressor Station: crossover piping at DTI's existing Burch
Ridge Compressor Station in Marshall County, West Virginia.
• Mockingbird Hill Compressor Station: modifications at or near DTI's existing
Mockingbird Hill Compressor Station in Wetzel County, West Virginia.
Other Aboveground Facilities:
Five 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.
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.
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
2 -3

Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
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 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.
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.
2 -4

Resource Report 2
Water Use and Quality
11I
(l
Pnndpal Aquifers
Ce slle Hayne eq "fp.
Pled -hand Rlue Ridge oertpnata Ilk equlTera
EadyMesozpc basn aqufers
Petlmontantl Blue Ridge crystalline rock aqu Ters
Miasiasppian aquifers
9oo�ptheast— Coastal Plain aq fe .system
VNIR!!�
Noah— Atlantic Coastal Plain aq offer
syal 9omcia1 aq offers A—
Other�����ro cks
Valley and Ridge ­if-
III,
OR
P .... yi ...... .III...
Valley and Ridge —h eq,-,
ACP Mainline " Atlantic Coast Pipeline and
�=m,rlr. =�•,,=xr.�a� ACP Lateral
Supply Header Project
WOOMMMt - SHP Pipeline Loops
Figure 2.1.1 -1
° 20 4°
Miles Principal Aquifers
FILE. M.A Clients�Dft DOM\ SRPPA _ArcGIS \Resource_Repofts\RREP_02 \Figures \_ DRS _ ACP_PR02Principal_Aquifers. mxd, REVISED. 04/06/2015, SCALE. 1.3,500,000 DRAWN BY THohn
2-5

Resource Report 2
Water Use and Quality
TABLE 2.1.1 -1
Aquifers Crossed by the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply Header Project
AP -3
Northampton County 0.0 to 12.1 Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain 30 to 2100 At least 50
Semiconsolidated Sand
SUPPLY HEADER PROJECT
West Virginia
TL -635
Wetzel, Tyler, Doddridge, and Harrison Counties 0.0 to 32.8 Pennsylvanian Sandstone 80 to 400 20 to 430
Pennsylvania
TL -636
Westmoreland County 0 to 3.9 Pennsylvanian Sandstone 80 to 400 20 to 430
a 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; USGS, 1996
2 -6
Range of
Well Yield
State or Commonwealth /Pipeline Segment/
Depth to
(gallons per
County or City
Mileposts
Aquifer
Aquifer (feet)
minute)
ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE
West Virginia
AP -1
Harrison, Lewis, Upshur, and Randolph Counties
0 to 50.5
Pennsylvanian Sandstone
80 to 400
20 to 430
61.5 to 66.5
Randolph and Pocahontas Counties
50.5 to 52.1
Mississippian Sandstone and
50 to 200
20 to 180
59.7 to 61.5
Carbonate
66.5 to 68.5
Randolph and Pocahontas Counties
52.1 to 59.7
Other rocks
Unavailable a
Variable
68.5 to 80.2
Virginia
AP -1
Highland County
80.2 to 82.9
Other rocks
Unavailable a
Variable
Highland and Augusta Counties
82.9 to 147.3
Valley and Ridge Sandstone and
50 to 400
Variable
Carbonate
Augusta, Nelson, Buckingham, Cumberland,
147.3 to 204.6
Piedmont and Blue Ridge
3 to 300
15 to 30
Prince Edward, Nottoway, Dinwiddie, Brunswick,
211.0 to 279.4
Crystalline -rock
and Greensville Counties
Buckingham County
204.6 to 211.0
Early Mesozoic Basin Sandstone
200 to 900
5 to 80
Greensville County
279.4 to 292.7
Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain
30 to 2100
At least 50
Semiconsolidated Sand
AP -3
Greensville and Southampton Counties, City of
12.1 to 77.6
Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain
30 to 2100
At least 50
Suffolk, and City of Chesapeake
Semiconsolidated Sand
AP -4
Brunswick County
0.0 to 3.1
Piedmont and Blue Ridge
3 to 300
15 to 30
Crystalline -rock
AP -5
Greensville County
0.0 to 1.2
Piedmont and Blue Ridge
3 to 300
15 to 30
Crystalline -rock
North Carolina
AP -2
Northampton, Halifax, Nash, Wilson, Johnston,
292.7 to 323.6
Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain
30 to 2100
At least 50
Sampson, Cumberland, and Robeson Counties
326.3 to 330.6
Semiconsolidated Sand
332.6 to 336.8
350.0 to 351.6
353.6 to 361.4
375.7 to 474.2
Halifax, Nash, Wilson, and Johnston Counties
323.6 to 326.3
Piedmont and Blue Ridge
3 to 300
15 to 30
330.6 to 332.6
Crystalline -rock
336.8 to 350.0
351.6 to 353.6
361.4 to 375.7
AP -3
Northampton County 0.0 to 12.1 Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain 30 to 2100 At least 50
Semiconsolidated Sand
SUPPLY HEADER PROJECT
West Virginia
TL -635
Wetzel, Tyler, Doddridge, and Harrison Counties 0.0 to 32.8 Pennsylvanian Sandstone 80 to 400 20 to 430
Pennsylvania
TL -636
Westmoreland County 0 to 3.9 Pennsylvanian Sandstone 80 to 400 20 to 430
a 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; USGS, 1996
2 -6

Resource Report 2
Water Use and Quality
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).
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 that provide
significant water yields in the region (USGS, 1997c). In fact, 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. 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, 19974). 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 aquifers (USGS, 1997). The Northern
Atlantic Coastal Plain aquifer system also includes a productive carbonate rock (limestone)
2 -7

Resource Report 2
Water Use and Quality
aquifer. A description of carbonate rock aquifers is provided above (see Mississippian and
Valley and Ridge Aquifers).
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, 19974).
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 Environmental 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 -DWR) 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 2013a). 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 Information 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).
ME

Resource Report 2
2.1.3 Water Supply Wells
2.1.3.1 Public Wells
Water Use and Quality
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
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
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 PI PELI NE
AP -1
None Identified
AP -2
Wilson County, NC
Cumberland County, NC
AP -3
None Identified
AP -4
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
359.5 Town of Sims 18, W
433.2 United Church of Christ Shiloh 131. 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 (2015) 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.
The NCDENR -DWR (2014) provided Atlantic with digital location data for public water
supply wells in North Carolina. Review of these data identified two public wells within 150 feet
of the proposed workspace for the AP -2 mainline in North Carolina.
2 -9

Resource Report 2
Water Use and Quality
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 identified in
Table 2.1.3 -2.
TABLE 2.1.3 -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 PI PELI NE
AP -1
Lewis County, WV
2.2
Within Workspace
Lewis County, WV
9.4
3, E
Upshur County, WV
39.5
31, 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
332.2
17, W
Nash County, NC
338.1
18, SE
Nash County, NC
347.3
90, NW
Nash County, NC
347.5
65, NW
Nash County, NC
347.5
Within Workspace
Nash County, NC
347.6
Within Workspace
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 Workspace
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
Aboveground Facilities
None identified to date
SUPPLY HEADER PROJECT
TL -635
Doddridge County, WV
15.2
117, E
TL -636
Westmoreland County, PA
1.2
70,S
2 -10

Resource Report 2
2.1.3.3 Wellhead Protection Areas
Water Use and Quality
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 (WPA) is an area (radius) 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 radius 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, NCDENR -DWR, and PADEP).
Crossings of WPAs identified by these agencies along the proposed facilities are identified in
Table 2.1.3 -3.
TABLE 2.1.3 -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
145.5 —147.0
Lyndhurst Well
1.5 miles
AP -2
None identified
AP -3
None identified
AP -4
None identified
AP -5
None identified
Aboveground Facilities
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
SUPPLY HEADER PROJECT
TL -635
None identified
TL -636
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Aboveground Facilities
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
In West Virginia, the Source Water Assessment and Wellhead Protection Program is
administered by the WVDHHR. While locations of WPAs data are not publically available, the
WVDHHR (2015) reviewed the proposed facilities and did not identify WPA crossings along the
pipeline routes or within aboveground facility sites.
The Commonwealth of Virginia, under the oversight of VDEQ, 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
government units to apply for funding to implement wellhead protection plans for public water
2 -11

