20140957 Ver 2_Progress Energy Alt Clarification_20170627

Burdette, Jennifer a
From: Stancil, Vann F
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 11:33 AM
To: Burdette, Jennifer a; Higgins, Karen; [e-mail]
Subject: ACP route - Progress Energy Alternative
Gabriela and I asked Sara Throndson to help us understand the Progress Energy route alternative. We thought this
alternative was accepted but then the 401 explains that it was rejected for the route. This is explained well below — looks
like a renaming issue. I highlighted the most important part.
From: Sara Throndson [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 11:11 AM
To: Garrison, Gabriela <[e-mail]>
Cc: Stancil, Vann F <[e-mail]>; Wade Hammer <Wade.Ham [e-mail]>; Spencer Trichell (Services
- 6) <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: updated shapefile
Hi Gabriela, In response to your question I have coordinated with our permitting lead Wade Hammer and others.
There are a couple different versions of routes in this area. Progress Energy Carolinas Collocation Major Route was
rejected, but Fayetteville Major Route Alternative was adopted and became part of the proposed action evaluated by
FERC in the DEIS. The Fayetteville route was included in Revs 10 and 11a and is part of 11c. There are no plans to revert
to Rev 8 in this area.
It's important to note that Section D. (page 49 that you reference in your email) of the application addresses "Impact
Justification and Mitigation". Within this section alternatives that were reviewed during routing have been summarized
for NCDEQ review.
The route being permitted is identified in the various figures included in Appendix A of the Application. Your review
should focus on Appendix A.
A bit more history on the selection of the route along this portion of the project in NC is included below:
Atlantic identified, evaluated, and rejected the Progress Energy Major Route Alternative in the FERC application,
submitted on 9/18/15 (Rev 8a). FERC asked Atlantic to reconsider and reevaluate the Progress Energy Major Route
Alternative in a data request. In the response, Atlantic modified and adjusted the Progress Energy Major Alternative
Route Alternative, renaming the modified route the Fayetteville Major Route Alternative. The primary difference
between the Progress Energy route and the Fayetteville route is that the former started at MP 125, whereas the latter
started farther south at MP 133 at the Fayetteville M&R Site. See the screenshot of the Progress Energy route and
Fayetteville route below.
Progress Energy Major Route Alternative, from the FERC Application, 9-18-15:

Fayetteville Major Route Alternative, from the data response filed on 3/10/16:

Please let me know if you have additional questions as you review the application.
Sara
Sara Throndson
Office 612-347-7113 1 Cell 612-716-7812
3
I MM171111110111b'MMIMMM
Opp
et
i ii
,ail
V
9b
11T iW6,
f
r
Nk"
NM Wetlands
Pr PSS
r
po
Pwovgea Rode
Atlantic Coast Pipeline
Figuire 165-1
Fa�ettevlfle Major Route Alternative
,a
Map AS�AeAftrnalw
k—R'N' d6,.,p AA4, A— 4-,.— -e✓rt MA-r , IKY'.
"A.A V- 'W,
Please let me know if you have additional questions as you review the application.
Sara
Sara Throndson
Office 612-347-7113 1 Cell 612-716-7812
3

From: Garrison, Gabriela [mailto:gabriela,aarrison@ncwildlife,org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 2:45 PM
To: Sara Throndson
Cc: Stancil, Vann F
Subject: RE: updated shapefile
Hi Sara,
Thank you for the shapefile. We're a bit confused though: regarding the Progress Energy collocated route (in
Cumberland Co), the Rev 11c route shows no change from the previous Rev 11a and 10 iterations. However, on page 49
of the current 401 Water Quality Certification application, it states the following:
"Even though the Progress Energy Carolinas line route alternative would be collocated with an existing corridor, it would
require substantially more disturbance and permanent clearing of forested wetlands than the baseline route. For this
reason, Atlantic retained the baseline route in this area."
After reading that, it seems that the route will follow the Rev 8 iteration for that particular area. There's also a map
depicting this scenario on page 50. If that's the case, we would need to revisit aquatic relocating protocol for those
streams. Can you help clarify?
Thankyou!
Gabriela
Gabriela Garrison
Fastern Piedrnont abitat Conservation Coordinator
'4
N(' Wildlife Peso,.irces Commission
,.
5anr�ni 4; Depot,�'.v. pox ,-, ;7.?
v, urian, NC 22834,
Office and C0: 7
eabriela.earrison(@ncwildlife.ore
www.ncwildlife.org
El 91 n "51hiMFMMMM
From: Sara Throndson [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 3:57 PM
To: Garrison, Gabriela <gabriela.garrison@ncwildlife,pM>
Cc: Stancil, Vann F <vann.stancil@ncwildl!fe.org>
Subject: RE: updated shapefile
Hi Gabriela, I have attached the current route shapefile of Rev11c and associated workspace for your use. The project
modified the Progress Energy Route Alternative into a new route in March 2016 called the Fayetteville Major Route
Alternative, which was adopted.
Let me know if you have further questions!
Sara
Sara Throndson
Office 612-347-7113 1 Cell 612-716-7512

From: Garrison, Gabriela[mailto:gabriela,aarrison@ncwildlife,org]
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 9:44 AM
To: Sara Throndson
Cc: Stancil, Vann F
Subject: updated shapefile
Good morning Sara,
Vann and I are reviewing the application for the DWR Individual (Water Quality) Certification and noted that the route in
Cumberland County has shifted — was slated to be collocated with a Progress Energy ROW, but has now gone back to a
proposed pathway from earlier on in the process? Do you have an updated shapefile you can share with us?
Thankyou!
Gabriela
Gabriela Garrison
Eastern iedrConservation abitat 'l oordinaior
'4
N(' Wildlife Peso,.irces Commission
,.
SandhiHs Depot,�'.v. pox ,-, ;7.?
v, man, tiiC Z2834,
Office and t-eH 7350-
[e-mail]
www.ncwildlife.org
El
Entail. cermspondpiice to acid foci this spndpr is subject to the N.C. ;Public Records _aw and may by disclos d u d'iiird parties.
This electronic mail message may contain information which is (a) LEGALLY PRIVILEGED, PROPRIETARY IN NATURE, OR OTHERWISE PROTECTED BY
LAW FROM DISCLOSURE, and (b) intended only for the use of the Addressee (s) names herein. If you are not the Addressee(s), or the person responsible for
delivering this to the Addressee (s), you are hereby notified that reading, copying, or distributing this message is prohibited. If you have received this electronic
mail message in error, please contact us immediately at [phone] and take the steps necessary to delete the message completely from your computer
system. Thank you,
Please visit:
ERM's web site: http://www.erm.com
This electronic mail message may contain information which is (a) LEGALLY PRIVILEGED, PROPRIETARY IN NATURE, OR OTHERWISE PROTECTED BY
LAW FROM DISCLOSURE, and (b) intended only for the use of the Addressee (s) names herein. If you are not the Addressee(s), or the person responsible for
delivering this to the Addressee (s), you are hereby notified that reading, copying, or distributing this message is prohibited. If you have received this electronic
mail message in error, please contact us immediately at [phone] and take the steps necessary to delete the message completely from your computer
system. Thank you,
Please visit:
ERM's web site: http://www.erm.com