20140957 Ver 1_Supplemental NOI_20160518

4
C
CD
w
C
L
—To
LOO
Ire
0
C
CD
C
L
—To
LOO
Ire
0
z
O
r)

UNITED STATES OF
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC Docket Nos. CP15-554-000
CP15-554-001
SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE OF INTENT
TO PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
AND PROPOSED LAND AND RESOURCE PLAN AMENDMENT(S)
FOR THE PROPOSED ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE,
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
RELATED TO NEW ROUTE AND FACILITY MODIFICATIONS, AND NOTICE OF
(May 3, 2016)
On February 27, 2015, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) issued in Docket Nos. PF 15-5-000 and PF 15-6-000 a Notice of Intent to
Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Planned Supply Header Project and
Atlantic Coast Pipeline Project, and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and
Notice of Public Scoping Meetings (NOI). On September 18, 2015, Atlantic Coast
Pipeline, LLC (Atlantic) and Dominion Transmission, Inc. (DTI) filed applications with
the FERC in Docket Nos. CP 15-554-000 and CP 15-555-000 pursuant to sections 7(b) and
7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Parts 157 and 284 of the Commission's
regulations. Atlantic and DTI are seeking Certificates of Public Convenience and
Necessity (Certificates) to construct, own, and operate a natural gas pipeline and related
facilities. On March 1, 2016, Atlantic filed an amendment to its application to
incorporate route and facility modifications in West Virginia, Virginia, and North
Carolina. This Supplemental Notice is being issued to seek comments on the new
pipeline route and facility modifications and opens a new scoping period for interested
parties to file comments on environmental issues specific to these modifications.
Information about the facilities proposed by Atlantic and DTI can be found on our
public dockets referenced above and on each applicant's website at
wxN7 ..cloii-i co 'cc orate�,�fiat w o-do,'atlatlt c- oast. -1)i.1 c iiiiii or
v .dc>7 t�:' c3t lat 'e i<t-v -cic `shat tti <��tt1>iy-cttcie t t. The FERC's
environmental impact statement (EIS) will encompass all proposed facilities and be used
by the Commission in its decision-making process to determine whether the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline (ACP) and Supply Header Project are in the public convenience and
necessity.

Docket Nos. CP 15-554-000 and CP 15-554-001
The FERC will be the lead federal agency for the preparation of the EIS. The U.S.
Forest Service (USFS) is participating as a cooperating agency because the ACP would
cross the Monongahela National Forest (MNF) and the George Washington National
Forest (GWNF) in West Virginia and Virginia. As a cooperating agency, the USFS
intends to adopt the EIS per Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1506.3 to
meet its responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regarding
Atlantic's application for a Right -of -Way Grant and Temporary Use Permit for crossing
federally administered lands. In addition, there may be a need for the USFS to amend the
MNF and GWNF Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMP) to allow for the ACP
to be constructed on USFS lands. The EIS will also provide the documentation to support
needed amendments to the LRMPs. Additional details on the USFS' LRMP Amendment
Process is provided on page 8.
The Commission previously solicited public input on the ACP in the spring of
2015. We' are specifically seeking comments on the new pipeline route and facility
modifications to help the Commission staff determine what issues need to be evaluated in
the EIS. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable
alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts from the new route
and proposed modifications. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly
recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission receives them in
Washington, DC on or before June 2, 2016. if you have previously provided
comments on the ACP or Supply Pleader Projects, you do not need to resubmit
them.
You may submit comments in written form or verbally. In lieu of or in addition to
sending written comments, the Commission invites you to attend the public scoping
meetings scheduled as follows:
Date and Time
Location
Friday, May 20, 2016
Marlinton Community Wellness Center
10:00 am — 7:00 pm
320 9th Street
Marlinton, WV 24954
Saturday, May 21, 2016
Bath County High School
10:00 am — 7:00 pm
464 Charger Lane
Hot Springs, VA 24445
The purpose of these scoping meetings is to provide an opportunity to verbally
comment on the project modifications. You may attend at any time during the meeting, as
i 'We," "us," and "our" refer to the environmental staff of the Commission's
Office of Energy Projects.
-2-

