20140957 Ver 1_FERC Project Update (June 2015)_20150728

INTRODUCTION Review _
The purpose of this mailing is to provide you with an update on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC or
Commission) environmental review of the pending application for the Supply Header Project (SHP) and the Atlantic Coast
Pipeline (ACP) Project, what's next in our review process, the issues gathered during scoping, and how you can stay assigns ' Applicants' o' ; ;' '1
s. PF1 5-5 and PF1 informed.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
For the SHP, Dominion Transmission, Inc. (Dominion) plans to construct and operate about 36.7 miles of natural gas pipeline
loop in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, and modify four existing compressor stations located in Westmoreland and Green
Public
Counties, Pennsylvania, and Marshall and Wetzel Counties, West Virginia. For the ACP Project, Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC
Input
Opportunities
(Atlantic) plans to construct and operate 556 miles of variable diameter natural gas pipeline in West Virginia, Virginia, and
North Carolina. In addition, Atlantic plans to construct and operate three new compressor stations in Lewis County, West
Virginia; Buckingham County, Virginia; and Northampton County, North Carolina. If the projects are approved, Dominion and
Atlantic (collectively referred to as the Applicants) propose to begin initial construction activities in fall 2016. Construction of
the projects is anticipated to take 2 years, with an estimated in- service date of November 2018.
WHERE WE ARE IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
We are here
The FERC is the lead federal agency responsible for conducting the environmental review of the projects. In compliance with
the National Environmental Policy Act, the FERC is preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the planned
projects. The U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, and the West Virginia Department of Natural Resources
are cooperating in the development of the EIS. This EIS will identify and describe potentially affected lands and resources,
disclose the potential impacts on these resources, evaluate alternatives, and describe, as appropriate, any avoidance,
minimization, and mitigation measures necessary to reduce the potential impacts of the SHP and ACP projects. In addition to
the Applicants' applications and project data, we will analyze information that has been filed by other stakeholders and
commenters in the proceeding. All substantive issues identified by commenters will be included in the EIS. We note that the
FERC has no direct jurisdiction over natural gas drilling, either conventional or unconventional (fracking). In addition, the
FERC EIS will only address environmental comments; non - environmental comments will be addressed in the Commission's
Order issuing or denying a certificate.
On May 20, 2015, Dominion and Atlantic filed draft environmental resource reports that describe the planned facilities, potential
Public
Input
impacts on environmental resources, and the companies' mitigation measures designed to minimize those impacts (the
Opportunities
complete set of draft resource reports can be found at hftn: / /elibrarv.FERC.00v /idmws /file Iist.asD ?accession num= 20150520-
5023). You are welcome to view these resource reports and provide comments to the FERC on the environmental issues
addressed.
ISSUES IDENTIFIED
The Commission continues to receive comment letters about the SHP and ACP projects. These letters have come from
potentially affected landowners, concerned citizens, agencies, elected officials, non - governmental organizations, and other
Public
interested parties. FERC staff is reviewing each comment letter to identify the environmental concerns that should be
Input
addressed through the environmental review process. The primary issues that continue to be raised include, but are not
Opportunity
limited to:
Route alternatives
Pipeline integrity through karst areas, steep terrain, and erosive soils and landslide zones
Impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat, including threatened and endangered species
Impacts on groundwater (including water supplies and wells), springs, surface waters, and wetlands
Impacts on public lands, recreational and natural areas, and visual resources
Impacts on cultural resources, including battlefields, cemeteries /burial grounds, and historic districts
Impacts on residences and residential property values
Public health and safety, including emergency response
Impacts on air quality and ambient noise levels, especially related to compressor stations
Public
Input
Opportunities
Commission issues Order approving or
denying the applications