Resource Report 2
Water Use and Quality
supplies. Atlantic consulted with the VDH -ODW to identify public water wells that may have
associated wellhead protection areas. Atlantic identified one wellhead protection area crossed
between MP 145.5 and 147.0 for the Lyndhurst Well in Augusta County. Atlantic will continue
consulting with local water providers to determine if other wellhead protection areas
administered at a local level are crossed.
The NCDENR -DWR (2015) provided Atlantic with statewide digital data for WPAs in
North Carolina. Based on review of this data, no WPAs are crossed by the proposed ACP
facilities in North Carolina. The nearest WPA is located approximately 0.8 mile from MP 382.0
of the AP -2 mainline.
The PADEP promotes the establishment and delineation of WPAs to protect public water
supplies from contamination. DTI is consulting with the PADEP to identify WPA crossings
along the proposed TL -636 pipeline in Pennsylvania ( PADEP, 2015a).
2.1.4 Springs
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). No documented springs are located within 150 feet of the workspace for the
remaining ACP or SHP facilities.
TABLE 2.1.4 -1
Springs Located within 150 Feet of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply Header Project a,n
Pipeline Segment/County or City/
State or Commonwealth Approximate Milepost Distance and Direction from Workspace (feet)
ATLANTIC COAST PI PELI NE
AP -1
Highland County, VA 82.2 70, SW
Augusta County, VA 110.8 30, N
Buckingham County, VA 204.0 Within Workspace
Buckingham County, VA 204.0 10, N
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.
Spring information is based on USGS 7.5- minute series topographic maps, discussions with landowners, civil field surveys, and
biological field surveys.
2.1.5 Contaminated Groundwater
Atlantic and DTI, respectively, searched Federal and State /Commonwealth databases to
identify contaminated sites, including sites which could contain 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 1.0 mile of the Projects that are listed on the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
(CERCLIS) and the Assessment, Cleanup and Redevelopment Exchange System (ACRES)
(EPA, 2014). In addition, various other map services and databases were reviewed for each
State /Commonwealth as described below. Contaminated soil and /or groundwater could
potentially be encountered at or near the sites listed in Table 2.1.5 -1 and discussed below.
2 -12

Resource Report 2
Water Use and Quality
2 -13
TABLE 2.1.5 -1
Contaminated Sites, Landfills, and Leaking Underground
Storage Tanks Near the
Atlantic Coast Pipeline
and Supply Header
Project'
Distance and
Drainage
County /City and
Pipeline
Nearest
Direction from
Direction from
State /Commonwealth
Segment
Milepost
Site Name
Centerline
Facility Type
Project'
ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE
CERLIS, ACRES Sites
Identified within
1 mile of the Centerline and Aboveground Facilities
Northampton, NC
AP -2
300
Garysburg Community Center
5,015ft W
Brownfield
Up Gradient
Halifax, NC
AP -2
304.3
Weldon Refuse Disposal
7,476ft W
Brownfield
Up Gradient
Johnston, NC
AP -2
383.2
Hot -Z Selma Spill
3,718ft W
Superfund Site
Up Gradient
Cumberland, NC
AP -2
437.4
Woody's Salvage Yard
867ft SE
Superfund Site
Up Gradient
Chesapeake, VA
AP -3
77.3
Eppinger & Russel Co Inc.
4,119ft N
Superfund Site
Up Gradient
Chesapeake, VA
AP -3
77.3
Money Point Creosite Site
4,119ft N
Superfund Site
Up Gradient
Chesapeake, VA
AP -3
76.1
Norfolk Intercoastal Steel
590ft SE
Superfund Site
Side Gradient
Chesapeake, VA
AP -3
77.8
Borden Smith Douglass
1,265ft E
Superfund Site
Side Gradient
Landfill and Solid Waste Sites Identified
within
0.5 mile of the Centerline and Aboveground Facilities
Augusta, VA
AP -1
136.0
Jolivue LandfilFAugusta
371ft NE
Closed Landfill and
Up Gradient
Regional Landfill
Active Landfill
Complex
Halifax, NC
AP -2
304
Roanoke Valley LCID Landfill
2,589ft W
Active Landfill
Up Gradient
Suffolk, VA
AP -3
64
SPSA Regional Landfill
3,109ft NW
Active Landfill
Up Gradient
Chesapeake, VA
AP -3
76.4
Dominion Chesapeake Energy
305ft E
Closed Industrial
Side Gradient
Center
Landfill and Active
Industrial Landfill
Chesapeake, VA
AP -3
77.5
Atlantic Aggregate Recyclers
697ft N
Inert Landfill
Up Gradient
Leaking Underground
Petroleum Storage Tank (LUST) Sites within 1000 feet of the
Centerline and Aboveground
Facilities
Augusta, VA
AP -1
139.0
Starkey Residence
486ft SW
LUST
Side Gradient
Nelson, VA
AP -1
177.8
Woodson's Grocery d
800ft E
LUST
Side Gradient
Buckingham, VA
AP -1
206.6
Betty Brown Property
976ft NE
LUST
Up Gradient
Nash, NC
AP -2
341.6
NCCU -Turner Law School
838ft SE
LUST
Side Gradient
Nash, NC
AP -2
341.6
NCCU- Eagleson Hall
272ft NW
LUST
Down Gradient
Johnston, NC
AP -2
383.3
Days Inn Motel
28ft SE
LUST
Side Gradient
Johnston, NC
AP -2
400.7
Tippet Residential
614ft SE
LUST
Down Gradient
Sampson, NC
AP -2
410.5
Plain View Grocery
966ft E
LUST
Up Gradient
Southampton, VA
AP -3
24.1
Cooke Residence
882ft NW
LUST
Up Gradient
Suffolk, VA
AP -3
56.7
Wilkins Percy Property
1,008ft NE
LUST
Side Gradient
Suffolk, VA
AP -3
60.9
City of Suffolk Pump Station 11
803ft NW
LUST
Side Gradient
Chesapeake, VA
AP -3
74.1
Deep Creek Pharmacy
244ft N
LUST
Down Gradient
Chesapeake, VA
AP -3
74.2
BOX USA Group, Ina d
930ft N
LUST
Up Gradient
Chesapeake, VA
AP -3
74.2
Watkins Motor Lines, Inc.
361ft S
LUST
Down Gradient
Chesapeake, VA
AP -3
74.3
Mid Atlantic Repair, Ina
533ft S
LUST
Down Gradient
Chesapeake, VA
AP -3
75.5
Deep Creek Pumping Station
772ft N
LUST
Up or Side
Gradient
Chesapeake, VA
AP -3
76.5
IMTT- Chesapeake Terminal
623ft NW
LUST
Up or Side
Gradient
Chesapeake, VA
AP -3
76.5
Chesapeake Energy Center
905ft SE
LUST
Up or Side
Gradient
Chesapeake, VA
AP -3
77.0
Chesapeake Energy Center
700ft S
LUST
Up or Side
Gradient
2 -13

Resource Report 2
Water Use and Quality
TABLE 2.1.5 -1 (cont'd)
Contaminated Sites, Landfills, and Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Near the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply Header Project a
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 sites topographic disposition of each site in relation to the Projects.
Determining the nature and extent of contamination for each LUST site requires additional research
a Site listed as "suspected" leak on VADEQ database, confirmation of leak requires additional research
In addition to the EPA databases, review of the WVDEP's web -based list of municipal
solid waste landfills and online database of leaking underground storage tanks (LUST) found no
contaminated sites within 1.0 mile of the proposed ACP and SHP facilities in West Virginia
(WVDEP, 2014b; WVDEP, 2014c; WVDEP, 2013).
The VDEQ Virginia Environmental geographic information system (GIS) system was
used to obtain spatial databases of LUSTS and other solid or hazardous waste sites in Virginia
(VDEQ, 2014b). Review of these sources in addition to the EPA databases identified
28 contaminated sites in the vicinity of the proposed ACP facilities, including four Superfund
sites. The majority of the sites are located along the eastern extent of the proposed AP -3 lateral,
where it crosses industrialized areas within the City of Chesapeake.
The NCDENR North Carolina OneMap Geospatial Portal was used to obtain spatial
databases of LUSTs, landfills, and other solid or hazardous waste sites in North Carolina
(NCDENR, 2014a; NCDENR, 2014b, NCDENR, 2014c). Review of these sources and the EPA
databases identified eight sites in the vicinity of the proposed ACP facilities in North Carolina,
two of which are Superfund sites and two of which are Brownfield sites. One LUST occurs very
near (within 28 feet) of the proposed AP -2 centerline and may potentially be crossed. Atlantic
and DTI are investigating options for avoiding this site.
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 in the vicinity of the
proposed SHP facilities in Pennsylvania in these or the EPA sources.
2 -14
Distance and
Drainage
County /City and
Pipeline
Nearest
Direction from
Direction from
State /Commonwealth
Segment
Milepost
Site Name
Centerline
Facility Type
Project b
Chesapeake, VA
AP -3
77.0
Chesapeake Energy Center
725ff S
LUST
Up or Side
Gradient
Chesapeake, VA
AP -3
77.0
Chesapeake Energy Center
750ff S
LUST
Up or Side
Gradient
Chesapeake, VA
AP -3
77.1
Chesapeake Energy Center
700ff S
LUST
Up or Side
Gradient
Chesapeake, VA
AP -3
77.1
Chesapeake Energy Center
850ff S
LUST
Up or Side
Gradient
Chesapeake, VA
AP -3
77.5
Former Smith Douglas Plant
435ff S
LUST
Up or Side
Gradient
Chesapeake, VA
AP -3
77.5
OneSteel Recycling, Inc.
896ff N
LUST
Up or Side
Gradient
Robeson, NC
AP -2
477.2
Rudy's Restaurant
763ft SW
LUST
Up 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 sites topographic disposition of each site in relation to the Projects.
Determining the nature and extent of contamination for each LUST site requires additional research
a Site listed as "suspected" leak on VADEQ database, confirmation of leak requires additional research
In addition to the EPA databases, review of the WVDEP's web -based list of municipal
solid waste landfills and online database of leaking underground storage tanks (LUST) found no
contaminated sites within 1.0 mile of the proposed ACP and SHP facilities in West Virginia
(WVDEP, 2014b; WVDEP, 2014c; WVDEP, 2013).
The VDEQ Virginia Environmental geographic information system (GIS) system was
used to obtain spatial databases of LUSTS and other solid or hazardous waste sites in Virginia
(VDEQ, 2014b). Review of these sources in addition to the EPA databases identified
28 contaminated sites in the vicinity of the proposed ACP facilities, including four Superfund
sites. The majority of the sites are located along the eastern extent of the proposed AP -3 lateral,
where it crosses industrialized areas within the City of Chesapeake.
The NCDENR North Carolina OneMap Geospatial Portal was used to obtain spatial
databases of LUSTs, landfills, and other solid or hazardous waste sites in North Carolina
(NCDENR, 2014a; NCDENR, 2014b, NCDENR, 2014c). Review of these sources and the EPA
databases identified eight sites in the vicinity of the proposed ACP facilities in North Carolina,
two of which are Superfund sites and two of which are Brownfield sites. One LUST occurs very
near (within 28 feet) of the proposed AP -2 centerline and may potentially be crossed. Atlantic
and DTI are investigating options for avoiding this site.
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 in the vicinity of the
proposed SHP facilities in Pennsylvania in these or the EPA sources.
2 -14

Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
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
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.
Karst features that have an opening into the subsurface bedrock have the potential to
provide a conduit for soil, stormwater, or contaminants into groundwater.3 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. 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 100 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.
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.
3 During the ACP and SHP Open Houses, and in comments filed with the EERC, several individuals commented about karst features and the
potential to impact groundwater resources.
2 -15

Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
To avoid or minimize the potential impact of hazardous material spills during
construction and operation of the ACP and SHP, Atlantic and DTI will prepare and implement a
Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan (SPCC Plan) (to be provided in Appendix
IF of the final Resource Report 1). 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,
springs, and 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. 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 all 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 will prepare and
implement a Contaminated Media Plan to address these circumstances (to be provided in
Appendix IF of the final Resource Report 1). 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.
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 will prepare and 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 will be provided
in Appendix IF of the final 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.
As a result of blasting, temporary changes in water level and turbidity could affect
groundwater quality and bedrock -based water well systems located in close proximity to the
construction right -of -way. 4 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
4 In comments filed with the EERC, several individuals commented about blasting during construction and potential impacts on water sources
and water quality.
2 -16

Resource Report 2
Water Use and Quality
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 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 new pipelines and aboveground facilities are not expected to result in any 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.
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 - Pamlico, 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.
2 -17

Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
TABLE 2.2.1 -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 PI PELI NE
AP -1
Ohio Regional Watershed
Monongahela 0.0-67.4 Harrison, Lewis, Upshur, Randolph, and Pocahontas
Kanawha
Mid - Atlantic Regional Watershed
Lower Chesapeake
Potomac
Atlantic -Gulf Regional Watershed
Chowan - Roanoke
AP -2
Atlantic -Gulf Regional Watershed
Chowan - Roanoke
Neuse- Pamlico
Cape Fear
Pee Dee
AP -3
Atlantic -Gulf Regional Watershed
Chowan - Roanoke
Mid - Atlantic Regional Watershed
Lower Chesapeake
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
Counties, WV
67.4-80.2 Pocahontas County, WV
82.8 - 85.2; 85.4 - 113.5; and Highland, Augusta, Nelson, Buckingham, Cumberland,
153.8 - 241.6 Prince Edward and Nottoway Counties, VA
80.2 - 82.8; 85.2 - 85.4; and Highland and Augusta Counties, VA
113.5 - 153.8
241.6 - 292.7 Nottoway, Dinwiddie, Brunswick, and Greensville
Counties, VA, and Northampton County, NC
292.7
- 310.0
Northampton and Halifax Counties, NC
310.0-
406.9
Halifax, Nash, Wilson, Johnston, and Sampson
Counties, NC
406.9
- 450.8
Sampson and Cumberland Counties, NC
450.8
- 474.7
Cumberland and Robeson Counties, NC
0.0 - 51.8; and 66.9 - 67.3 Northampton County, NC, Southampton County, VA
and City of Suffolk and City of Chesapeake, VA
51.8 - 65.8; and 67.3 - 77.6 City of Suffolk and City of Chesapeake, VA
0.0-3.1 Brunswick County, VA
0.0-1.2 Greensville County, VA
0.0 -0.7 Harrison County, WV
0.7-32.8 Wetzel, Tyler, and Doddridge Counties, WV
0.0-3.9 Westmoreland County, PA
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.
2 -18

Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
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.
As used in this Resource Report, the term "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 (USAGE) whether given features are jurisdictional
"waters of the U.S." The term "waterbodies," as used here, is best understood as those water
features — excluding wetlands — that are potentially subject to USACE jurisdiction under the
Clean Water Act.
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 -1 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, intermittent,
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, 2007) 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 will
be filed in a supplemental filing or in Appendices 2D and 2E, respectively, of the final Resource
Report 2.
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 will be provided in
Appendix 1H of the final Resource Report 1. Information for intermediate and minor waterbody
crossings is provided in Appendices 2A -1 and 2A -2.
2 -19

Resource Report 2
Water Use and Quality
TABLE 2.2.2 -1
Waterbodies Affected by the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply Header Project
TABLE 2.2.2 -2
Major Waterbodies Crossed by the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply Header Project'
Pipeline Segment/County or
Waterbody Type
Approximate Crossing
EERC Classification
Waterbody Name
Milepost
Flow Type a
Width (feet)
Crossing Method
AP -1
Open
Open
Nelson and Buckingham
James River
180.4
Perennial
CanaF
Water
Counties, VA
Water
Project/Facility
Perennial
Intermittent
Ephemeral
Ditch
Ponds
Major
Intermediate
Minor
Ponds
ATLANTIC COAST PI PELI NE
Pump
Dinwiddie and Brunswick
Nottoway River
255.0
Perennial
100
Pipeline Facilities
379
410
123
61
25
14
97
862
25
Aboveground
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
0
0
TBD
TBD
0
Facilities
302.0
Perennial
360
HDD
Counties, NC
Access Roads
33
49
4
2
4
1
12
75
4
Pipe Storage and
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
0
0
TBD
TBD
0
Contractor Yards
390.1
Perennial
120
Dam and Pump
Cumberland County, NC
Cape Fear River
443.7
Perennial
290
Project Total
412
459
127
63
29
15
109
937
29
SUPPLY HEADER PROJECT
115
Cofferdam
County, VA
Pipeline Facilities
39
12
0
0
0
0
1
50
0
Aboveground
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
0
0
TBD
TBD
0
Facilities
Perennial
300
HDD
a No major waterbodies are crossed
by the Supply Header Project in
Pennsylvania or
West Virginia.
Access Roads
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Pipe Storage and
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
0
0
TBD
TBD
0
Contractor Yards
Project Total
39
12
0
0
0
0
1
50
0
TABLE 2.2.2 -2
Major Waterbodies Crossed by the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply Header Project'
Pipeline Segment/County or
Approximate Crossing
City /State or Commonwealth
Waterbody Name
Milepost
Flow Type a
Width (feet)
Crossing Method
AP -1
Nelson and Buckingham
James River
180.4
Perennial
330
HDD
Counties, VA
Cumberland and Prince Edward
Appomattox River
215.1
Perennial
100
Cofferdam/Dam and
Counties, VA
Pump
Dinwiddie and Brunswick
Nottoway River
255.0
Perennial
100
Cofferdam
Counties, VA
Crreensville County, VA
Meherrin River
279.0
Perennial
115
Open Cut
AP -2
Northampton and Halifax
Roanoke River
302.0
Perennial
360
HDD
Counties, NC
Halifax and Nash Counties, NC
Fishing Creek
325.9
Perennial
105
Dam and Pump /Flume
Nash County, NC
Swift Creek
332.6
Perennial
130
Dam and Pump /Flume
Nash County, NC
Tar River
351.4
Perennial
130
TBD
Johnston County, NC
Neuse River
390.1
Perennial
120
Dam and Pump
Cumberland County, NC
Cape Fear River
443.7
Perennial
290
HDD
AP -3
Crreensville and Southampton
Meherrin River
12.4
Perennial
115
Cofferdam
County, VA
Southampton, VA
Nottoway River
33.2
Perennial
160
HDD
Southampton County and City of
Blackwater River
39.1
Perennial
185
HDD
Suffolk, VA
City of Chesapeake, VA
South Elizabeth River
76.6
Perennial
300
HDD
a No major waterbodies are crossed
by the Supply Header Project in
Pennsylvania or
West Virginia.
2 -20