Docket Nos. CP15-554-000and CP 15-554-001
the primary goal of a scoping meeting is for us to hear and document your environmental
concerns. There will not be a formal presentation by Commission staff, however, we will
be available to answer your questions about the FERC environmental review process.
Representatives of Atlantic will also be present to answer questions about the project.
Verbal comments will be recorded by a court reporter and transcripts will be
placed into the docket for the project and made available for public viewing on FERC's
eLibrary system (see page 12 "Additional Information" for instructions on using
eLibrary). It is important to note that verbal comments hold the same weight as written or
electronically submitted comments. If a significant number of people are interested in
providing verbal comments, a time limit of 3 to 5 minutes may be implemented for each
commenter to ensure all those wishing to comment have the opportunity to do so within
the designated meeting time. Time limits will be strictly enforced if they are
implemented.
This Supplemental Notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project, including those landowners that are newly affected by the
proposed pipeline route modifications. State and local government representatives are
asked to notify their constituents of this proposed project and encourage them to comment
on their areas of concern.
If you are a newly affected landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate,
and maintain the proposed facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually
acceptable agreement. However, if the Commission approves the project, that approval
conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if the easement negotiations fail
to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings
where compensation would be determined in accordance with state law.
A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled "An Interstate Natural Gas Facility on
My Land? What Do I Need To Know?" is available for viewing on the FERC website
(wavereferc.ov). This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked questions,
including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's
proceedings.
Summary of Project 1Vlodifications
In its amended application, Atlantic proposes a major route change through the
MNF and GWNF that would affect landowners in Randolph and Pocahontas Counties,
West Virginia and Highland, Bath, and Augusta Counties, Virginia. Other, smaller route
changes proposed in the amendment would affect landowners in Nelson and Dinwiddie
Counties, Virginia; and Cumberland and Johnston. Counties, North Carolina. The
amended facilities would increase the total length of the pipeline from about 556 miles to
-3-

Docket Nos. CP 15-554-000 and CP15-554-001
599.7 miles and compressor station horsepower from 40,715 horsepower to 53,515
horsepower at the proposed Buckingham County, Virginia compressor station, all as more
fully described in the amended application. An overview map of the proposed ACP and
SHP and illustrations of these alternatives are provided in Appendix 1. Detailed alternative
route location information can be found on DTI's interactive web mapping application at
ht1p xv �N,_N� don co iii./c ���2oratc N\._hat-we-do/Lit lantic-coast-pi eIfli .
GWNF 6 Route Modification (Randoloh and Pocahontas Counties, West Virvini
Highland, Bath, and Augusta Counties, Virginia)
To reduce potential impacts on the Cheat Mountain salamander, West Virginia
Northern flying squirrel, and Cow Knob salamander, and to avoid sensitive habitats and
land uses, Atlantic incorporated the GWNF 6 Alternative into its proposed pipeline route
between AP -1 mileposts (MPs) 47.5 and 115.2. Relative to Atlantic's originally proposed
route, the GWNF 6 Route Modification initially heads south approximately 13 miles,
passing east of Hicks Ridge and west of Kumbrabow State Forest. The route continues
south/southeast approximately 13 miles, crossing Point Mountain and passing east of Elk
Mountain and Mingo Knob. The route enters Pocahontas County, West Virginia
southeast of Mingo Knob at Valley Mountain, and continues south approximately 8 miles,
crossing Mace, Tallow, and Gibson Knobs, passing west of the Snowshoe Ski Resort.
South of Gibson Knob, the route heads southeast approximately 17 miles, passing south
of Cheat Mountain and Back Allegheny Mountain; crossing Cloverlick Mountain, Seneca
State Forest, and Michael Mountain; and entering Highland County, Virginia just west of
Big Crooked Ridge.
After entering Virginia, the GWNF 6 Alternative continues east approximately 3
miles then southeast approximately 8 miles, crossing Little Ridge, Big Ridge, and Little
Mountain and passing east of Piney Ridge. The route enters Bath County, Virginia near
U.S. Highway 220, and continues southeast approximately 14 miles, crossing Back Creek
Mountain, Jack Mountain, and Tower Hill Mountain and passing south of Shenandoah
Mountain at South Sister Knob. The route heads northeast approximately 20 miles,
passing north of Chestnut Ridge; entering Augusta County, Virginia near Brushy Ridge;
and crossing Deerfield Valley on the east side of Shenandoah Mountain. The GWNF 6
Alternative intersects Atlantic's filed route near MP 115.2 at Broad Draft near West
Augusta, Virginia.
In addition to the route modification described above, Atlantic also proposes to
increase the horsepower of its proposed Compressor Station 2 in Buckingham County,
Virginia and install eight additional valve sites.
-4-

