Application Review 101.

101. After the application for the Cove Point Liquefaction project and Virginia

Facilities was filed, Commission staff evaluated the potential environmental impacts of the proposed facilities in the EA in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).90 The U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy (DOE-FE), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps), U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard), and Maryland Department of Natural Resources (Maryland DNR) participated as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the EA.

102. On May 15, 2014, Commission staff placed the EA into the public record.91 The analysis in the EA addresses geology, soils, water resources, wetlands, vegetation, fisheries, wildlife, threatened and endangered species, land use, recreation, visual resources, cultural resources, air quality, noise, safety, socioeconomics, cumulative impacts, and alternatives. All substantive comments received in response to the NOI and during the public scoping process were addressed in the EA.

103. A 30-day public comment period followed the issuance of the EA. Commission staff held a public comment meeting on May 31, 2014, in Lusby, Maryland, and

Commission staff placed a transcript of the public comment meeting into the public record. A total of 106 speakers provided comments at the meeting, and over 650 additional stakeholders submitted written comments in response to the EA. 104. The Commission received comments on the EA from Dominion; the EPA; National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS); Maryland Department of the Environment; Virginia Department of Environmental Quality; Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation; Sierra Club; Calvert County, Maryland; Fairfax County, Virginia; the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia; and approximately 640 individuals and organizations during the comment period. In addition, approximately 125,000 copies of various form letters were submitted as written comments in response to the EA. The majority of the comments on the EA revisited matters previously raised in scoping comments that were

90 _{42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq. (2012). See 18 C.F.R. pt 380 (2014) for the}

Commission’s NEPA-implementing regulations.

91

The Commission published notice of the EA in the Federal Register on May 22, 2014. 79 Fed. Reg. 29,435 (May 22, 2014).

fully addressed in the EA.92 Substantive comments that required clarification to issues addressed in the EA are addressed in this order. These issues include concerns associated with the following topics: earthquakes and the Moran Landing Fault Zone; foundations soil conditions; subsidence and sinkholes; groundwater/aquifers; ballast water; aquatic resources/Offsite Area B; terrestrial wildlife, vegetation, and protected species; light emissions/visual resources; property values; environmental justice; future gas prices; socioeconomic impacts; shipping impacts; population estimates; traffic; air emissions and modeling; noise; public safety, and alternatives.

105. On June 16, 2014, Dominion provided comments and updates to information in the EA and responded to several comments filed on the EA by others. Among these issues are site locations and mapping updates, specifics on facility design, updated permit data regarding stream impacts, work force numbers, topsoil restoration, and timing of non-jurisdictional facility construction. Our review finds that none of these comments and update changes are significant, nor do they alter our conclusions with respect to the environmental impacts resulting from the project. Clarifications regarding various

mitigation plan requirements (Forest Preservation Plan, Nighttime Noise Mitigation Plan, final landscaping plan, final lighting distribution plan, Oyster Mitigation Plan, and

Artificial Reef Plan), vegetative buffers, and hydrostatic test water volumes are further discussed in this order.

106. On July 24, 2014, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) communicated to

Commission staff that it had reviewed Dominion’s methodology and data for establishing

92 _{These issues include: general opposition or support of the project; the need for}

the project; a request for the extension of the comment period; preparation of an EIS rather than an EA; erosion and sedimentation; geological hazards and land subsidence; impacts on groundwater wells and aquifers; surface water quality impacts from

construction and ship transits; ballast water impacts, including invasive species; impacts on wetlands, fish, wildlife, vegetation, and ecosystems; forest fragmentation and invasive species; impacts on state and federally listed threatened and endangered species; impacts on the Chesapeake Bay; socioeconomic impacts including, property values, future gas prices, shipping impacts, population estimates, and traffic; light emissions; noise impacts; air impacts; greenhouse gas emissions; safety during construction and operation,

including evacuation routes and proximity to the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant; national security concerns; need for a quantitative risk assessment; cumulative impacts, especially regarding shale gas extraction; and alternatives, including Atlantic Sunrise Pipeline, alternatives to Offsite Area B, desalination as an alternative water source, and onshore ballast water collection alternatives.

the wind speeds to be used in the facility design.93 The PHMSA found that the approach taken by Dominion complied with its regulatory requirements under 49 C.F.R. §

193.2067(b). Therefore, Recommended Condition 35 from the EA, which required further consultation with the DOT regarding design wind speed requirements under Part 193, is no longer needed and has not been included as a condition of this order.94 107. On August 8, 2014, Dominion filed supplemental information regarding Recommended Conditions 10, 16, 17, and 19 from the EA. Dominion filed

documentation of compliance with Recommended Condition 10 from the EA (requiring that Dominion receive all applicable authorizations under federal law), and

Recommended Condition 19 from the EA (requiring concurrence from the Maryland Department of the Environment that the project is consistent with the Maryland Coastal Zone Management Program). Therefore, Recommended Conditions 10 and 19 from the EA are no longer needed and have not been included as conditions of this order.

Recommended Conditions 16 and 17 from the EA are discussed in greater detail below under aquatic resources/Offsite Area B and terrestrial wildlife, vegetation, and protected species, respectively.