NEXT STEPS
We are currently reviewing and commenting on the
information provided in the Applicants' draft resource
reports. Our final comments on the draft resource
reports will be issued on our public docket. This fall,
the Applicants plan to file their applications and final
resource reports. When we have all the information
necessary to complete our analysis and write the
EIS, we will issue a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review. This notice will announce the
target date for issuing the final EIS and disclose the
federal authorization action /decision deadline for
other agencies.
When the draft EIS is completed, a Notice of
Availability will appear in the Federal Register, and
the EIS will be mailed to the environmental mailing
list for this proceeding. There will be a public review
period to comment on the document. The comments
we've received so far have helped the environmental
and engineering staff identify and evaluate the
potential impacts of the projects. Please stay
involved and consider filing comments on the draft
EIS when it is available. Staff will then complete the
final EIS.
The Commission will consider the findings of the final
EIS, along with all information in the record including
non - environmental information, when it makes its
decision on whether to approve or deny the projects.
HOW TO STAY INFORMED
Go to the FERC website at http: / /www.ferc.aov. Click
on the el -ibrary link, click on "General Search" and
enter the docket number (i.e., PF15 -5 for SHP or
PF15 -6 for ACP). Be sure you have selected an
appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at FERCOnIineSupport @ferc.00v
or toll free at 1- 866 - 208 -3676.
In addition, the FERC offers a free service called
eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all
issuances and submittals in specific dockets. Using
this service can reduce the amount of time you spend
monitoring our website by automatically providing
you with electronic notification when new items are
posted and providing direct links to the documents.
To register for this service, go to:
http://www.ferc.ciov/docs-filina/esubscrir)tion.asD
While we believe that the internet is the best way to
stay informed, we realize that not everyone has
internet access. Therefore, any notices we issue will
be sent in hard copy to our environmental mailing list.
m o
Z O
LO
1
w LO
c�
` I C
t \� o
NCO
44
o
cC
�3
O �
o
'r
E >
� Q
Q �
a�
•� O
� o �
U
ct
� O �
!W
tV
U Z
(/)
L-2
M 0)
U-�Co
W
Z
O
z
� o
zp °Ova:
W V �
w O
F w
W .4 Co cif
Oco�
c5
C
pv
t:)
�i
W
,.4
iPt
(pt
to
i1-t
Federal Energy
Regulatory
Commission
Office of Energy
Projects
PROJECT UPDATE FOR THE
SUPPLY HEADER PROJECT AND
ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE
PROJECT
June 2015
PF15 -5 -000 and PF15 -6 -000
Pennsylvania
Ohio 4
cck
°
0�
N X
X
o
W
n x
HH �
� LL
D
0
- 0
tV
U Z
(/)
L-2
M 0)
U-�Co
W
Z
O
z
� o
zp °Ova:
W V �
w O
F w
W .4 Co cif
Oco�
c5
C
pv
t:)
�i
W
,.4
iPt
(pt
to
i1-t
Federal Energy
Regulatory
Commission
Office of Energy
Projects
PROJECT UPDATE FOR THE
SUPPLY HEADER PROJECT AND
ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE
PROJECT
June 2015
PF15 -5 -000 and PF15 -6 -000
Pennsylvania
Ohio 4

MEETING NOTES
Date:
July 10, 2015
To:
Meeting Invitees
From:
Kevin Bowman, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Subject:
Conference Call Meeting Minutes — FERC and Agencies Discussing the Supply Header Project
and Atlantic Coast Pipeline Project
Meeting Attendees:
Kevin Bowman, FERC SHP and ACP Project Manager
Joanne Wachholder, FERC Interagency Coordinator
Jeff Mackenthun and Zeke Rice, Merjent (FERC Contractor)
Howard Goldstein and Keith Hanson, NOAA Fisheries
Pam Edge, WV Natural Resources Conservation Service
Sarah McCray and Emily Wells, North Carolina Fish and Wildlife Service
Mary Krueger, National Park Service
Monika Meir and Sam Osborne, National Park Service Blue Ridge Parkway
Denise Nelson, Appalachian National Scenic Trail
Ron Schwartz, Rita Coleman, and Chris Kriley, PA Department of Environmental Protection
Carl Brown, PA State Conservation Commission
Jessica Moore, WV Geologic and Economic Survey
Rene Hypes and Taylor Major, VA Department of Conservation and Recreation (Division of
Natural Heritage)
Steven Hardwick, VA Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) — Central Office
Julia Wellman and Bettina Sullivan, VA DEQ Office of Environmental Impact Review
Jed Brown, VA DEQ— Blue Ridge Regional Office
Greg Evans, VA Department of Forestry
Amy Ewing, Ray Fernald, and Ernie Aschenbach'VA Game and Inland Fish
Karri Atwood and Todd Grubbs, VA Department of Health
Matt Heller, VA Mines, Minerals, and Energy
Justine Woodward, VA Marine Resources Commission
Jennifer Burdette, NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources —Central Office
James Graham, NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources — Raleigh Regional Office
Kenneth Taylor, NC Geologic Survey
Gabriela Garrison and Vann Stancil, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Wil Orndorff, VA Natural Heritage Program
Meeting Notes:
Kevin Bowman outlined the FERC's prefiling review process for the Supply Header Project (SHP)
and Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP) Project, two interrelated projects and will be reviewed under