Docket Nos. CP15-554-000 and CP15-554-001
Snowshoe Route Adjustment (Randolph and Pocahontas Counties, Virginia)
Atlantic incorporated the Snowshoe Route Variation into its proposed route
between AP -1 MPs 66.7 and 70.1 to avoid modeled habitat for the Cheat Mountain
salamander and the Cheat Mountain Civil War Battlefield, as well as reducing the amount
of forest land and other sensitive environmental features crossed. Relative to Atlantic's
originally proposed route, the Snowshoe Route Variation initially heads west/southwest
for 0.8 mile, crossing the main ridge on Valley Mountain, then continuing for
approximately 2.6 miles, descending Valley Mountain, crossing Dry Fork Spring and
Middle Mountain, and entering the valley along Big Fork Spring. The route then crosses
Highway 56 in the valley, and continues to the south/southwest for approximately 1.3
miles, ascending Tallow Knob and reconnecting to the originally proposed route at MP
70.1.
Singleton Route Adiustment (Bath Countv. Virginia
Atlantic incorporated the Singleton Route Adjustment into its proposed route
between AP -1 MPs 91.9 and 92.7 to avoid an open -space conservation easement held by
the Virginia Outdoors Foundation. Relative to Atlantic's originally proposed route, the
Singleton Route Adjustment is generally parallel to and within 0.3 mile of the
corresponding segment of the originally proposed route.
Horizons Village 2 Route Adjustment (Nelson County, Vir_i�nia)
In response to our environmental information request dated December 4, 2015, and
to avoid crossing the Spruce Creek Tributary Conservation Site, Atlantic incorporated the
Horizons Village 2 Route Adjustment into its proposed pipeline route between AP -1 MPs
162.0 and 162.8. Relative to Atlantic's originally proposed route, the Horizons Village 2
Route Adjustment would pass approximately 310 feet south of the conservation site.
Highway 29 Route Adjustment (Nelson County Virginia)
In response to our environmental information request dated December 4, 2015, and
to avoid an area of high slip potential, improve the location for the crossing of Highway
29, and optimize the amount of agricultural and open land crossed, Atlantic incorporated
the Highway 29 Route Variation into its proposed pipeline route between AP -1 MPs
167.0 and 171.1. Relative to Atlantic's originally proposed route, the Highway 29 Route
Variation initially heads south for approximately 0.2 mile following a ridge to the top of
Roberts Mountain, then continues southeast for approximately 1.7 miles following a ridge
to the base of Roberts Mountain at the crossing of Davis Creek. This segment of the
route crosses Highway 29 on the same north trending finger ridge as the proposed route,
but in an area with flatter terrain at the crossing. On the south side of the highway, the
route continues to the southeast for approximately 2.2 miles, including a 0.2 -mile -long
-5-