Resource Report 2
Federal Lands
Water Use and Quality
The ACP crosses four areas of federally managed land:
the Monongahela National
Forest; George Washington National Forest (which includes the
Appalachian Trail); Blue Ridge
Parkway; and Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge.
Additional information about
these lands is provided in Section 8.7.1 of Resource Report 8.
Table 2.2.2 -3 provides a summary
of waterbodies crossed within each of these Federal land units.
The SHP does not cross any
Federal lands.
TABLE 2.2.2 -3
Waterbodies Crossed by the Atlantic Coast Pipeline on Federal Lands
Federal Land
Federal Land Unit Crossed (miles)
Monongahela National Forest 17.9
George Washington National Forest 11.8
Blue Ridge Parkway 0.1
Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge 1.7
Waterbody Type
CanaF Open Water
Perennial Intermittent Ephemeral Ditch Ponds
13 0 0 0 0
6 7 0 0
0 0 0 0
1 0 0 5
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.
2.2.3.1 West Virginia Surface Water Classifications
West Virginia Code of State Regulations (CSR) §47 -2 -4 (West Virginia Code of State
Regulations [WVCSR], 2014) outlines an antidegradation policy that establishes three classes for
all 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.
2 -21

Resource Report 2
Water Use and Quality
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, all 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 B1), Trout
Waters (Category 132), Wetlands (Category 134), Water Contact Recreation (Category C),
Agricultural and Wildlife Uses (Category D), Irrigation (Category D1), Livestock (Category D2),
Wildlife (Category D3), Water Supply Industrial, Water Transport, Cooling and Power
(Category E), Water Transport (Category E1), Cooling Water (Category E2), Power Production
(Category E3), and Industrial (Category E4) (West Virginia CSR, 2014).
The proposed ACP facilities will cross five Tier 3 streams in West Virginia (Unnamed
Tributary to West Fork Greenbrier River, MP 68.1; West Fork Greenbrier River, MP 68.9;
Mountain Lick Creek, MP 69.6; John's Run, MP 72.1; and Little River, MP 76.3). 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 1 or Tier 2 at this time.
2.2.3.2 Virginia Surface Water Classifications
Title 9 of VAC Agency 25, Chapter 260, Section 30 (9VAC25- 260 -30) outlines an
antidegradation policy that establishes three classes for all 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 1 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 -10, all 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 -22

Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
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 (15A NCAC 0213.0101). Within this
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 -I, WS -II, WS -III, WS -N, 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 WL: 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
(HQW), Future Water Supply, and Unique Wetland.
The NCAC (15A NCAC 0213.0201 Anti degradation) under subsection 213, Rule .0201,
establishes an antidegradation policy for North Carolina. This policy requires the establishment
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 all surface waters are assigned a minimum Class C designation. In
addition, the proposed ACP pipeline facilities will cross three Class WS -III, 16 Class WS -N,
one Class WS -V, 28 Class Sw, and 41 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 (CWF), 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 all 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
2 -23

Resource Report 2
Water Use and Quality
in accordance with Chapter 96 of the Pennsylvania Code with regard to water quality standards
and any 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.
In Pennsylvania, the SHP facilities will cross 9 streams with CWF and HQ designations,
and two streams with trout stocking designations (see Appendix 2A; PADEP, 2013). 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 Superfund
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(4) Impaired Waters for each
State /Commonwealth to identify crossings of waterbodies that may contain contaminated
sediments (WVDEP, 2012a; WVDEP, 2012b; VDEQ, 2015; NC OneMap, 2015;
PADEP, 2015c). Waterbodies crossed by the proposed ACP or SHP facilities that are included
on the EPA 303(4) impaired waters list are identified in Table 2B in Appendix 2B. There are
17 303(4) impaired streams crossed by the ACP in West Virginia, 22 in Virginia, and one in
North Carolina. There are nine 303(4) impaired streams crossed by the SHP in West Virginia
2 -24

Resource Report 2
Water Use and Quality
and five in Pennsylvania. Atlantic and DTI are evaluating the contaminants listed within these
waterbodies for the probability to encounter contaminated sediments during construction.
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 (2015) 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, 2015).
Atlantic and DTI reviewed Source Water Assessment Reports, prepared by the
WVDHHR Office of Environmental Health Services Source Water Protection Unit, for each of
the surface water intake facilities within 3.0 miles of the ACP and SHP (WVDHHR, 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
also identify Zones of Critical Concern (ZCC), which are considered surface water protection
areas in corridors along waterbodies within Source Water Protection Watersheds. The ZCCs
warrant a more detailed inventory and management due to their proximity to the source water
and the susceptibility to potential contaminants. Table 2.2.5 -1 lists the surface water intake
facilities within 3.0 miles of the Projects. Atlantic will continue to work with the water suppliers
identified in the Source Water Assessment Reports to determine the length of the ZCCs (surface
water protection areas) and Source Water Protection Watersheds that are crossed by the ACP and
SHP Project facilities.
The VDH -ODW provided Atlantic with location data for public surface water intakes
(Soto, 2015). Based on review of these data, Atlantic identified three public surface water
intakes located within 3.0 miles downstream of the proposed ACP facilities. Atlantic will
continue to coordinate with the VDH -ODW to identify surface water protection areas associated
with these surface water intakes.
The NCDENR -DWR provided Atlantic with digital data on the locations of public
surface water intakes in North Carolina. Based on 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.
2 -25

Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
TABLE 2.2.5 -1
Surface Water Intake Facilities Within 3.0 Miles Downstream of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply Header Project
Pipeline Segment/ County
Waterbody
Length of Zones of
Length of Source Water
or City /State or
Surface Water Intake
Associated with
Critical Concern
Protection Watershed
Commonwealth
Facility
Public Water Intake
Milepost
Crossed (miles)
Crossed (miles)
Atlantic Coast Pipeline
AP -1
Upshur County, WV
Buckhannon Water Board
Buckhannon River
30.0
1.2
12.6
Upshur County, WV
Grand Badger
Buckhannon River
33.0
TBD
TBD
Community Hawthorne
Randolph County, WV
Mill Creek Water
Mill Creek
52.0
0.8
1.9
Department
Randolph County, WV
Huttonsville Medium
Tygart River Valley
54.0
2.8
6.4
Security Prison
AP -2
None Identified
AP -3
City of Suffolk, VA
Lake Kilby
Lake Kilby and
55.9
TBD
TBD
Pitchkettle Creek
City of Suffolk, VA
Lake Meade
Lake Kilby and
55.9
TBD
TBD
Pitchkettle Creek
City of Suffolk, VA
Raw Middle
Lake Kilby and
55.9
TBD
TBD
Pitchkettle Creek
AP -4
None Identified
AP -5
None Identified
Supply Header Project
TL -635
None Identified
TL -636
None Identified
Sources: WVDHHR, 2015, 2003 a -e; Soto, 2015; NCDENR, 2014x,
TABLE 2.2.5 -2
Water Source Watersheds Crossed by the Atlantic Coast Pipeline in North Carolina
Approximate Mileposts (AP-
Watershed Name 2 Mainline) County Water Supply Classification a
Fishing Creek (Enfield) 322.1 to 331.6 Halifax and Nash Counties WS -IV NSW
Tar River (Tar River Res.) 342.8 to 352.4 Nash County WS -IV NSW
Toisnot Swamp 352.4 to 355.8 Nash County WS -III NSW
Cape Fear River (Fayetteville) 422.3 to 426.3 Cumberland County WS -IV
Cape Fear River (Smithfield Packing Co) 447.3 to 450.9 Cumberland County WS -IV
Lumber River (Lumberton) 464.6 to 472.0 Robeson County WS -IV
a 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 -26

Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
Based on a review of 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.
2.2.6 Horizontal Directional Drill Mud Water Use
As noted in Table 2.2.2 -2, Atlantic and DTI are proposing to cross six waterbodies using
the horizontal directional drill (HDD) method. In addition, the HDD method is being evaluated
to cross beneath both the Blue Ridge Parkway and the Appalachian Trail at the same time. A
detailed description of the HDD method is provided in Section 1.5.2.1 of Resource
Report 1. 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. 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. The estimated
water requirements and withdrawal location for each of the proposed HDDs are summarized in
Table 2.2.6 -1. All withdrawals will be conducted in accordance with State /Commonwealth
regulations and permit requirements.
TABLE 2.2.6 -1
Water Requirements for Horizontal Directional Drills for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline
Atlantic and DTI continue to review waterbodies for supply capacity.
2 -27
Approximate Water
County or City / State or
Pipeline Segment /
Requirement
Locations of Water
Project/HDD
Commonwealth
Milepost
(millions of gallons) a
Withdrawals
ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE
Blue Ridge Parkway/
Augusta County, Virginia
AP -1 Mainline /
TBD
TBD
Appalachian Trail
MP 153.8
James River
Nelson and Buckingham Counties,
AP- lMainline/
TBD
TBD
Virginia
MP 180.4
Roanoke River
Northampton and Halifax
AP -2 Mainline /
TBD
TBD
Counties, North Carolina
MP 302.0
Cape Fear River
Cumberland County, North
AP -2 Mainline /
TBD
TBD
Carolina
MP 443.7
Nottoway River
Southampton, Virginia
AP -3 Lateral/
TBD
TBD
MP 33.2
Blackwater River
Southampton County and City of
AP -3 Lateral/
TBD
TBD
Suffolk, Virginia
MP 39.1
South Elizabeth River
City of Chesapeake, Virginia
AP -3 Lateral/
TBD
TBD
MP 76.6
SUPPLY HEADER PROJECT
No HDDs proposed
N/A
N/A
Atlantic and DTI continue to review waterbodies for supply capacity.
2 -27

Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
2.2.7 Hydrostatic Test Water Withdrawal and Discharge
After backfilling and all 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 it 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.
Water for hydrostatic testing will be withdrawn and discharged in accordance with
State /Commonwealth regulations and required permits. 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. 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. No chemicals will be added to the test water
during hydrostatic testing. Where required, Atlantic and DTI will verify coverage under each
State /Commonwealth's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) or
State /Commonwealth - equivalent general permit prior to discharge of hydrostatic test water.
Table 2.2.7 -1 summarizes the water withdrawal and discharge locations for the proposed
ACP and SHP facilities.
TABLE 2.2.7 -1
Water Requirements for Hydrostatic Testing for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply Header Project
State or Commonwealth / Approximate Water Requirement
Spread (Millions of Gallons) a Locations of Water Withdrawals and Discharges
ATLANTIC COAST PI PELI NE
West Virginia
TBD
TBD
Virginia
TBD
TBD
North Carolina
TBD
TBD
SUPPLY HEADER PROJECT
West Virginia
TBD
TBD
Pennsylvania
TBD
TBD
Atlantic and DTI continue to review waterbodies for supply and discharge capacity.
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 /Commonwealth use or high quality designations (e.g.,
coldwater fishery or trout water, Tier 3 waterbodies); or an important riparian area. NRI rivers
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 -1 and 2A -2. Waterbodies can also be considered sensitive if they
are of special interest to a land management agency, resource agency, or Native American Tribe.
2 -28

Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
The proposed ACP and SHP pipeline facilities will cross 65 and 17 waterbodies,
respectively, which are considered sensitive based on the criteria described above. A list of these
waterbodies is provided in Table 2C in Appendix 2C.
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. 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 any additional requirements identified in Federal or
State /Commonwealth waterbody crossing permits. Atlantic and DTI will prepare a Plan of
Development or Construction, Operation, and Maintenance Plan, which will identify
construction procedures and mitigation measures to be implemented on federally managed lands.
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.
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 Tables 2A -1 and 2A -2 in Appendix 2A and discussed further in
Resource Report 3.
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. 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). 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 all permit requirements.
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.,
2 -29

Resource Report 2
Water Use and Quality
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
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 streambed 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.
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.
In areas where concrete - coated pipe is required, and in accordance with the SPCC Plan
(to be provided in Appendix IF of the final Resource Report 1), concrete coating activities will
occur a minimum of 100 feet from wetlands, waterbodies, springs, and karst features. 5
Concrete - coated pipe will be installed after the concrete is dried and will not be dispersed when
submerged in water.
Based on analysis of the Soil Survey Geographic Database, approximately 11 percent
(65.5 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, 2014). Construction in these areas may require
blasting or other special construction techniques (see Section 6.2 of Resource Report 6). If
blasting is necessary in a flowing waterbody, the use of controlled blasting techniques, where
5 hi comments filed with the Commission, the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries said that in- stream use of concrete should
be done only in dry conditions, allowing all concrete to harden prior to returning stream flow
2 -30

Resource Report 2
Water Use and Quality
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. All 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 (to be provided in Appendix IF of the final
Resource Report 1).
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
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 (to be provided in Appendix IF of the final 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 will
prepare and implement a Contaminated Media Plan (to be provided in Appendix IF of the final
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 avoids 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
2 -31

Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
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 will
prepare and implement a Horizontal Directional Drill Fluid Monitoring, Operations, and
Contingency Plan (to be provided in Appendix IF of the final 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.
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. 6
2.2.11 Facility Operations
In some cases, construction of aboveground facilities and access roads will require
permanent impacts on waterbodies. 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 permanent impacts are required,
Atlantic and Dominion will comply with all Federal and State /Commonwealth permit
requirements. Permanent impacts on waterbodies will be discussed in more detail in the final
version of Resource Report 2.
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.
6 In comments filed with the Commission, several individuals said that leaks in the pipeline could contaminate groundwater and surface water
over time.
2 -32

Resource Report 2
2.3 WETLANDS
Water Use and Quality
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."
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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
National Wetland Inventory (NWI) data, the proposed ACP facilities will cross palustrine
emergent (PEM), palustrine scrub -shrub (PSS), palustrine forested (PFO), estuarine intertidal
emergent (E2E), and estuarine subtidal unconsolidated bottom (ElU) wetland types. Based on
the same data sources, the proposed SHP pipeline facilities will cross PEM, PFO, and riverine
unknown perennial unconsolidated bottom (RSUB) wetlands. Complete sets of NWI maps and
field survey maps for the ACP and SHP are provided in Appendices 2E and 2F, respectively.
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 field.
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
the aboveground facilities (i.e., compressor and M &R stations and other facilities).
2 -33

Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
To date, wetland surveys have been completed for approximately 72.5 percent of the
proposed ACP pipeline routes and TBD percent of the aboveground facility sites, access roads,
and pipe storage and contractor yards. Wetland surveys have been completed over
approximately 26 percent of the proposed SHP pipeline loops and TBD percent of the
aboveground facility sites, access roads, and pipe storage and contractor yards. Wetland surveys
will continue until the entire route has been surveyed.
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) (USAGE), 1987; USAGE, 2012; USAGE, 2010), 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 will be included in the ACP and SHP wetland and
waterbody delineation reports, which will be filed in a supplemental filing or as Appendices 2D
and 2E, respectively, in the final Resource Report 2.
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 any conservation easements
established through the WRP (USDA NRCS, 2014a). Based on a review of NRCS conservation
easement data, no WRP or ACEP conservation easements will be crossed by the proposed ACP
or SHP facilities (NRCS, 2014b).
2.3.4 Wetland Crossings
2.3.4.1 Pipeline Facilities
Based on field and NWI data, there will be a total of 1,009 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 345 wetland
crossings along AP -1 (62 wetland crossings in West Virginia and 283 wetland crossings in
Virginia), and 424 wetland crossings along AP -2 in North Carolina. The proposed ACP lateral
pipeline facilities will have 230 wetland crossings along AP -3 (36 in North Carolina and 194 in
Virginia), nine wetland crossings along AP -4 in Virginia, and one wetland crossing along AP -5
in Virginia.
2 -34

Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
The combined linear crossing distance of all wetlands is 68.2 miles, accounting for
approximately 12.3 percent of the combined length of the pipeline routes. Approximately
9.2 percent (6.3 miles) of the wetlands crossed by the ACP pipeline facilities are characterized as
PEM, 78.3 percent (53.4 miles) are characterized as PFO, and 12.3 percent (8.4 miles) are
characterized as PSS. The remaining 0.2 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, 51 wetlands crossed by the ACP mainlines are characterized as farmed
wetlands (5 on AP -1 in West Virginia; 36 on AP -1 in Virginia; five on AP -2 in North Carolina;
seven on AP -3 in Virginia; and five on AP -3 in North Carolina). In total, approximately
651.6 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
391.5 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 339.6 acres of PFO wetlands
and 51.9 acres of PSS wetlands.
Based on field and NWI data, there will be a total of 18 wetland crossings by the
proposed SHP pipeline loops. The TL -635 pipeline loop in West Virginia will have five PEM
and four RSUB wetland crossings. The TL -636 pipeline loop in Pennsylvania will have five
PEM and four PFO wetland crossings. The combined linear crossing distance of all wetlands is
0.2 mile, accounting for approximately 0.5 percent of the combined length of the pipeline loops
Approximately 2.7 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 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 2G -1 and 2G -2 in Appendix 2G 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.
The data summarizing wetland crossings in Table 2.3.4 -1 and the tables located in
Appendix 2G 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 2G is identified as NWL 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 2F.
Federal Lands
The ACP crosses four areas of federally managed land: the Monongahela National
Forest; George Washington National Forest (which includes the Appalachian Trail); Blue Ridge
Parkway; and Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge (GDS -NWR). Additional
information 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 any Federal Lands.
2 -35

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
Cowardin Crossing Length Temporary Construction Operational Impact
Pipeline Facility /State or Commonwealth Classification a (Miles) Impact (acres)' (acres)`
ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE
AP -1
West Virginia PEM 0.6 6.6 5.5
2 -36
PTO
0.1
1.1
0.9
PSS
0.0
0.1
0.1
West Virginia Subtotal
0.7
7.8
6.4
Virginia
PEM
0.9
10.7
8.2
PTO
5.6
63.9
51.3
PSS
0.5
4.9
4.4
PUB
0.0
0.6
0.3
Virginia Subtotal
7.1
80.1
64.3
AP -2
North Carolina
PEM
0.8
8.9
5.3
PTO
32.5
309.0
195.8
PSS
6.0
55.9
36.0
PUB
0.0
0.1
0.1
North Carolina Subtotal
39.3
373.9
237.2
AP -3
Virginia
E2E
0.0
0.1
0.1
PEM
3.3
30.4
20.3
PTO
13.9
125.0
83.6
PSS
1.8
16.3
10.8
PUB
0.0
0.1
0.0
Virginia Subtotal
19.1
171.9
114.8
North Carolina
PEM
0.6
4.6
3.3
PTO
1.0
9.5
6.2
PSS
0.0
0.5
0.3
North Carolina Subtotal
1.6
14.6
9.8
AP -4
Virginia
PEM
0.0
0.3
0.2
PTO
0.3
2.5
1.7
PSS
0.0
0.4
0.3
Virginia Subtotal
0.4
3.1
2.1
AP -5
Virginia
PTO
0.0
0.1
0.1
Virginia Subtotal
0.0
0.1
0.1
ACP Project Total
68.2
651.6
434.7
SUPPLY HEADER PROJECT
TL -635
PEM
0.1
1.0
0.5
RSUB
0.0
0.6
0.3
West Virginia Subtotal
0.1
1.6
0.8
TL -636
Pennsylvania
PEM
0.0
0.7
0.2
PTO
0.0
0.4
0.3
Pennsylvania Subtotal
0.0
1.1
0.5
SHP Project Total
0.0
2.7
1.3
2 -36