Meeting Notes
SHP and ACP Projects, July 10, 2015 2
one National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document or EIS. FERC is designated as the lead
federal agency under the Energy Policy Act of 2005. FERC's prefiling process provides for early
stakeholder and agency engagement prior to application submittals. FERC encourages
cooperation with all agencies during the review and permitting process and is not an advocate
for or against the project. Bowman outlined the public scoping meetings and communications
that have occurred to date. FERC has established a public docket for the SHP (PF15-5) and ACP
Project (PF15-6) which each agency can use for their respective administrative record.
FERC uses preliminary information and data that is provided by the applicants to begin its
environmental review process. This generally begins with the applicant filing Draft Resource
Reports (DRR) that contain information on various resources that could be affected by the
projects. The DRRs can be found on FERC's and Dominion's websites (web link provided in the
call invite). FERC uses the information provided in the DRRs, along with information gathered
from public meetings, landowner meetings, comments filed on the dockets, and
communications with agencies to identify issues that should be addressed in the applications.
Provided information can lead to alternative routes that should be considered. The DRRs may
contain insufficient or inconsistent information. Accordingly, FERC will issue comments to the
applicants requesting that additional information or clarification is provided in the application.
FERC encourages stakeholders and resource agencies to review the DRRs to ensure adequacy
and regulatory or permitting requirements for their agency are satisfied.
The applicants propose to file the FERC application in September 2015. Based on that submittal
timeframe, FERC estimates it would issue the draft EIS at the end of 2015. The final EIS would
occur around May 2016. Dominion proposes a two-year construction period that is currently
planned to begin in late 2016, with an in-service date of late 2018.
Jeff Mackenthun with Merjent, Inc., FERC's third -party contractor for the projects, provided an
overview of each DRR and the key issues that have been identified to date as follows-'
Resource Resort 1: Proiect Description
• Complexity and limitations of routing the project to multiple receipt points and to
distribute gas to eight customer interconnects.
• Six percent of the project is collocated with existing rights-of-way. Significant new
rights-of-way required, mostly in forested areas, including a 75 -foot -wide permanent
easement for the 42 -inch AP -1 pipeline.
Several areas of steep -slope and side -slope construction in rocky terrain, including areas
with landslide potential.
1 For the benefit of the meeting participants, additional resource report information and key issues identified to
date have been provided in these meeting minutes which were not discussed during the July 10, 2015 conference
call.