Docket Nos. CP 15-554-000 and CP 15-554-001
segment parallel to Starvale Lane. The Highway 29 Route Variation reconnects to the
originally proposed route on the east side of Wheelers Cove Road at approximately MP
171.1.
Beaver Pond Creek Route Adjustment Dinwiddie County, Virginia)
In response to our environmental information request dated December 4, 2015, and
to reduce the number of crossings of Beaver Pond Creek and address comments provided
by the Ward Burton Wildlife Foundation, Atlantic incorporated the Beaver Pond Creek
Route Variation into its proposed pipeline route between AP -1 MPs 256.5 and 259.3.
Relative to Atlantic's originally proposed route, the Beaver Pond Creek Route Variation
initially heads south/southwest for approximately 111.1 miles to a point just south of
Whitmore Road, then heads south for approximately 1.6 miles over mostly upland terrain,
crossing Beaver Creek Pond in one location, reconnecting with the originally proposed
route near MP 259.3.
Juniper Farms Route Adiustment (Johnston County. North Carolina
Atlantic incorporated the Juniper Farms Route Variation into its proposed route
between AP -2 MPs 96.9 and 98.4 to avoid a wetland mitigation bank, and to reduce the
amount of sensitive environmental features and constraints crossed. Relative to Atlantic's
originally proposed route, the Juniper Farms Route Variation initially heads southwest for
approximately 1.2 miles, passing east of the eastern boundary of the mitigation bank. The
route variation then reconnects with the originally proposed route at MP 98.4 on the north
side of the Neuse River crossing.
Fayetteville Major Route Modification (Cumberland County, North Carolina)
In response to our environmental information request dated. December 4, 2015, and
to increase collocation with an existing Progress Energy Carolinas (PEC) 500 kilovolt
electric transmission line, and reduce the number of affected property owners, the number
of waterbody crossings, and temporary wetland impacts, Atlantic incorporated the
Fayetteville Major Route Alternative into its proposed pipeline route between AP -2 MPs
133.1 and 157.5. Relative to Atlantic's originally proposed route, the Fayetteville Major
Route Alternative initially heads south/southeast for approximately 3.9 miles to the point
where it intersects the existing PEC electric transmission line, crossing Drum Road,
Interstate 95, and Goldsboro Road. The route then heads south for approximately 16.7
miles, parallel to and adjacent to the electric transmission line corridor, and crosses
Clinton Road and Cedar Creek Road. The route continues west for approximately 5.5
miles, crossing Tabor Church Road, Cape Fear River, and North Carolina State Highway
87 reconnecting with the originally proposed route near MP 157.5.
-6-

Docket Nos. CP15-554-000and CP 15-554-001
The EIS Process
NEPA requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts
that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of
Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us to discover and address
concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as scoping.
The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EIS on the important
environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the
scope of the issues to address in the EIS. We will consider all filed comments during the
preparation of the EIS.
In the EIS we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction
and operation of the proposed projects under these general headings:
® geology and soils;
e land use;
® water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
i cultural resources;
® vegetation and wildlife;
® air quality and noise;
0 endangered and threatened species;
outdoor recreation and scenery
® socioeconomics; and
0 public safety.
We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed project or portions of
the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various
resource areas.
The EIS will present our independent analysis of the issues. We will publish and
distribute the draft EIS for public comment. After the comment period, we will consider
all timely comments and revise the document, as necessary, before issuing a final EIS. To
ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully
follow the instructions in the Public Participation section beginning on page 9.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) and USFS also have responsibilities
under NEPA and can adopt the EIS for their own agencies purposes. The USFS intends
to use this EIS to evaluate the effects of the ACP on lands and facilities managed by the
agency and to address any proposed amendments of applicable LRMPs that would be
necessary to make provisions for the projects.
With this Supplemental Notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law
and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues related to these projects
7-

