UNITED STATES OF AMERICAF'EDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC Docket No. CPI 5-554-000

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ANSWER AND ANSWER OFFRIENDS OF WINTERGREEN, INC.

Pursuant to Rules 212 and 213 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC" or the "Commission"), Friends of V/intergreen, Inc.

("Friends of V/intergreen" or "FOW") hereby requests leave to answer the Motion for Leave to

Answer and Answer of Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC and Dominion Transmission, Inc., dated

December 4,2015. Specifically, FOW seeks leave to answer Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC's

("ACP") answer insofar as it responds to FOV/'s protest concerning ACP's proposed route (the

"Proposed Route").1

In addition to responding to ACP's answer, FOV/ seeks leave to provide the Commission

with additional information concerning alternative routes for the ACP that would minimize or

avoid significant environmental and safety impacts, as well as adverse economic consequences

in the Wintergreerr atea, that would result from the Proposed Route. In particular, FOVy' notes

the Off,rce of Energy Project's ("OEP") request for ACP to submit additional information and

evaluations concerning several alternative routes or route deviations that may be environmentally

preferable to ACP's Proposed Route.2 FOW supports ACP's further evaluation of altemative

I The Wintergreen Property Owners Association, Inc. ("WPOA"), an Intervenor in the above-captioned docket,

supports this Motion by Friends of Vy'intergreen.

2 See December 4, 2015 Information Request from the Office of Energy Projects to Matthew Bley, the Director,

Gas Transmission Certificates for ACP.

routes and route deviations and provides its comments on some of the alternatives that are the

subject of OEP's Information Request.

I. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ANSWER AND PROVIDE COMMENTS

Rule 213(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure generally does not

permit answers to protests or answers unless otherwise ordered by the decisional authority. The

Commission, however, allows such answers when the answer will assist the Commission in its

decision-making and help to ensure a more complete and accurate record.3 FO'W's answer is

needed to respond to misstatements in ACP's answer to FOW's protest and to provide additional

information on altemative routes and route deviations that will help ensure a more complete and

accurate record and facilitate the Commission's obligations under the National Environmental

Policy Act ("NEPA") to evaluate alternatives. Accordingly, good cause exists for the

Commission to grant FOW''s motion for leave and accept FOW's answer.

IL BACKGROUND

On October 23,2015, FOW timely moved to intervene and protest ACP's application for

a certificate of public convenience and necessity in the above-captioned proceeding (the

"Protest" or "FOW Protest"). FOV/ explained that it was not opposed to the ACP generally.

However, the Proposed Route of the ACP would cause adverse and unnecessary economic,

' The Commission has permitted answers that serve to reduce or clarif, the issues in dispute or to assure a

more complete and accurate record upon which a decision can be made. See, e.g., Kern River Gas

Transmission Co., 103 FERC n 61,213 (2007); llilliams Natural Gas Co.,70 FERC T 61,306, at 61,923

n.6 (1995); Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co.,69 FERC n67,239,at61,897 (1994); WilliamsNatural Gas Co.,

68 FERC I61,100, at 61,556 099Ð; Great Lakes Gas Transmission,66 FERC I61,115, at 61,194(tee4).

2

safety and environmental consequences. All of these adverse impacts could be avoided without

reducing the benehts of the ACP if the Proposed Route were slightly altered.

To assist in a technical evaluation of ACP's proposals and other environmentally

preferred alternatives, FOV/ retained national legal, environmental and geotechnical experts

(Integral Consulting, Inc. and Tide Water Integrity Services, LLC, among others, hereinafter

referred to as "Integral" and "Tide Water") to provide technical expertise on environmental

impacts, constructability, suitability and similar factors.

As explained in the FOW Protest, Integral and Tide 'Water determined environmentally

preferable alternative routes do exist. However, ACP did not adequately consider these

alternatives and continues to promote the Proposed Route as the best and only option. FOW

explained that the Proposed Route for the ACP crosses the Blue Ridge Mountains close to

Reed's Gap. Furthermore, if, for instance, the route were amended to cross the mountains at

Rockfish Gap/Interstate Highway 64, several miles to the north of Reed's Gap, all of the adverse

consequences would be eliminated.

Friends of Wintergreen respectfully requested that FERC approve ACP's application only

if FERC's authoÅzation includes a requirement that the route for the ACP be moved from Reed's

Gap to Rockfish Gapll-64, or to some other alternative route that alleviates the negative

consequences described in FOW's Protest. FOV/ fuither requested that if ACP files a new

rationale for rejecting Rockfish Gap or otherwise provides new information, FOV/ be permitted

to respond to this new information.