Meeting Notes
SHP and ACP Projects, July 10, 2015 3
• Construction in western Virginia would cross karst terrane, an issue that has received
substantial public and agency comment. A karst mitigation plan is proposed, but a draft
has not been provided to date.
• Several large, non -jurisdictional facilities are proposed, including two natural gas-fired
power plants; 26 miles of 30 -inch pipeline; 5 miles of 20 -inch pipeline; minor power
lines; and customer facility modifications.
• Significant stakeholder engagement, including 3,300 comment letters as of June 2015;
multiple websites and blogs against the pipeline; and public protests in the project area
and at FERC's office.
• Obtaining permission to survey properties has been difficult for Dominion, specifically in
Augusta and Nelson Counties, Virginia. Court proceedings have begun to gain survey
access.
Resource Report 2: Water Use
• Approximately 1,000 wetland and 1,000 waterbodies would be crossed by the projects.
• The impact of trenching and blasting on shallow groundwater wells and springs in the
Appalachians and karst terrane. These activities may disrupt groundwater flow and limit
well quality and production.
Resource Report 3: Wildlife, Vegetation, Aquatic Resources, and Sensitive Species
• Several cold water trout fisheries would be crossed.
• Essential Fish Habitat would be crossed at the South Branch Elizabeth River in
Chesapeake, Virginia (proposed for HDD crossing). A few waterbodies could contain
managed anadromous fish.
• Controlling invasive species along the pipeline rights-of-way.
• Routing the project to avoid sensitive species, including managed and protected wildlife
and vegetation habitats.
Resource Report 4: Cultural Resources
• Potential impacts on historic properties, historic districts, and Civil War battlefields.
• Routing the pipeline to avoid graves and cemeteries.
• Potential for unanticipated discoveries.
Resource Report 5: Socioeconomics
• Influx of large workforce into rural areas, which will affect the following:
o Housing; unknown if worker camps will be used.
o Potential strain on emergency response services and responding in remote
areas.
o Few roads in remote Appalachian areas which may affect traffic.

Meeting Notes
SHP and ACP Projects, July 10, 2015 4
• Effect on local business which rely on tourism for revenue.
• Loss of property value and ability to insure property.
• Eminent Domain.
Resource Report 6: Geology
• Ridgetop and steep slope construction. Approximately 10.5 miles of the route has
slopes >35%.
• Blasting potential on over 60 miles of the route (hard bedrock within 60 inches of
surface).
• High landslide potential along 147 miles of proposed route.
• Construction in western Virginia would cross karst terrane, an issue that has received
substantial public and agency comment. A karst mitigation plan is proposed, but a draft
has not been provided to date.
Resource Report 7: Soils
• No unique soil issues have been identified at this time.
Resource Resort 8: Land Use
• The project crosses the following federal lands:
o Monongahela National Forest and George Washington National Forest
o Blue Ridge Parkway
o Appalachian Trail
o Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
• Several public use areas are crossed or within 0.25 mile of the route; which will require
assessment in the NEPA document.
• Approximately 45 percent of the route crosses forest land. Visual effects of a greenfield
route, especially within or near public use areas, must be assessed.
• Significant cooperation with NFs, NPS, BLM, and FWS is anticipated, especially to ensure
the NEPA document meets their federal requirements.
Resource Resort 9: Air and Noise
• Three new gas-fired compressor stations.
• Four existing compressor station modifications, three include compression increases, all
of which are within "non -attainment areas" for either ozone or PM2.5 standards.
Conformity determination may be required.
Resource Report 10: Alternatives
• The evaluation of system alternatives, which has focused on the proposed Mountain
Valley Pipeline Project (PF15-3).

Meeting Notes
SHP and ACP Projects, July 10, 2015 5
• Identification of routes that collocate with existing utility systems. There are viable
alternatives that collocate. Dominion has committed to surveying 3 of these
alternatives.
• Analyzing alternative locations for Compressor Station #3, which is tied to the start of
the AP -3 lateral. Dominion argues that site location is dependent on compression/flow
dynamics; a sufficient evaluation of flow dynamics should be provided in Dominion's
application.
• Minimizing resource impacts and collocating with existing rights-of-way across the
National Forests, Blue Ridge Parkway, and Appalachian Trail. Several route alternatives
and variations have been proposed and analyzed, including an approximate 1 -mile drill
under the Blue Ridge Parkway and Appalachian Trail.
• Identifying a preferred route around and/or through portions of the Great Dismal
Swamp National Wildlife Refuge. Several meetings have been held with applicable
agencies and landowners, and it appears an agreeable route has been identified, which
crosses two small portions of the NWR. Note: crossing the NWR, along with the NFs,
triggers BLM review and issuance of the right-of-way grants. BLM is a cooperating
agency.
Resource Report 11: Reliability and Safety
• Potential for sinkhole development to impact pipeline operations and integrity.
• Maintaining the integrity of the pipeline to prevent a failure.
The NC FWS requested clarification on providing comments to FERC. Kevin explained that
comments can be mailed to the FERC Secretary or eFiled under the FERC docket. Bowman will
provide the meeting participate instruction on how to file comments with the FERC when he
distributes meeting minutes.
The Virginia Department of Forestry requested clarification on filing comments, and whether
comments that were previously filed with FERC should be resubmitted. Bowman explained that
once a comment is filed, it would be considered and addressed throughout the entirety of the
project. Bowman noted that the design and location of the projects could change throughout
the review process, and if new information or issues arise, additional comments can be filed.
Bowman explained that under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, applicants are required to file all
major applications within the same timeframe. It may benefit resource agencies to review and
comment on the DRRs in a timely manner so the applicants can address issues and gather
appropriate information to complete their agency applications. FERC noted that there are
instances where permit applications are filed at different timeframe, such as NPDES
applications that may require a 30 -day preconstruction submittal timeframe, or if any agency
requests that an application is submitted at a later timeframe to ensure agency -specific issues
are addressed.