Docket Nos. CP15-554-000and CP15-554-001
to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the El S.2 Agencies that would like to
request cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing comments
provided under the Public Participation section of this notice. As discussed above, the
USFS has expressed its intention to participate as a cooperating agency in the preparation
of the EIS to satisfy its NEPA responsibilities related to these projects. In addition to the
USES, the USACE, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge, West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection, and West Virginia Division of Natural Resources have also
agreed to participate as cooperating agencies.
Proposed Actions of the U.S. Forest Service
On November 12, 2015 Atlantic submitted a right-of-way grant application to the
USFS to construct, operate, maintain, and eventually decommission a natural gas pipeline
that crosses lands and facilities administered by the USFS. In addition, there is a need for
the USFS to consider amending affected LRMPs to make provision for the ACP right-of-
way.
The proposed action before the USFS has two components. First, in accordance
with the Minerals Leasing Act, the USFS would issue a right-of-way grant in response to
ACP's application for the project to occupy federal lands. The USFS may submit specific
stipulations, including mitigation measures, for inclusion in the right-of-way grant related
to lands, facilities, and easements within its jurisdiction. Second, the USES may need to
amend its LRMPs for the Monongahela and George Washington National Forests if
analysis shows that construction of the ACP would not be consistent with the LRMP
standards or other plan components. In addition, the ACP, as proposed, does not follow a
designated utility corridor through the GWNF. If the proposed route were authorized
with the right-of-way grant, the GWNF LRMP would need to be amended to change the
current Management Areas in the corridor to Management Area 5C -Designated Utility
Corridors. The MNF does not have LRMP direction that would require a similar plan
amendment to reallocate management prescriptions.
The USFS Regional Foresters of the respective national forests have authority to
grant a right-of-way in response to Atlantic's application for natural gas transmission on
federal lands under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1.920. The Responsible Official for
amendment of Forest Service LRMPs is the Forest Supervisor of the applicable national
forest. However, the Regional Forester of the applicable national forest may elect to be
the Responsible Official for the plan amendments as well, since the Regional Forester
will be the Responsible Official for the right-of-way grant.
The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing cooperating
agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1501.6.
-8-

Docket Nos. CP 15-554-000 and CP 15-554-001
This NOI initiates the scoping process for the potential LRMP amendments and for
the issuance of the right-of-way grant. The decisions will be tiered to the analysis
contained in the FERC EIS for the ACP. The Notice of Availability for the FERC draft
EIS will contain more detailed information associated with the LRMP amendments.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing
regulations for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this
notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Offices, and
to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and
the public on the projects' potential effects on historic properties .3 We will define the
project -specific Area of Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPOs as the
projects develop. On natural gas facility projects, the APE at a minimum encompasses all
areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include construction right-of-way,
contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor stations, and access roads). Our EIS for these
projects will document our findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize
the status of consultations under Section 106.
You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or
concerns about the ACP and proposed USFS LRMP amendments. Your comments
should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures
to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more
useful they will be. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded,
please send your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington DC on
or before June 2, 2016. If you have previously provided comments on the ACP or
Supply Header Projects, you do not need to resubmit them.
The USFS is participating as a cooperating agency with the FERC in this public
scoping process. With this notice, the USFS is requesting public comments on the
issuance of the ROW Grant that would allow the ACP to occupy federal land. The USFS
is also requesting public comments on the potential amendments of USFS LRMPs to
make provision for the ACP right-of-way on the Monongahela and George Washington
National Forests.
3 The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations are at Title 36, Code
of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those regulations define historic properties as any
prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in or eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.
-9-