On December 4, 2015, ACP and Dominion Transmission, Inc. ("Dominion") filed a

Motion for Leave to Answer and Answer several protests and comments opposing ACP and

J

Dominion's related Supply Header Project. This answer responds only to ACP, its Proposed

Route and alternatives and deviations to that Proposed Route.

FOV/ supports the ACP but strongly advocates'for a more "responsible" route that will

minimize adverse consequences. In its answer, ACP either mischaracterizes or misunderstands

FOV/'s comments and recommended alternative routes or route deviations. In particular, ACP

asserts that FOW advocated Alternative 28 and argues that "the Commission should give no

further consideration to the alternative route proposed by Friends of Wintergreerl "4 FOW,

however, did not propose that Alternative2S in its entirety be utilized in lieu of ACP's Proposed

Route. While FOW's consultants compared Alternative 28 to the Proposed Route in terms of the

degree of colocation with existing rights-of-way, topography and other environmental impacts,

the point of this comparison was to illustrate the relative adverse environmental consequences

that would ensue from the Proposed Route. For instance, as discussed in Integral's analysis

attached to FOV/'s Protest, the topography, steepness of the existing ground and overall slope of

ACP's Proposed Route is clearly inferior to those aspects of Altemative 28 from Milepost 134.2

to Milepost 168.

FOV/, however, never proposed the full length of Alternative 28 as an alternate route.

Rather, FOV/ proposed only that one critical section of Alternative 28, the crossing of the Blue

Ridge Mountains at Rockfish Gap, be utilized in lieu of the crossing that ACP has proposed at

Reed's Gup.t FOW noted that available vacant property could be used for horizontal drilling of

a substantially shorter tunnel at Rockfish Gap than the tunnel ACP proposes to drill underneath

the Blue Ridge Parkway at Reed's Gap.

/ ACP Answer at 16.

5 See Section B of FOVy''s Protest entitled "The Adverse Environmental Consequences of the Current Route"

wherein Alternative 28 is discussed to Section D entitled "Minor Route Deviations Exist That V/ould Avoid These

Adverse Consequences" wherein FOV/ proposed that the pipeline cross RockfTsh instead of Reed's Gap.

4

III. OEP's Information Request

On December 4,2015, OEP sent a letter to Matthew Bley, Director, Gas Transmission

Certificates for ACP, that contained a number of requests for information and analyses of

alternate routes to the Proposed Route (the "OEP Information Request"). Among those requests

are the following:

o Data Request 157 - Evaluate an alternative route and provide a table

comparing the relevant environmental factors that crosses the Appalachian

National Scenic Trail and Blue Ridge Parkway near Interstate 64 that also

avoids the Lyndhurst Source V/ater Protection Area.6

o Data Request 158 - Evaluate an alternative route and provide a table

comparing the relevant environmental factors that crosses the Appalachian

National Scenic Trail and Blue Ridge Parkway along Highway 56. 7

o Data Request 156 - Evaluate a route variation and provide a table comparing

the relevant environmental factors from approximate AP-l MPs 159 to 165

that maximizes the use of pasture and agricultural land in the Rockfish Valley,

minimizes ridgetop and forest impacts, and avoids or minimizes impacts on

cultural and historic properties, nature trails, waterbodies, the Spruce Creek

Tributary Conservation Site, and planned developments (i.e., Wintergreen

Resort Expansion and Spruce Creek Resort).8

u OEP Information Request at 4l .

7 Id..

8 Id. at4o-41.

5

IV. ANALYSIS

In its Protest, Friends of Wintergreen stated that the Proposed Route of the ACP crosses

the entrance to Wintergreen twice and then proceeds for 2,100 feet up a steep slope on WPOA

land and would result in significant and unnecessary adverse impacts. These impacts are

summarized in Part D below. In its answer, ACP concedes that these adverse impacts could be

avoided. Specifically, ACP states in its answer to FOW (at 15) that it "certainly would avoid the

adverse impacts on the Wintergreen Resort and nearby landowners if a better route were

available." As FOV/ demonstrates below, several better routes are indeed available. These

routes should be carefully evaluated by ACP as OEP has requested, and should be adopted.

