20140957 Ver 2_WRC Comments on DEIS_20170406

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission �
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.
Deputy Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FROM: Gabriela Garrison�,�,
Eastern Piedmont Coordinator
Habitat Conservation
DATE: April 6, 2017
SUBJECT: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Atlantic Coast
Pipeline and Supply Header Project
Biologists from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP) and
Supply Header Project (SHP). The NCWRC has been involved in the ACP project since Fall
2014. Our comments are limited to the ACP because the SHP does not occur in North Carolina.
Comments are provided in accordance with certain provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977
(33 U.S.C. 1251-1387) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661 et seq.).
Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC (Atlantic) is a joint venture of Dominion Transmission, Inc., Duke
Energy Corporation, Piedmont Natural Gas and Southern Gas Company. The ACP project
would deliver up to 1.5 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas from supply areas in West
Virginia to customers in Virginia and North Carolina. Approximately 198 miles of the ACP will
cross Northampton, Halifax, Nash, Wilson, Johnston, Sampson, Cumberland and Robeson
counties and traverse parts of the Chowan, Roanoke, Tar, Neuse, Cape Fear and Lumber River
basins. Combined, the ACP and SHP would disturb 12,030 acres of land; 5,976 acres would be
permanently maintained after construction for operation and maintenance. Combined, the ACP
and SHP would affect 786 acres of wetlands during construction; 248 acres of these wetlands
would be affected by operations (located within permanent right-of-ways (ROW)). The DEIS
for this project was issued December 30, 2016; comments are due April 6, 2017.
Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation Division - 1721 Mail Service Center - Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] - Fax: [phone]

NCWRC COMMENTS APRIL 6, 2017
c V,
DEIS FOR ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE
The NCWRC offers the following specific comments on the DEIS:
1. ES -3. Paragraph 3. Project Impacts and Mitigation. "Reasonably foreseeable actions in
the project area" should include the expected secondary and cumulative impacts from
new networks of pipelines built to distribute natural gas provided by the ACP to
customers.
2. ES -9. Paragraph 1. As of December 2016, the Neuse River was planned to be crossed
by open cut. An Updated Master Waterbody Crossing Table has the Neuse River being
crossed using a cofferdam. The NCWRC agrees that a cofferdam crossing is better
than an open cut for the Neuse River and expects impacts to be reduced with this
updated crossing method. However, this is one of many instances where information
continues to be updated after the DEIS was issued; this makes the DEIS obsolete in
some areas.
ES -11. Paragraph 2. In accordance with other agency responses, the NCWRC is
concerned about the direct and indirect impacts of fragmentation resulting from the
proposed ACP. North Carolina provides migratory corridors as well as breeding habitat
for hundreds of species of birds. The loss of habitat and increased fragmentation will
result in edge effect, which will intensify predation, reduce productivity, allow for the
spread of invasive species and displace already imperiled species. The NCWRC agrees
that more information is needed regarding fragmentation analysis, effects of forest edge
creation on wildlife and measures to avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts to interior (�
forest habitat. The Habitat Equivalency Analysis (HEA) is a well-known tool for --
determining habitat loss and mitigation.
4. ES -13. Paragraph 1. Cumulative Impacts. The DEIS does not adequately address the
cumulative impacts that will occur as a result of the ACP. The DEIS does not consider
the impacts associated with constructing new pipelines for distributing natural gas to
residential customers once the ACP is complete.
5. Page 1-2. Project Purpose and Need. The second stated purpose of the project is to
provide natural gas for "direct residential... use." We suggest elaborating on this point
to explain what percent of natural gas will be available for direct residential use and
what, if any, additional infrastructure is needed to provide direct residential use.
Additional infrastructure should be included in discussions regarding the cumulative
impacts of the project. If the infrastructure to distribute 9.1 % of the natural gas
supplied by the ACP is already in place, it should be stated as such.
6. Page 1-29. Table 1.4-1. North Carolina Wildlife Commission should be North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission.
7. Page 2-29. Ap-2 Mainline. The NCWRC recommends modifications to the staging
area locations to prevent impacts to wetlands and wetland buffers for the Little River
and Cape Fear River horizontal directional drill (HDD) crossings.
Pa