Docket Nos. CP15-554-000 and CP15-554-001
Comments on actions by the USFS should be submitted through the FERC
comment process and within the timeline described. The submission of timely and
specific comments can affect a reviewer's ability to participate in subsequent
administrative or judicial review of USFS decisions. Comments concerning USFS
actions submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, such
anonymous submittals will not provide the commenters with standing to participate in
administrative or judicial review of USFS decisions.
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your
comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the appropriate project
docket number (CP15-554-000 for the ACP) with your submission. The Commission will
provide equal consideration to all comments received, whether filed in written form or
provided verbally. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has
expert staff available to assist you at [phone] or efili +` ,l ie_ goo. Please
carefully follow these instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eConiment feature
located on the Commission's website(wrw�oieEc•t) under the link to
Documents encs lld Him -,s. This is an easy method for interested persons to
submit brief, text -only comments on a project;
(2) You can file your comments electronically using the el=ilin-, feature located
on the Commission's website (www.ferc.,(!ov) under the link to Documents
and Flhnus. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a variety of
formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New eFiling
users must first create an account by clicking on "cRegister." You must
select the type of filing you are making. If you are filing a comment on a
particular project, please select "Comment on a Filing;" or
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the
following address:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street NE, Room lA
Washington, DC 20426
Environmental Mailing List
The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government
representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups;
Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers.
This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
M!

Docket Nos. CP 15-554-000 and CP 15-554-001
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used
temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of
aboveground facilities, as well as anyone who submits comments on the projects. We
will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send
the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and
government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the planned projects.
Copies of the completed draft EIS will be sent to the environmental mailing list for
public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the
document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the
mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).
Becoming an Intervenor
In addition to involvement in the EIS scoping process, you may want to become an
"intervenor" which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play
a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be
heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor
formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for
becoming an intervenor are in the User's Guide under the "e -filing" link on the
Commission's website.
Decisions by the USFS to issue ROW Grants and amend LRMPs are subject to
administrative review. Pre -decisional objections to the ROW Grant decisions and
project -specific MNF and GWNF LRMP amendments that are applicable only to the
ACP, as provided under Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 219.59(b) (36
CFR 219.59[b]), may be filed under the 36 CFR 218 regulations, Subparts A and B. For
objection eligibility (218.5), only those who have submitted timely, specific written
comments during any designated opportunity for public comment may file an objection.
Issues to be raised in objections must be based on previously submitted specific written
comments regarding the proposed project and attributed to the objector, unless the issue is
based on new information that arose after a designated opportunity for comment
(218.8(c)). The GWNF plan amendment for the reallocation of management areas to
Management Area 5C -Designated Utility Corridors would be subject to the pre -decisional
objection process under the regulations at 36 CFR 219, Subpart B. For objection
eligibility (219.53), only those who have submitted substantive formal comments related
to a plan amendment during the opportunities for public comment during the planning
process for that decision may file an objection. Objections must be based on previously
submitted substantive formal comments attributed to the objector unless the objection
concerns an issue that arose after the opportunities for formal comment.

Docket Nos. CP15-554-000 and CP15-554-001
Additional information about the ACP is available from the Commission's Office
of External Affairs, at (866) 208 -FERC or on the FERC website (wN N t� Vic. ') using
the eLibrazy link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on "General Search," and enter the
docket number, excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP15-554). Be sure you have selected
an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
fei-c )t litleSLIppoat(ii,'Iei-c.�-,ok or toll free at [phone], or for TTY, contact (202)
502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued
by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which
allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This
can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically
providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct Links to
the documents. Go to Wv VW. el-c.Uov;,esLIi- sc -lb tiow. tiii.
Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar
located at � w ler ov_' Nie iit( alciid 1 ;1 _r eiitsList.,isi)x along with other related
information.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
-12-

Docket Nos. CP 15-554-000 and CP15-554-001
Snowshoe Route
AOjustment
Q �
Hdnzons Village
Route Adjustmel
W
ina
South
Carolina
E
29
Fayetteville Major Routel
Modification
Beaver Pond Creek
Route Adjustment
ustm ent
:-fin:
11 V, —F- �
Appendix 1
O Milepost Amended and
Fi ure 1 Compressor Routteetl ACP
N � � Slat on 0 15 30 Atlantic Coast Pipeline ACR Slaton[e Previously
OMiles and Supply Header Project - (Unchanged) RouttesetlACP
• Overview Map Supply Header
Pipeline