As stated in its Protest, FO'W's consultants are continuing to evaluate alternative routes

and route deviations that will avoid the environmental and severe economic consequences that

would be caused by the Proposed Route. FOW welcomes OEP's request that ACP evaluate

alternative routes that have been identified to date. It is incumbent on ACP to adopt one of these

alternate routes / route deviations, or some other route that others have or will identifu through

the NEPA process.

To assist OEP in its NEPA analysis, FOV/ wishes to provide OEP with the current results

of its ongoing analysis of alternative routes. To demonstrate that superior alternatives are

available to ACP, Friends of V/intergreen have currently identified three specific alternate routes

or route deviations that would eliminate or substantially eliminate the adverse impacts that would

result from ACP's Proposed Route. Moreover, FOW's environmental consultants and geo-

technical engineers are confident that additional superior route altematives can be found that

have yet to be identified or thoroughly examined by ACP or others. FOV/ reserves the right to

respond after ACP responds to OEP's Information Request.

Several of these superior alternatives are described below:

6

A. An Alternate Route thatUtilues Rockfish Gap and Then Connects To and Followsthe Right-of-\ilay for the DoomslBremo Electric Transmission Lines is Superior tothe Proposed Route.

In its Protest, Friends of V/intergreen explained that the Proposed Route crosses the Blue

Ridge Mountains near Reed's Gap. If this route were amended to cross the mountains at

Rockfish Gap, several miles to the north of Reed's Gap, the adverse consequences described in

Part D below would be eliminated.e (See Attachments 1 and 2 for maps). This route deviation

falls within the description of an alternative route OEP requested ACP to evaluate. In Data

Request 157, FERC directed ACP to evaluate "an alternative route . . that crosses the

Appalachian National Scenic Trail and Blue Ridge Parkway near Interstate 64 that also avoids

the Lyndhurst Source Water Protection Area."l0 Thus, ACP shoul d, at a minimum evaluate this

route deviation.

As summarized in the FOV/ Protest, Tide V/ater conducted a preliminary evaluation of

the Rockfish Gap crossing and concluded that the ACP could be constructed through Rockfish

Gap. Specifically, a S0O-foot-long horizontal directional drill ("HDD") tunnel could be located

at Rockfish Gap, at an entrance and exit elevation of approximately 1,895 feet. The 500-foot-

long tunnel would be substantially shorter than the 4,000+ foot tunnel ACP proposes to drill by

Reed's Gap underneath the Blue Ridge Parkway. The entry point for the Rockfish Gap HDD

tunnel would be approximately 300 feet in elevation above, and further west of, the railroad

tunnels, thus having no impact on the tunnels and eliminating the concerns expressed by ACP. 11

As stated earlier, Tide Water further concluded that there were no technical issues that would

preclude the construction of the ACP through Rockfish Gap.

e FOW Protest at ll-12.

to OEP Information Request at.41 ,

tt FOw Protest at 13.

7

In its recent answer to FOW's Protest, ACP contends (at 16) that crossing Rockfish Gap

would pose significant challenges due to the existence of two railroad tunnels that preclude a

crossing of Rockfish Gap. Specifically, ACP notes that one of the tunnels is currently under

construction and preservation and that the restored tunnel will incorporate a trailway accessible

to trail hikers, walkers and bicyclists. It then concludes that "routing the pipeline through the

tunnel is not a viable option." But FOW never proposed that the pipeline be routed through this

tunnel. Instead, FOV/ clearly stated in its Protest that another tunnel could be constructed more

than 100 feet west of the nearest existing railroad tunnel at Rockfish Gap and approximately 300

feet in elevation above it.12

Since the FOV/ Protest was filed, Integral and Tide Water have completed a detailed

evaluation of a potential route through Rockfish Gap that avoids the Lyndhurst Source 'Water

Protection Area. Tide V/ater concluded that this route, referred to as the Rockfish Gap/Dooms

Bremo or RG/DB Route, is superior to the Proposed Route. This route would traverse the

following path:

l. The RG/DB Route would connect to the Proposed Route in the Lyndhurst area

at approximately Milepost 148.1. The RG/DB Route would then proceed

through sparsely settled areas roughly parallelingl-í but not utilizing the I-

64 right-of-way, until it reaches Rockfish Gap. After crossing through

Rockfish Gap, the Route would continue east betweenl-64 and Route 250 for

approximately 7.7 miles until it reaches the Dooms/Bremo electric

transmission lines at Exit 107 on l-64. (See Attachment 1 for map from

Lyndhurst to Dooms).