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
Wetland types according to Cowardin et al. (1979):
PTO = palustrine forested
PSS = palustrine scrub -shrub
PEM = palustrine emergent
PUB = palustrine unconsolidated bottom
E = estuarine
RSUB = riverine unknown perennial unconsolidated bottom
Temporary wetland impacts are associated with a 75- foot -wide construction right -of -way through wetlands.
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. Operational impacts shown for PEM wetlands
indicate the acres of PEM wetlands located in the maintained easement. However, because the easement will be maintained in an
herbaceous state, there will be no operational impacts on PEM wetlands.
Note: The totals shown in this table may not equal the sum of addends due to rounding
NOTE: Project impacts will be calculated as described in notes b and c above once the line is located. Current impact acreages were calculated
by GIS staff based on the project segment, whether the wetland is crossed, and its agricultural status.
TABLE 2.3.4 -2
Summary of Wetland Types Affected by Construction and Operation of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline on Federal Lands
b Temporary wetland impacts are associated with a 75- foot -wide construction right -of -way through wetlands.
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. Operational impacts shown for PEM wetlands
indicate the acres of PEM wetlands located in the maintained easement. However, because the easement will be maintained in an
herbaceous state, there will be no operational impacts on PEM wetlands.
a 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.
Note: Except for approximately 1,000 feet
NOTE: Project impacts will be calculated as described in notes b and c above once the line is located. Current impact acreages were calculated
by GIS staff based on the project segment, whether the wetland is crossed, and its agricultural status.
2 -37
Temporary
Federal Land
Cowardin
Wetland Crossing
Construction Impact
Operational Impact
Federal Land Unit
Crossed (miles)
Classification a
Length (Miles)
(acres) b
(acres)
Monongahela NF
17.7
PTO
0.0
0.2
0.2
George Washington NF
11.9
None
0.0
0.0
0.0
Blue Ridge Parkway
0.1
None
0.0
0.0
0.0
Great Dismal Swamp NWR a
1.7
PFO /PEM
0.9/0.1
8.8/0.8
5.8/0.6
ACP Project Total
2.8
9.8
6.6
a Wetland types according to
Cowardin et al. (1979):
PTO = palustrine forested
PEM = palustrine emergent
b Temporary wetland impacts are associated with a 75- foot -wide construction right -of -way through wetlands.
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. Operational impacts shown for PEM wetlands
indicate the acres of PEM wetlands located in the maintained easement. However, because the easement will be maintained in an
herbaceous state, there will be no operational impacts on PEM wetlands.
a 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.
Note: Except for approximately 1,000 feet
NOTE: Project impacts will be calculated as described in notes b and c above once the line is located. Current impact acreages were calculated
by GIS staff based on the project segment, whether the wetland is crossed, and its agricultural status.
2 -37

Resource Report 2
2.3.4.2 Aboveground Facilities
Water Use and Quality
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. Construction of the ACP compressor stations will impact TBD acres of wetlands, of
which TBD acres will be permanently filled for operation of the facility. Modification and
expansions at the existing SHP compressor stations will impact TBD acres of wetlands, of which
TBD acres will be permanently filled for operation of each facility. Work at the Birch Ridge
Compressor Station will be contained within the fenceline of the existing facility and will not
impact any wetlands.
2.3.4.3 Access Roads
Based on NWI maps and field surveys, access roads for the ACP will cross a total of
7,077.5 feet of wetlands. Access roads for the SHP Project will cross a total of TBD feet of
wetlands. A summary of impacts associated with access roads is included in Table 2.3.4 -3.
2.3.4.4 Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards
Use of pipe storage and contractor yards will temporarily impact approximately TBD
acres of 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 any additional requirements identified in Federal or
State /Commonwealth wetland crossing permits. Atlantic and DTI will prepare a Plan of
Development or Construction, Operation, and Maintenance Plan, which will identify
construction procedures and mitigation measures to be implemented on federally managed lands.
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).
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 2G -1 and 2G -2 in Appendix 2G
identify the proposed crossing method for each wetland along the proposed ACP and SHP
pipeline routes and in other work areas.
2 -38

Resource Report 2
Water Use and Quality
TABLE 2.3.4 -3
Summary of Wetlands Affected by Access Road Construction for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply Header Project
Crossing Temporary
Cowardin Length Construction Operational
Facility /State or Commonwealth County /City Classification a (feet) Impacts (acres) Impacts (acres)
ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE
AP -1 Access Roads
Virginia
Virginia Total
AP -2 Access Roads
North Carolina
North Carolina Total
Virginia
Virginia Total
AP -3 Access Roads
North Carolina
North Carolina Total
Virginia
Buckingham County
Cumberland County
Brunswick County
Crreensville County
Halifax County
Nash County
Johnston County
Cumberland County
Crreensville County
Northampton County
Southampton County
City of Suffolk
Virginia Total
59.6
AP -4 Access Roads
TBD
Virginia
Brunswick County
Virginia Total
TBD
ACP PROJECT TOTAL
27.7
SUPPLY HEADER PROJECT
TBD
TL -635 Access Roads
460.2
West Virginia
TBD
TL -636 Access Roads
35.3
Pennsylvania
TBD
SHP PROJECT TOTAL
TBD
a Wetland types according to Cowardin et al. (1979):
PTO = palustrine forested
PEM = palustrine emergent
TBD
PUB = palustrine unconsolidated bottom
PEM
2 -39
PEM
59.6
TBD
TBD
PTO
420.6
TBD
TBD
PSS
27.7
TBD
TBD
PTO
460.2
TBD
TBD
PTO
35.3
TBD
TBD
PTO
521.7
TBD
TBD
1,525.2
TBD
TBD
PEM
270.5
TBD
TBD
PTO
202.3
TBD
TBD
PEM
368.8
TBD
TBD
PTO
359.8
TBD
TBD
PTO
6,214.7
TBD
TBD
PEM
291.2
TBD
TBD
PSS
192.3
TBD
TBD
7,899.5
TBD
TBD
PTO
47.0
TBD
TBD
47.0
TBD
TBD
PEM
140.1
TBD
TBD
140.1
TBD
TBD
PTO
2,927.3
TBD
TBD
PSS
155.6
TBD
TBD
PTO
3,490.8
TBD
TBD
6,573.7
TBD
TBD
PTO
363.8
TBD
TBD
363.8
TBD
TBD
16,549.3
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD

Resource Report 2
Horizontal Directional Drill
Water Use and Quality
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 TBD acres of wetland, including TBD acres of PFO and TBD acres of PSS 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 will prepare and 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 will be provided in Appendix IF of the final 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
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 rutting 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;
2 -40

Resource Report 2
Water Use and Quality
• 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;
• 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 (to be provided in Appendix IF of
final 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 10 -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
2 -41

Resource Report 2
Water Use and Quality
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.
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
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. An Invasive Plant Species Management Plan (to be provided in
Appendix IF of the final Resource Report 1) will be implemented to reduce and control the
spread of invasive non - native species in the Project areas, including wetlands.
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 10 -foot wide corridor centered over the pipeline in an herbaceous condition.
Additionally, any 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 430.2 acres of PFO and PSS wetlands will be converted to
herbaceous wetlands by the ACP and less than approximately 0.4 acre of PFO 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. Finally, Atlantic and DTI will allow the majority of wetlands impacted during
construction to return to their preconstruction condition as described above.
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
2 -42

Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
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.
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 between the upland construction areas and the wetland to limit
the potential for soil to leave the right -of -way or enter a wetland. 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.
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 (to be
provided in Appendix IF of the final Resource Report 1). Some examples of preventive
measures include regular inspection of storage areas for leaks, replacement of deteriorating
2 -43

Resource Report 2
Water Use and Quality
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. Any 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. Where permanent impacts are required, Atlantic and Dominion
will comply with all applicable Federal and State /Commonwealth permit requirements.
Permanent impacts on wetlands will be discussed in more detail in the final version of Resource
Report 2.
2.3.7 Compensatory Mitigation
Atlantic and DTI anticipate preparing Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Plans for the
ACP and SHP as part of their applications to the USACE for a Department of the Army Permit
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Copies of these plans will be filed with the
Commission when they have been approved by the USAGE.
2 -44