Docket Nos. CP15-554-000 and CP15-554-001 Appendix 1
40 --
a.rrnr
Upshur
County �r;Y
"4 West Virginia
♦� Randolph
• County
f' a"ter
♦ prtturyr/N
f
NNreo. ♦�
•
GYWNF 6 Route
Modification
faf
60
b riN WI
ww d
r
•
s.w..k>n� eam
Snowshoe Route `
Adjustment
4 80
Pocahontas
'' County
Pennsylvania
ry
ON
rvld � C~^ A1O
Vlrglni yq..� ;~
n ort
Carolina
SI
,�dm1e
1 i
Pendleton n� r,
County
w.�
s
Ta
♦D.
s,
-�WftHighland
••' County
NeM
M • N(p0.+a11 MYM.
f• �w # watt
�b
Singleton Route
_ Augusta
County
Bath County 100
Virginia
GreenbrierRockbridge
County County
O Milepost
" Figure 2 O Compressor Station
0 2 a
0 Miles w E Atlantic Coast Pipeline - ACP Route (Unchanged)
GWNF 6 Route Modification, Snowshoe Route Adjustment, and _, Amended and Adopted ACP Route
Singleton Route Adjustment
s
■ ■ ■ Previously Proposed ACP Route

Docket Nos. CP15-554-000 and CP15-554-001 Appendix 1

Docket Nos. CP 15-554-000 and CP15-554-001Appendix 1
Penn i - nia.
av "S
256
DE
BYt
Vltglnla
KY
Ca7oina
♦ �� sc
1♦
♦ 257
♦
•
r
Dinwiddie
• County
♦
Beaver Pond Creek
♦ 258 Route Adjustment
♦
•
r
■
■
•
o ♦
♦
d ♦
f
■
■
f
■
•
f
r 0 259
a
•
A
O Milepost
N Figure 4 O Compressor Station
D 01 02
0 Miles w< E Atlantic Coast Pipeline ACP Route (Unchanged)
Beaver Pond Creek Route Adjustment - Amended and Adopted ACP Route
s
Iowa Previously Proposed ACP Route

Docket Nos. CP15-554-000 and CP15-554-001
a_
. eni y ama
ox
ND
yDC
west
Virginia
K i na 9
TI -Na i .
" oNna
GA SC
Appendix 1
♦ 97
•
♦ Juniper Farms
♦ Route Adjustme
1
Johnston
County
i 98
O Milepost
N
u 0 t 02 _ Figure 5 C Compressor Station
0M w e Atlantic Coast Pipeline - ACP Route (Unchanged)
Juniper Farms Route Adjustment
s Amended and Adopted ACP Route
■ 0 0 Previously Proposed ACP Route

Docket Nos. CPI 5-554-000 and CP15-554-001
CH
I �
tw^�
Bonnie Doone
♦
r�T'hJr?ag•
•
•
f
■
•
Ewer •
999 �
O a ♦
dot a.vf i^ � � r
' t♦a •
Vc.
1
Fayttevllle
1�
k.
!. �, a t� •
Cumberland
County
■
T, lit
` a (iu •
■
Hope ♦4 ■
Alts - ■
■
•
■
•
r
•
•
f
LA., a,@* ♦ y..
• c
$ • a
r
a —
� Y
Roheson • 155
•
wade
h /♦+f
40
45
Appendix 1
Le
;ampson
County
Fayetteville Major Route
1 Modification
Milepost
0 075 15 .�Ny Figure 6 Compressor Station
0 Miles •r� Atlantic Coast Pipeline ACP Route (Unchanged)
Fayetteville Major Route Modification Amended and Adopted ACP Route
a
/ • ■ Previously Proposed ACP Route

Docket Nos. CP 15-554-000 and CP 15-554-001
UQMMUMMM�#
Name
I= ;
City State Zip Code
❑ Please send me a paper copy of the published NEPA document
❑ Please remove my name from the mailing list

ATTN: ®EP - Gas 4, PJ - 11.4
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street NE
Washington, DC 20426
Docket Nos. CP -15-554-000 and CP15-554-001 Atlantic Coast Pipeline
:� , M