8

t2 Id.

2. The Dooms/Bremo electric transmission lines are two large arrays of parallel

electric transmission lines. The lines and the rights-of-way are owned by

Dominion Electric, an affiliate of ACP. The approximate width of the cleared

electric transmission line right-of-way is 200 feet in the east-west direction

and 100-150 feet in the north-south direction. The ACP could be collocated

within or adjacent to this right-of-way, which would require only a small

expansion to this existing right-of-way to accommodate the ACP.

3. From Exit 107 on I-64, FOW's RG/DB Route following the electrical

transmission lines would head to the south. The RG/DB Route would proceed

for approximately 34.8 miles to Bremo, where it would cross the James River

and proceed approximately 24.2 miles to the point where it joins the Proposed

Route in the Farmville area at approximately Milepost 227.9. (See

Attachment 2 for route map).

FOW's consultants analyzed two separate components of this route and concluded that

these route segments are constructible and would be environmentally preferable to the Proposed

Route. 13 Tide'Water completed a detailed evaluation of the constructability of the RG/DB Route

from the point at which this route departs from the Proposed Route in the Lyndhurst area

(Milepost l4S.l) to the point where this route reaches the Dooms/Bremo electric transmission

lines at Exit 107 on I-64. After reviewing a number of factors, including slope steepness,

ridgeline crossings, width of available land for construction, availability of railroad rights-of-

way, and location of residences and other structures, Tide V/ater concluded that this section of

13 To provide OEP with its analysis as expeditiously as possible, FOVy' reports the conclusions of its consultants

without submitting formal reports from its consultants that would take additional time to prepare. FOW reserves the

right to submit formal reports in the future should that be deemed necessary.

9

the RG/DB Route is constructible. (See Attachment 3 for vertical profile from Milepost 148.1 to

Exit 107 on I-64, and Attachment 4, slope map for the same section).

Additionally, Integral completed a preliminary evaluation of the RGiDB Route on the

Dooms/Bremo electric transmission lines from Exit 107 to where the route re-joins the Proposed

Route near Farmville. After reviewing a number of factors, including terrain, location of

residences and other structures (including historic structures), and location of Virginia

conservation lands or National Park Service ("NPS") lands, Integral concluded there are no

substantial impediments to construction. Integral further concluded that additional impacts to

undeveloped lands should be relatively modest as this route is entirely along cleared land for the

electric transmission line rights-of-way.

There are several benefits to this route. First, the RG/DB Route increases colocation by

locating adjacent to the railroad and electric transmission lines. This route option would result in

approximately 63.1 miles of colocation with this existing infrastructure. In the comparable

portion of the Proposed Route from Milepost 148. 1 to Milepost 227 .9, the ACP appears to have

no colocation. See table below.

Route Length(in Miles)

Proposed Route RG/DB Alternate Route'nTotal Length

RailroadsElectric Transmission LineOther

79.89 73.924.0559.0310.84

In contrast, only 28.8 miles, or 60/o of the length of the mainline pipeline, of ACP's

Proposed Route utilizes existing rights-of-way, one of the lowest levels of colocation in the

ra Milepost 148.1 to 227.9

10

American pipeline industry.ls Based on FOVy''s analysis of all interstate natural gas projects of

40 miles or longer in length approved or planned over the past several years, the average

colocation usage across the industry is 50% or more,l6 By adding 63.1 miles of colocation

through the RG/DB Route, ACP's use of existing or adjacent right of ways for the mainline

pipelines would more than triple, to over l9o/o. While still a level lower than the national

average, this increased use of existing or adjacent right-of-ways would further reduce

environmental fragmentation in these sensitive areas.

Second, by using more colocation, social costs should also be reduced. Third, the

utilization of a large right-of-way owned by one of ACP's affrliates should facilitate land

acquisition and construction of access roads. Fourth, by being six miles shorter that the

Proposed Route (73.92 vs. 79.89 miles), ACP's costs should be reduced on a comparative basis.

Fifth and finally, this route minimizes the use of USFS land in Virginia, a concern stated by that

agency in recent communications with FERC and ACP.

B. A Route Variation that Crosses the Blue Ridge Parkway at Love Gap and ThenCrosses the Appalachian National Scenic Trail at Route 56 is Superior to theProposed Route.