Meeting Notes
SHP and ACP Projects, July 10, 2015 6
The VA Division of Natural Heritage asked if the DRRs would be updated before the application
is filed in September 2015. Bowman stated that the applicants may file additional construction
plans to supplement the DRRs prior to September, but updated DRRs are not anticipated until
the final application is filed. If the application fails to address comments on the DRRs, or the
final resource reports are incomplete or inconsistent, FERC will request that the data is
provided prior to the draft EIS, or will direct the applicants on how to address an issue through
the EIS/FERC Certificate process.
Bowman stated that comments on the project can be filed at any time during the NEPA review
process, but encourages timely comments. Bowman recommends that comments are filed
within the next month so the applicants have an opportunity to address the comments in the
application. However, if comments are filed at a later time, they will be addressed during that
stage of the environmental review process.
The VA Natural Heritage Program asked if the Virginia Cave Board was on or invited to the
conference call meeting, and if this non -regulatory agency should follow the same process for
providing comments. Bowman stated that he is aware of the Cave Board involvement in the
project and would invite them to future meetings. Bowman recommended that any
information from this meeting be forwarded to the Cave Board. The Cave Board can contact
Bowman directly regarding the project, but it is preferred that comments are filed on the public
record.
The VA DEQ Office of Environmental Impact Review asked about the draft EIS comment period.
Bowman stated that the typical draft EIS comment period is 45 days, but is coordinating with
other cooperating agencies to determine if the comment period needs to be revised to comply
with their public comment period requirements. FERC would consider extending the comment
period if the scope of the project suggests a longer period is required.
The NC FWS asked about ESA Section 7 consultation process. Joanne Wachholder explained
that the consultation schedule is somewhat driven by the information that is provided by the
applicants. If sufficient survey and species information is provided, the Biological Assessment
may be submitted to the FWS concurrently with the draft EIS. If species or survey information
is pending, issuance of the draft EIS would move forward, however, the EIS would provide the
information known to date, outline a schedule for providing additional information or
assessments, and would state that the applicant cannot begin construction until Section 7
consultation is complete. The NC FWS noted that development of avoidance and conservation
measures and the identification of possible impacts can begin now, such as the development of
Habitat Conservation Plans.
NOAA Fisheries asked if the resource reports for both projects would be combined in one set of
resource reports. Bowman confirmed that the projects would be combined in one set of
resource report.
Wachholder stated that FERC is willing to assist the agencies with their environmental review,
such as facilitating data exchange or providing copies of applications.

Meeting Notes
SHP and ACP Projects, July 10, 2015 7
VA DEQ Office of Environmental Impact Review requested shapefile information from Dominion
but has not received the information to date. Bowman suggested that they provide him an
email requesting the shapefile information and he would request that Dominion provide the
information to the VA DEQ Office of Environmental Impact Review.
Meeting adjourned.
Action Items: Bowman to provide the meeting participants instruction on how to file
comments with FERC.