Resource Report 2
2.4 REFERENCES
Water Use and Quality
Barron, Alex. 2015. Phone Communication with Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality. Communication on March 18, 2015.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and
deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife
Research Center Online. Available online at: httD: / /www.nDwrc.us�4s.�4ov /resource/
wetlands /classwet /. Accessed October 2014.
Gregory, Lance. 2014. Email Communication with Virginia Department of Health, Office of
Environmental Health. Communication on November 25, 2014.
Johnson, Gale. 2015. Phone Communication with North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources. Communication on April 7, 2015.
Kozar, M.D. and Brown, D.P. 1995. Location and Site Characteristics of the Ambient Ground -
Water- Quality- Monitoring Network in West Virginia. U.S. Geological Survey. Open -
File Report 95 -130.
LeGrand, H.E. 1988. Chapter 24 Region 21, Piedmont and Blue Ridge in the Geology of North
America, Volume 0-2, Hydrogeology. The Geological Society of America. Available
online at: httD: / /www.clemson.edu /ces /hydro /murdoch /Courses /Aquifer %20Systems
/documents/ Heath %20and %20Back %20books /Chapter %2024.Ddf. Accessed January
2015. .......
Maupin, M.A., and Barber, N.L. 2005. Estimated withdrawals from principal aquifers in the
United States, 2000. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1279, 46 p. Available online at:
httn: / /Dubs.us�4s.�4ov /circ /2005 /1279 /Ddf /circl279.i)df. Accessed January 2015.
McCaffrey, Thomas. 2015. Email Communication with the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection, Bureau of Safe Drinking Water. Communication on
February 17, 2015.
North Carolina Administrative Code. Ammended 1996. Subchapter 213- Surface Water and
Wetland Standards; Section .0100- Procedures for Assignment of Water Quality
Standards. Available online at: httD:Hrei)orts.oah. state .nc.us /ncac /title %2015a %20 -
% 20environment %20and %20natural %20resources /chanter %2002 %20 -% o20environ
mental %20mana�4ement/ subchapter %20b /subchapter %20b %20rules.pdf. Accessed
November 2014.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2013. North Carolina
Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual, revised 2009 and 2013.
Available online at: httD: / /Dortal.ncdenr.or�4/web /lr /publications. Accessed
February 2015.
2 -45

Resource Report 2
Water Use and Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2014a. NC OneMap.
Available online at: httD:H data. nconema_D.com /�4eoDortal /catalog /main /home.])a�4e.
Accessed November 2014.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2014b. Division of Waste
Management Map. Available online at: httD://Dortal.ncdenr.org/web/wm/pis/maDs/
dwmmap. Accessed November 2014.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2014c. Underground
Storage Tank Program Databases. Available online at: htt_D: / /_Dortal.ncdenr.org_ /web/
wm /ust /database. Accessed November 2014.
North Carolina, OneMap; GeoSpatial Portal. 2015a. Public Water Supply Water Sources GIS
data layer.
North Carolina, OneMap; GeoSpatial Portal. 2015b. 2012 Integrated Reporting Water Quality
Assessments. Available online at: httD :Hdata.nconemai).com /�4eoi)ortal /catalog /search/
resource / details. pale? uuid=% 7B25194871- CICD- 42AE- 9D8C- OD16AF28F074 %7D.
Accessed February 2015.
Paucer, Jennifer. 2015. Phone Communication with West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection, Division of Water and Waste Management. Communication
on March 10, 2015.
Pennsylvania Code. 1971. Chapter 93 Water Quality Standards. Available online at:
http: / /www.i)acode.com/ secure / data /025 /chaDter93 /chai)93toc.html. Accessed
December 2014.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2012. Erosion and Sediment Pollution
Control Program Manual, March 2012, Technical Guidance Number 363- 2134 -008.
Available online at: http : / /www.elibrarv.del).state.i)a.us /dsweb /Get /Document-
87860/363- 2134- 008.pddf. Accessed February 2015.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2013. Streams Chapter 93 Designated
Use. August 2013. GIS layer available at: httD:// www.l)asda.i)su.edu /uci /SearchRes
alts.aspx? originator= Pennsylvania% 20Department %20of%20Environmental %20Protect
ion& Kevword= &searchTvpe= originator &entry = PASDA&sessionlD= 16187590420153
320436. Accessed February 2015.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2014. Municipal Waste Landfills &
Resource Recovery Facilities. Available online at: httD: / /www.i)ortal.state.i)a.us /portal/
server. pt? open=5 14& obi ID=5 8 9660&mode=2. Accessed November 2014.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2015a. Web based mapping application
eMapPA v.4.0. Available online at: http:// www .emappa.dei).state.i)a.us /emappa
/viewer.htm. Accessed March 2015.
2 -46

Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2015b. Public Water Supplier's Service
Areas. January 2015. GIS layer available at: http: / /www.i)asda.i)su.edu /uci /Search
Results. aspx ?originator= Pennsvlvania% 20Department %20of%20Environmental %20Pro
tection& Kevword= &searchTvpe= originator &entry =PASDA &sessionlD = 161875904201
53320436. Accessed February 2015.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2015c. Integrated List Non Attaining.
January 2015. GIS layer available at: httD:// www. Dasda.Dsu.edu /uci/SearchResults
.aspx ?originator= Pennsvlvania% 20Department% 20of %o20Environmental %20Protection
& Kevword= &searchTvpe= originator &entry =PASDA &sessionlD= 16187590420153320
436. Accessed February 2015.
Peterson, James. 2015. Phone Communication with West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection, Water and Waste Management Section. Communication on
April 7, 2015.
Reisch, Chad. 2015. Phone Communication with Pennsylvania Department Environmental
Protection, Bureau of Safe Drinking Water. Communication on March 3, 2015.
Shaver, Richard. 2015. Phone Communication with West Virginia Department of Health and
Human Services, Source Water Assessment and Wellhead Protection Program.
Communication on March 11, 2015.
Soto, Roy. 2015. Email Communication with the Virginia Department of Health, Office of
Drinking Water. Communication on March 24, 2015.
Swistock, B. 2007. A Quick Guide to Groundwater in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania State
Cooperative Extension. Available online at: htt_ D: / /_Dubs.cas.i)su.edu /FreePubs/
pdfs /uhl83.pdf. Accessed January 2015.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y -87 -1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Miss.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0). ERDC /EL
TR- 10 -20. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2012. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region (Version 2.0).
ERDC /EL TR -12 -9. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development
Center.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2006 (updated 2011). Monongahela National
Forest: Land and Resource Management Plan. Available online at: http / /www.fs.
usda.gov /Internet /FSE DOCUMENTS /stelprdb5330420.pdf. Accessed February 2015.
2 -47

Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2014. Record of Decision: Final
Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan.
R8 -MB 143 C. Supervisor's Office, Roanoke, VA. Available online at: httD:Hwww.
fs.usda.wv /Internet /FSE DOCUMENTS /stelprd3822823.pdf. Accessed February 2015.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2014a. ACEP,
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program. USDA 2014 Farm Bill. Available online
at: httD: / /www.nres.usda.�4ov /wps /portal /nres/ detail /national /programs /farmbill
/ ?cid= stelprdbl242382. Accessed November 2014.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2014b. Geospatial
Data Gateway. Available online at: htt_ D://data�4ateway.nres.usda.�4ov /. Accessed
November 2014.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2008. At a Glance:
Wetland Reserve Program. USDA NRCS Farm Bill 2008. Available online at:
http: / /www.nres.usda.�4ov /wps/ portal /nres/ main / national /programs /easements /wetlands /.
Accessed November 2014.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information Facility Registry
System (EPA). 2014. FRS Interests Map Service. Available at: http / /geodata.eba.�4ov/
arc 6s /rest / services /OEI/FRS INTERESTS /MapServer. Accessed November 2014.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. Region 3 Water Protection Division Sole Source
Aquifer Program, Virtual Aquifers. Available online at: httD: / /www.el)a.gov /reg3waDd/
presentations /ssa/index.htm. Accessed November 2014.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. Mid - Atlantic Water, Sole Source Aquifers.
Available online at: httD: / /www.epa. Gov/ re�43waDd /drinkin�4/ssa/index.htm. Accessed
November 2014.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012a. Superfund — List of Sediment Sites with
Substantial Contamination. Available online at: http: / /www.ei)a.�4ov /sui)erfund /health/
conmedia/sediment /sites.htm. Accessed December 2014.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012b. Water: Water Quality Standards Academy —
Basic Course: Supplemental Topics — 303(d) Submissions: Integrated Reporting
Categories. Available online at: httD:Hwater.ei)a.�4OV /learn /training /standardsacademy
/m4e7.6n. Accessed March 2015.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013a. Region 4: Ground Water Protection, Sole
Source Aquifers in the Southeast. Available online at: httD://www.ei)a.�ov/re�ion4
/water /groundwater /r4ssa.html. Accessed November 2014.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013b. Superfund — Contaminated Media. Available
online at: htt_D: / /www.epa. Gov/ sui)erfund /health/conmedia/index.htin. Accessed January
2015.
,I