In Data Request 158, FERC directed ACP to "evaluate an altemative route that crosses

the Appalachian National Scenic Trail and Blue Ridge Parkway along Highway 56" and provide

a table comparing the relevant environmental factors.lT FOV/ has identified just such a route

variation that crosses the Blue Ridge Parkway at Love Gap and then crosses the Appalachian

Trail ("4T") along Highway 56. (See Attachments 5 and 6). As detailed below, FOW submits

rs ,See Resource Report 8 filed with ACP's Application; FOW Protest at 9.

t6 See FOW Protest at ll-12.

tt OEP Information Request at 4.

11

that this route variation is superior to the comparable section of the Proposed Route that directly

impacts the entrance to Wintergreen and surrounding V/intergreen land, and would eliminate all

of the adverse economic consequences summarized in Part D below. FOW refers to this route

variation as the "Love Gap/Rte. 56 Route" and is described below.

At Milepost 157.6, the Love Gap/Rte. 56 Route veers to the south through

a slightly rising valley to the Blue Ridge Parkway. The Route crosses the Blue

Ridge Parkway in the area of Route 8l4/Campbells Mountain Road. The Route

then descends to the south, avoiding all NPS and USFS land and adjoining

Wildemess Areas until it reaches Route 56 approximately one mile to the north of

the AT. The Route then approximately parallels Route 56 for one mile until it

intersects the AT, crossing the AT on a USFS scenic corridor, and continues to

approximately parallel Route 56 for approximately 6 miles, the last 5 miles of

which are open, flat terrain. After crossing Route 151, the Route continues for

approximately 12.6 miles through relatively open, flat terrain, crossing Route 29

and then re-joining the Proposed Route at Milepost 177.6. (See Attachment 5 for

a comparison map.)

Tide Water has completed a preliminary evaluation of the constructability of the Love

Gap/Rte. 56 Route from the point at which this route departs from the Proposed Route at

approximately Milepost 157.6 until it re-joins the Proposed Route at approximately Milepost

177.6. After reviewing a number of factors, including slope steepness, side slopes, width of

available land for construction, availability of rights-of-way, river and creek crossings, use of

short tunnels or other borings, and location of residences, farm outbuildings and other structures,

l2

the engineers concluded that this portion of the Love Gap/Rte. 56 Route is constructible. (See

Attachment 6, for slope map for the profile for the Love Gap/Rte. 56 Route.)

C. One or More Route Deviations to the South of Route 664 Between ApproximatelyMileposts 159 to 165 are Superior to the Proposed Route.

In Data Request 156, OEP directed ACP to "evaluate a route variation and provide a table

comparing the relevant environmental factors from approximate AP-l MPs 159 to 165 that

maximizes the use of pasture and agricultural land in the Rockfish Valley, minimizes ridgetop

and forest impacts, and avoids or minimizes impacts on cultural and historic properties, nature

trails, waterbodies, the Spruce Creek Tributary Conservation Site, and planned developments

(i.e., Wintergreen Resort Expansion and Spruce Creek Resort)."I8

FOW is in the early stages of analyzing route variations that move the ACP to the south

of Route 664 that can accomplish the objectives that OEP set forth in in Data Request 156.

Based on preliminary hndings, FO'W is conhdent that minor route variations exist, are

constructible and would be superior to the comparable section of the Proposed Route that

directly impacts the entrance to'Wintergreen and surrounding Wintergreen land. FOW refers to

these minor route variations as the "664 South Route".

Both the 664 South Route and the same section of the Proposed Route would cross the

AT and the Blue Ridge Parkway at virtually the same spot near Reed's Gap, and both would

utilize an HDD tunnel of substantially the same length to cross under the AT and the Parkway.

However, the Proposed Route causes the tunnel to exit to the north of Route 664 at the

entrance/exit to Wintergreen, such that the pipeline crosses the entrance/exit of Wintergreen

twice and then proceeds up a steep mountainside for 2,100 feet and on through the surrounding

mountain ridgetops and forests to and through Rockfish Valley. It is this route that creates all of

tt OEP Information Request at.40.

13

the adverse impacts to the'Wintergreen and Route 151 corridor communities referred to in OEP

Data Request 156.

