20140957 Ver 2_ACP 401 Comments_20170819

Strickland, Bev
From:Oshin Paranjape <[e-mail]>
Sent:Saturday, August 19, 2017 2:32 PM
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:ACP 401 Comments
Attachments:Comments for the 401 permit hearing.docx
Hello,

Attached are the comments on the 401 water quality certification.

Thank you,
Oshin Paranjape
1

Comments on the 401 Water Quality Certification

 As part of the additional information request made by NC DEQ to Dominion, the Department
commented the following:
“Sediment and erosion control designs for project areas within waters or watersheds
designated as PNA, SA, WS-I, WS-II, HQW, ORW must comply with the requirements set
forth in 15A NCAC 048.0124 – Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds.”

Dominion’s reply to this was “Atlantic did not identify any individual waters or watersheds
with the above designations within the limits of disturbance.”

Although no GIS data was found for water bodies designated as “PNA” and “SA”, mapping of
water bodies with all the other designations revealed that the Atlantic Coast Pipeline crosses
water bodies categorized as “WS-I” and “WS-II” at multiple locations (WS-I and WS-II waters
are also categorized as High Quality Waters or HQW). Additionally, surface waters
categorized as “NSW” or Nutrient Sensitive Waters are also crossed by the pipeline at
multiple locations in the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico river basins (see Appendix).

The construction of the pipeline will invariably contaminate the drinking water supplies on
which millions are dependent, possibly leading to health problems and prompting people to
look for alternative water sources. Therefore, construction of the pipeline does not seem
feasible through these areas.

 There is a significant portion of the buffer zones in the Neuse and Tar-Pam river basins
where construction of the pipeline will occur, as outlined in the pre-construction notice. These
buffer zones are protected under the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules and require diffuse
flow conditions to be maintained. Dominion has failed to provide a comprehensive diffuse flow
plan to address sedimentation and erosion problems during runoff.

 Habitats of 12 federally listed endangered and threatened species and six species which are
currently under federal review for listing but have been granted endangered/threatened or
special concern status under the state legislature will be crossed by the ACP. Many of these
species, such as the Neuse River Waterdog occur in the Neuse River. In addition to being
nutrient sensitive, an open cut method of pipeline construction is proposed for the river. As
mentioned in the DEIS, the environmental impacts of the open cut construction method

include increased turbidity and sedimentation in the crossing vicinity, potentially decreasing the
dissolved oxygen, thereby potentially suffocating the eggs and larvae of fish and
invertebrates. Sedimentation could displace the more mobile species and potentially smother
benthic invertebrates, decreasing prey availability for fish. These effects could degrade the
quality of the habitat, making it unsuitable for spawning and rearing activities. ACP hasn’t
outlined any contingency plans yet for the protection of these species during construction
activities. Thus, the Restoration and Rehabilitation plan should be updated with a detailed
outline of how each of these individual species could be protected.

 The HDD method of pipeline construction which is considered to be somewhat safer than
other methods of construction has a number of issues of its own. Studies show that inadvertent
returns (which occur when the bentonite based drilling fluid seeps up through fractures in the
upper soil profile) are an inherent risk during HDD crossing, and an occur during all stages of
drilling (most commonly during the pilot hole drilling stage). They occur most frequently during
creek/river crossings and are more commonly seen in pipelines with diameters of 22 inches or
more.

Some of the environmental impacts of IR include:
1. Smothering of vegetation, which impairs photosynthesis
2. Decreased vegetation sustainability through reduced water infiltration in soil
3. Destruction of breeding areas, alteration of migration routes and habitat
4. Turbidity, decreased oxygen availability leading to asphyxiation
5. Diminished flood storage capacity, impaired sediment entrapment

Other than inadvertent returns, the clearing of vegetation to establish a drill staging area to
facilitate drilling and poor clean up measures post construction can also cause severe
environmental impacts.

The HDD contingency plan filed by ACP has no provisions for post construction monitoring
and sampling for crossings that may experience inadvertent returns. Typically, monitoring
should occur for one to two years after restoration and may include programs such as
vegetation monitoring, aquatic invertebrates sampling, soil profile inspections and
functional impact assessments. Therefore, the HDD plan needs to be updated with relevant
plans outlining post construction monitoring measures.

 The Blasting plan does not mention any potential impacts on wetlands. The measures
implemented during blasting near streams only address the pre-blasting preparations and
do not take into consideration the impacts of the deposition of scattered rocks and other
materials that contaminate water bodies post blasting (such as increased turbidity and
sedimentation). The Restoration and Rehabilitation Plan does not specify the post-
construction wetland monitoring measures that ACP will undertake to ensure that the
impacted wetlands get revegetated. Studies show that presence of human disturbance in
wetlands is associated with high failure rates. What measures does Dominion propose to
ensure that such an interaction doesn’t take place? The current plans proposed by Dominion
are insufficient and likely to fail lest an incident should occur.

Appendix