Resource Report 2
Water Use and Quality
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge. U.S.
Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Brochure. Available online at:
httD : / /www.fws.�4ov /ui)loadedFiles /Region 5/NWRS /South Zone /Great Dismal Swam
p Complex /Great Dismal Swamp /GDSNWR�4eneral.pdf. Accessed November 2014.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1994. Hydrological Units Maps: United States Geological Survey
Water - Supply Paper 2294. Available online at: htt _D: / /Dubs.usgs.�4ov /wsD /wsD2294/
pdf /wsp 2294.pdf. Accessed January 2015.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1997. Ground Water Atlas of U.S. — Segment 11: Delaware, Maryland,
New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, HA 730 -L.
Regional Summary by Henry Trapp, JR and Marilee A. Horn. Available online at:
httD : / /Dubs.us�4s.�4ov /ha/ha730 /ch 1 /L- textl.html. Accessed December 2014.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1997a. Ground Water Atlas of U.S. — Segment 11: Delaware,
Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, HA 730 -
L. Appalachian Plateaus Aquifers. Available online at: http: / /pubs.usgs.gov/
ha/ha730 /ch 1 /L- text6.html Accessed December 2014.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1997b. Ground Water Atlas of U.S. — Segment 11: Delaware,
Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, HA 730 -
L. Valley and Ridge Aquifers. Available online at: htt_D: / /Dubs.usgs.�4ov /ha/ha730/
ch 1 /L- text5.html Accessed February 2015.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1997c. Ground Water Atlas of U.S. — Segment 11: Delaware,
Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, HA 730 -
L. Piedmont and Blue Ridge Aquifers. Available online at: htt_p: / /pubs.usgs.�4ov
/ha/ha730 /ch 1 /L- text4.html . Accessed December 2014.
U.S. Geological Survey. 19974. Ground Water Atlas of U.S. — Segment 11: Delaware,
Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, HA 730 -
L. Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain Aquifer System. Available online at:
httD : / /Dubs.us�4s.�4ov /ha/ha730 /ch 1 /L- text3.html. Accessed January 2015.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1999. Ground Water Atlas of U.S. — Introduction and National
Summary. Sandstone Aquifers. Written by James Miller. Available online at:
http : / /i)ubs.us�4s.�4ov /ha/ha730 /ch a/A- text4.html Accessed December 2014.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1999b. Ground Water Atlas of U.S. — Introduction and National
Summary. Carbonate -rock Aquifers. Written by James Miller. Available online at:
httD : / /Dubs.us�4s.�4ov /ha/ha730 /ch a/A- text5.html Accessed February 2015.
U.S. Geological Survey. 2003. Principal Aquifers of 48 Conterminous United States, Hawaii,
Puerto Rico, and the United States Virgin Islands. Digital Data Version 1.0. Reston,
Virginia. Available at: httD:H water. uses .�4ov /GIS /metadata/us�4swrd /XML/
aquifers us.xml. Accessed December 2014.
2 -49

Resource Report 2
Water Use and Quality
U.S. Geological Survey. 2014a. Water - Quality Assessments of Principal Aquifers. Available
online at: httD :Hwater.us�4s.�4ov /nawaa/studies /brag /. Accessed January 2015.
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. 1992. Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control
Handbook, Third Edition. Available online at: httD: / /www.deci.virginia.�4ov/
Programs/ Water /StormwaterMana�4ement /Publications /ESCHandbook.aspx. Accessed
February 2015
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. 2005. Wellhead Protection Plan:
Commonwealth of Virginia. Available online at: httD: / /www.dea.virginia.�4ov /Portals
/0 /DEQ/ Water/ GroundwaterProtectionSteerin�4Committee /wellheadplan.Ddf. Accessed
December 2014.
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. 2014a. Commonwealth of Virginia
Groundwater Management Areas (GWMA). Available online at: httD: / /www.dea..
vir�4inia. Gov /Portals /0 /DEQ /Water /GroundwaterPermittin�4/Virginia %20GW MA %20Ma
p effective 10114.ip�4 Accessed February 2015.
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. 2014b. Virginia Environmental GIS (VEGIS).
Available online at: htti):// www. deci. vir�4inia .�4ov /ConnectWithDEQ /VEGIS/
VEGISDatasets.aspx. Accessed November 2014.
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. 2015. Final 2012 305(b)/303(d) Water Quality
Assessment Integrated Report; GIS Data. Available online at: httD: / /www.deci.virginia.
Gov /Programs /Water /W aterQualitvinfonnationTMDLs /W aterQualitvAsses sments /2012
305 (b)303(d)lnte�4ratedReport.aspx. Accessed February 2015.
Virginia's Legislative Information System. 2014a. Virginia Law Website. Administrative Code,
Chapter 260, Declaration of Groundwater Management Areas. Available online at:
htti):Hlaw.lis.vir�4inia.�4ov/ admincode / title9/ a�4encv25 /chai)ter600 /section20 /. Accessed
February 2015.
Virginia's Legislative Information System. 2014b. Virginia Law Website. Administrative Code,
Chapter 260, Water Quality Standards, Antidegradation Policy. Available online at:
htti):Hlaw.lis.vir�4inia.�4ov/ admincode / title9/ a�4encv25 /chai)ter260 /section30. Accessed
December 2014.
Virginia's Legislative Information System. 2014c. Virginia Law Website. Administrative Code,
Chapter 260, Water Quality Standards, Designation of Uses. Available online at:
htti):Hlaw.lis.vir�4inia.�4ov/ admincode / title9 /a�4encv25 /chai)ter260 /sectionlO Accessed
December 2014.
Vivas, Joanne. 2014. Email Communication with Virginia Department of Health, Office of
Drinking Water. Communication on November 24, 2014.
2 -50

Resource Report 2 Water Use and Quality
West Virginia Code of State Regulations. 2014. Title 47 Legislative Rule: Series 2,
Requirements Governing Water Quality Standards. Available online at: httD: / /www.deD
.wv. �4ov/W WE /Programs /wq s/ Documents / Rule% 20Approved %20Letter %20and %20Ru1
e %o201tself% 202014 /WVDEP WQS 2014TriReview FinalRule47CSR2 June 2014.1)d
f. Accessed November 2014.
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. 2006. Erosion and Sediment Control
Best Management Practice Manual. Available online at: https://apbs.dep.wv,gov/
dwwm /stormwater /BMP /index.html. Accessed February 2015.
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. 2012a. Water and Waste Management
— 2012 GIS Shapefiles — 303D— TMDL — Impaired streams in West Virginia. Available
online at: httD: / /www.deD.wv.�ov /WWE /watershed /IR/Pa�4es /303d 305b.aspx .
Accessed February 2015.
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. 2012b. 2012 West Virginia Integrated
Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report. US EPA approved. Available
online at: httD: / /www.deD.wv.�4ov /WWE /watershed /IR/Pa�4es /303d 305b.aspx.
Accessed February 2015
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. 2013. Solid Waste Facilities
Permitting: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. Available online at: httb://www.deb.wv.
Gov /wwe /bennit /solidwaste /Pages /default.aspx. Accessed November 2014.
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. 2014a. Water Quality Standards.
Available online at: httD: / /www.dei).wv.�4ov/ WWE /Programs /was /Pages /default.asl)x.
Accessed November 2014
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. 2014b. Leaking Tank Program:
Database of all Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites. Available online at:
httD:// www.dei).wv.Gov /dlr /oer /lustmain /Pages /default.asi)x. Accessed November 2014.
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. 2014c. Reporting Services: Bureau of
Environmental Cleanup and Brownfields Regulated Storage Tank Cleanup Incidents.
Available at: http: / /www.dei)rei)ortin�4services .state.i)a.us /ReportServer /Pages/
ReportViewer.aspx? /Cleanup /Tank Cleanup Incidents. Accessed November 2014.
West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources. 2003a. Source Water Assessment
and Protection Program, Source Water Assessment Report, Buckhannon Water Board,
Upshur County. PWSID: WV3304902. Available online at: htt_D: / /www.wvdhhr
.or�4/oehs /eed /swap /search.cfin. Accessed February 2015.
West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources. 2003b. Source Water Assessment
and Protection Program, Source Water Assessment Report, Grand Badger Community
Hawthorne, Upshur County. PWSID: WV3304910. Available online at: htt_D://www.
wvdhhr.or�4/oehs /eed /swap /search.cfin. Accessed February 2015.
2 -51

Resource Report 2
Water Use and Quality
West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources. 2003c. Source Water Assessment
and Protection Program, Source Water Assessment Report, Huttonsville Medium
Security Prison, Randolph County. PWSID: WV3304205. Available online at:
htti): / /www.wvdhhr.or�4/oehs /eed /swag /search.cfin. Accessed February 2015.
West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources. 20034. Source Water Assessment
and Protection Program, Source Water Assessment Report, Mill Creek Water
Department, Randolph County. PWSID: WV3304209. Available online at:
htti): / /www.wvdhhr.or�4/oehs /eed /swag / search.cfin. Accessed February 2015.
West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources. 2003e. Source Water Assessment
and Protection Program, Source Water Assessment Report, Pine Grove Water Works,
Wetzel County. PWSID: WV3305205. Available online at:
htti): / /www.wvdhhr.or�4/oehs /eed /swag / search.cfin. Accessed February 2015.
West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources. 2015. Correspondence letter from
the Bureau for Public Health, Office of Environmental Health Services in response to an
informational request dated November 11, 2014 concerning source water data. Letter
dated January 21, 2015.
2 -52