The 664 South Route would also use an HDD tunnel, but this route would cause the

tunnel to exit to the south of Route 664 in a rural arca. While the Proposed Route exits the

tunnel within a few hundred feet of Route 664 and the entrance/exit to Wintergreen, the 664

South Route would exit its tunnel at least 1,000 feet to the south of Route 664 and proceed to the

south over 1,500 feet away from the entrance/exit to V/intergreen. While this is a minor route

variation, the dramatic difference in the distance between the pipeline and the entrance/exit to

Wintergreen would lead to entirely different consequences. The 664 South Route would then

proceed through a very sparsely populated area until it reaches a flat arca of pastures and f,relds

in the Rockfish Valley. This area is also sparsely populated. The 664 South Route would

continue through the pastures and fields, avoid Devil's Backbone Brewing Company and other

active businesses in the area, cross Route 151 and connect with the Proposed Route, after passing

through additional pastures and fields, at approximately Milepost 164. The 664 South Route

would be similar in length to the comparable portion of the Proposed Route, but would eliminate

or substantially eliminate all of the adverse impacts that would result from the Proposed Route.

D. Summary of Adverse Consequences Resulting From the Proposed Route

In its Protest, Friends of V/intergreen presented a documented, fact-based demonstration

that the Proposed Route would result in dramatic economic, safety and unnecessary

environmental damage to Wintergreen and the surrounding community. These adverse

economic, environmental and safety impacts from the Proposed Route were detailed in the FOW

Protest and subsequently expounded upon in the Motion to Intervene and Protest submitted by

t4

the'Wintergreen Resort and WPOA.le As detailed below, all or substantially all of these adverse

impacts will be eliminated by any of the specific route alternatives or deviations described in this

answer

The Proposed Route prevents the development of two planned luxury hotels/restaurants

by Wintergreen Resort and Spruce Creek Resort and Market, depriving Nelson County of up to

$75 million in new tourism investment that will deliver $32 million in annual revenue and at

least 250 new, full-time tourism jobs. The Proposed Route places the pipeline directly across the

entrance and exit to the V/intergreen mountain community and Resort and through the property

on which it is proposed to build the Spruce Creek Resort and Market.

It is to be noted that on the topic of economic development, ACP did not dispute that the

two key economic developments described above would be prevented or stalled if the Proposed

Route were followed. This is not surprising since these statements were based on two affidavits

from developers and owners that were filed with the earlier FOW Protest.20 Moreover, senior

representatives of ACP met face-to-face with these individuals on at least two occasions,

received a detailed presentation as to why these development projects will be prevented, and had

every opportunity then and subsequently to ask any questions regarding these projects.

Wintergreen Resort estimates that the Proposed Route would also result in a substantial

(potentially up to 20Yo) reduction in overall business for Wintergreen Resort, 2l not counting the

temporary reductions caused by construction of the pipeline at the entrance to Wintergreen and

on WPOA land. This decline will undoubtedly result in a reduction in future revenue and

employment opportunities at Wintergreen, which is the largest business, employer, taxpayer and

tn Wintergreen Resort and WPOA Motion to Intervene and Protest, dated December 16, 2015, at. 5-12.

to FOV/ Protest at Exhibits A and B.

" Id. atExhibit B.

15

one of the largest communities inNelson County. The Resort employs over 1,000 individuals,

generates an annual payroll that exceeds $17 million, and attracts more than 400,000 annual

visitors to its area.

As it does in response to the submitted affidavits of the developers of planned resorts in

the Wintergreen area, ACP simply denies that its project will adversely impact the existing

business of the Wintergreen Resort. Thus, ACP asserts (at 15) that *it is difficult to give

credence to the claims of 'dramatically negative effects' of the pipeline, supposedly causing the

V/intergreen Resort up to a 20Yo reduction in business as forecast by Friends of 'Wintergreen." In

contrast to the affidavits submitted by FOW in support of these economic consequences, ACP

offers no explanation, much less support, for its refusal to acknowledge that construction activity

and safety concerns can be expected to discourage guests and tourists from visiting the resort.

FO'W's forecasted business downturn estimate was communicated to it by Wintergreen

Resort and is reflected in the Affrdavit of the Resort's General Manager included in FOW's

Protest.22 Moreover, as indicated above, senior ACP representatives have met face-to-face with

the Resort's General Manager, who explained the basis for his statements regarding a substantial

reduction in business, and have had every opportunity since then to further discuss his statements

with him. ACP offers no facts to dispute the General Manager's statements; ACP just offers the

unsupported claim that it thinks "it is difficult to give credence" to his statements.

The Proposed Route of the ACP also presents adverse economic consequences for Nelson

County generally, and specifically, for the Route 151 corridor, among them the planned

development of the Spruce Creek Resort and Market. Virginia Route 151 is a designated

Virginia scenic byway that has recently become the location of multiple wineries, breweries, bed

" FOw Protest at Exhibit B.

t6

and breakfasts, and other tourist attractions, and is often referred to as "Virginia's Napa Valley."

The alternate routes discussed above would avoid these negative consequences.

Finally, the Proposed Route creates an unacceptable safety risk. During peak vacation

periods and the winter holidays and ski season, Wintergreen Resort routinely hosts more than

10,000 residents, guests and visitors at any one time. Since the Proposed Route will be situated

next to the only entry and exit road for 'Wintergreen Resort and the Wintergreen residential

community represented by the Wintergreen Property Owners Association or'WPOA, it creates a

substantial and unnecessary safety risk given this environment. While natural gas pipelines are

safe relative to other modes of energy transport, it is indisputable that incidents and explosions

do occur, sometimes with tragic consequences. An explosion at the entrance to Wintergreen

would produce a 1,100-foot blast radius that would destroy the Gatehouse at the entrance, the

Wintergreen Police facility (which includes the Wintergreen 911 emergency coÍìmunications

center and the only back up 911 emergency communications center for Nelson County), and the

headquarters for WPOA. The area at the entrance is heavily forested, and a large forest hre

would likely trap up to 10,000 persons on the mountain with no ability to exit.

In its Protest on December 16, 2015 in the above-captioned docket, WPOA and

V/intergreen Resort cited the Virginia Department of Forestry's mountain firef,rghting training

syllabus in discussing the potential for fire at the entrance to Wintergreen. The topology at the

'Wintergreen entrance is that of a box canyon surrounded on the north, east and west by southern-

facing mountainsides, which are described in the syllabus as ideal conditions for the rapid spread

of fire. Thus, the fire safety issue at the entrance of 'Wintergreen presents a unique condition, and

l7

a unique risk.23 The Chief of the Fire and Rescue Service, and others, have submitted separate

comments to the FERC docket on this point.

In its answer, ACP seeks to discount the safety risks by a generic recitation of standard

safety measures that are incorporated in all natural gas pipelines ("will be monitored 2417

through DTI's gas control center, will be regularly monitored by air and foot patrol, as well as

inspected by in-line pigging"). But, as the Wintergreen Resort and V/POA pointed out in their

Motion to Intervene, the Wintergreen circumstances and geography are unique and more

susceptible to ahazard that cannot be addressed by standard practices. OEP has noted the need

for ACP to submit a written emergency plan that includes procedures to minimize the hazards in

a natural gas pipeline emergency and detail the measures that ACP would include in its

emergency plan to account for ingress and egress at the Wintergreen Resort specifically in the

case of a natural gas pipeline emergency."24

Given the magnitude of this safety issue presented by the proximity of the Proposed

Route to the Wintergreen Resort and in light of the unique characteristics of the resort, FOW

and all property owners at'Wintergreen look forward to reviewing this written emergency plan.

After months of considering this issue, FOV/ is not aware of any plan that can adequately

address these risks short of eliminating or mitigating the risk altogether by requiring that ACP

adopt one of the alternate routes or route variations discussed herein.

23 Wintergreen Resort and WPOA Motion to Intervene and Protest, dated December 16, 2015, at. 16-21

'o OEP Information Request at 43.

18

V. CONCLUSION

Wherefore, Friends of Wintergreen respectfully request that FERC condition its approval

of ACP's application in the above-captioned proceeding with a requirement that the route for the

ACP be moved from the Proposed Route near Reed's Gap to one of the route alternatives or

deviations identified above, or to some other alternative route that alleviates the serious negative

Çonsequences to 'Wintergreen and the surrounding area of the Proposed Route.

Any of the alternate routes or route deviations identified in this ans\tr'er will eliminate or

substantially eliminate the numerous adverse impacts that result from the Proposed Route. The

alternate route in Part A provides additional and substantive benefits through its extensive,

practical use of existing rights-of-way and a shorter length. The route deviations in Parts B and

C respond to OEP's request that ACP seek a route south of the Proposed Route that uses less

forested and more pasture land. Any one of these routes will cause less damage to the

environment than the Proposed Route.

As stated above, Friends of Wintergreen reserve the right to respond to ACP's responses

to OEP's Information Request, to propose new alternatives, or to respond to new alternatives

proposed by ACP or other parties in the proceeding.

Dated: December 29, 2015

19

Respectfu lly submitted,

?aarand.4, fuîefuioo

Howard L. NelsonGreenbergTraurig LLP2I0l L Street, N.W.Suite 1000Washington, DC 20037Telephone : (202) 33 I -3 163Fax: (202) 261-4762Email: nelsonh@gtlaw.com

Counsel for Friends of Wintergreen, Inc

20

ATTACIIMENT 1

-

Conceptual Alternative Route(Lyndhurst to DoomsElectric Line)

-

Cu(ently ProposedPipeline Route

--.--. Appalachian Trail (Al)

-

Highway

Virginìa Wetlands

V¡rq¡n¡å Protected Areas

I ror."t serui"e {usrs)

National Park Seruice (NPS)

Other Private Protected Lands

count Land

AI

+

L

3.

)

inteqr¿l)6û4

fr Lyndhurst to Dooms Electric LineAttachment 1

148

ç',

ATTACHMENT 2

)l

{

,]

^ -È ---,(

Ir'l

,

+

(__

>(ê' , ¡tl

a.'

'.\..ì'. ..

.Ë...,i '

)

... 't'l

Y

@

-

conceptualAhemetive Route(Lyndhurst to Famille)

-

Curently ProposedP¡peline Route (11120/201 5)

-----. Appelachian Trail (AT)

I vi,oini" w"tøno"

V¡rg¡n¡a Protecled Arces

I countv L.na

f ror""t s"ri* {usrs)

¡l

.\

54

N

,1

1'

other Privatê Protected Lands

,/r",''

!"? ( '1 i

intpqr¿l)ñ'L

Attachment 2.lllustrat¡on of Conceptual Alternat¡ve Route:Rockfish Gap/Dooms Bremo

ATTACIIMENT 3

Lyndhurst to Dooms Electric Line Conceptual Route Alternative

2,300

2,roo

1-,900

II

Itt

L,700

$ r,sooÉo(!ol¡l 1,300

1,100

900

700

500

0 1 2 3 4 56789L0Distance along route from West to East (miles)

t'J. !2 1.3 t4 L5

ACP Milepost 148.1

-slope

< 35%

Slope > 35%

@slope > 45%

-slope

> 65%

,

inteqr¿l)

mutrnr r3(

Attachment 3.Vertical Profile of the Rockfish Gap/Dooms BremoConceptual Route Alternative, Milepost 148.1 to l€4 Exit 107

ATTACHME,NT 4

-

Conceptual Altemalive Route(LyndhuFt to DoomsEleclric Line)

-

Curently ProposedPipeline Route

-..--.- Appalach¡an Treil (AT)

-

HighMy

Slope Percent

,1535-

45-

>65

0-35,4

inteqr¿l)@tuNh

Attachment 4.Slopes of Lands âlong the Rockfish Gap/Dooms BremoConceptual Route Alternative, l\¡ilepost 148 I to l-64 Ent 107

ATTACHMENT 5

| | Approxrmãte wrnlerqreenl-l Resod Propedy

Prooosed PiÞeline Route

111 /201201 s)

FoWs Love's GâD/56Conceptual Alternative

--.--. Appalachian Trail (AT)

-

Hishway

Fff¡-I] v,gini" w.t"nr"

Virq¡n¡ã Protected Areãs

conseruâtion Land Holder

I rorest seruice {usrs)

National Park Seruice (NPS)

Stâte Agency

A

intrqr¿l,!,,,'*

Attachment 5.ACP Proposed Route and FOWS Love's Gap/56 RouteAlternat¡ve

ATTACHMENT 6

f ..:.

,:'li'

. .:..

, r,,t'.

I I ADÞroxrmåle Wnlerqreenl-l Resod Propertv

ProDosed PiDeline Route(11 t2Ot2O15)

_ FOWS Love's Gap/56conceptual A¡ternative

--.--. Appalachian Trail (AÐ

-

Highway

Slope Percent

0-35

45-65

>65

ÀM

intelRl,Attachment 6.Slopes of Lands in the Vicinity ol FOWS Love's Gap/56 Routeand Corresponding Section of the Proposed Route

f.r::::,-;.. -i.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document upon each person

designated on the official service list compiled by the Secretary in this proceeding.

Dated at Washington, DC this 29th day of December 2015.

*a¿uand,4,, ?/ehnoaHoward L. Nelson