NCWRC COMMENTS APRIL 6, 2017
DEIS FOR ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE
8. Page 2-53. Paragraph 2. The NCWRC recommends a time -of -year restriction (TOYR)
for ROW maintenance from April 1 to October 1. This will reduce impacts to nesting
wildlife, including reptiles, amphibians and ground -nesting birds.
9. Page 3-44. Paragraph 1. The last statement in the first paragraph misconstrues the
NCWRC's previous comments about Cypress Creek crossings. In our comment letter
dated 28 April 2015, we suggested moving the pipeline north so that it would not cross
Cypress Creek in three locations. A more northern route could possibly reduce the
number of crossings from three to one. The state -significantly rare, banded sunfish, is
found in Cypress Creek. We generally encourage collocating utility lines whenever
possible, but other factors must also be considered when determining which alternative
will have the fewest environmental impacts.
10. Page 3-51. The route of the ACP was also adjusted to avoid crossing Buffalo Creek
and traversing the Buffalo Creek floodplain. The route was shifted downstream on the
Little River to below the confluence with Buffalo Creek.'
11. Page 4-29. 4.1.4.3 Flash Flooding. The NCWRC recommends placing infrastructure
outside of 100 -year floodplains and avoiding modifications within the 100 -year
floodplain. The Fayetteville and Pembroke M&R stations and Valve site 21 are within
the 100 -year floodplain. When planning construction activities in floodplains, Atlantic
should consider seasonal hydrologic trends and weather events to avoid activity during
(� periods when floodplains are inundated and/or soils are saturated. Construction in
flooded areas could exacerbate impacts to riparian zones as well as increase turbidity
and sediment transport downstream.
12. Page 4-91. Contractor Yards. Elsewhere in the document there is a 50 -foot setback of
additional temporary workspace from waterbodies or wetlands; "a 5 -foot buffer around
each waterbody" appears to be an error.
13. Page 4-100. Erosion and Sediment Control. The NCWRC recommends more stringent
measures to control sedimentation and erosion in watersheds that drain to waterbodies
with sensitive species. Such measures include installing sediment control fencing and
stabilizing unvegetated fill. Unvegetated fill should be stabilized at the end of each
work day with an acceptable erosion control cloth, blanket or matting until the fill is
ready to be permanently stabilized. In addition, no grubbing should occur with 50 feet
of surface waters with sensitive species outside of the growing season (TOYR from
November 15 — April 1) to protect mussels from sedimentation impacts.
o In addition, the use of biodegradable and wildlife -friendly sediment and erosion
control devices is strongly recommended. Silt fencing, fiber rolls and/or other
products should have loose -weave netting that is made of natural fiber materials with
movable joints between the vertical and horizontal twines. Silt fencing or similar
materials that have been reinforced with plastic or metal mesh should be avoided as
they impede the movement of terrestrial wildlife species. Numerous studies have

NCWRC COMMENTS APRIL 6, 2017
DEIS FOR ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE
shown the likelihood of many species, in particular bird, amphibian and reptilian
species, to become entrapped in these devices and ultimately perish because of their
inability to escape.
14. Page 4-102. Paragraph 1. The NCWRC received the Updated Master Waterbody
Crossing Table for the ACP on 23 March 2017. The Updated Master Waterbody
Crossing Table has the Neuse River being crossed using a cofferdam. Other streams
that were planned to be crossed with a dam and pump or flume are now planned to be
crossed using the open cut method. Such updates while the document is out for review
make it difficult to accurately review the DEIS. Based on the Updated Master
Waterbody Crossing Table, in North Carolina, there are 3 canal/ditch crossings that will
be dam and pump or flume and 32 ephemeral channel crossings that are planned to be
done with dam and pump or flume. In contrast, there are 11, intermittent streams and 39
perennial streams that will be crossed with open cut. Its seems counterintuitive that
ephemeral channels which rarely contain water will be crossed in the dry (dam and
flume or pump) while intermittent and perennial streams that are likely to contain water
will be impacted by wet construction (open cut). More discussion is needed to explain
the rationale for using various crossing techniques. Furthermore, this updated water
crossing table needs to be available to all DEIS reviewers so that comments can be as
pertinent and up to date as possible.
o According to Rev. 11 of the ACP route, the ACP will cross Mingo Swamp in
Sampson County, South River (referred to as Black River in the DEIS) in
Cumberland County, and Big Marsh Swamp, Tenmile Swamp and Saddletree Swamp
in Robeson County. While the Updated Master Waterbody Crossing Table lists
crossings for several unnamed tributaries to the waterbodies, the waterbodies
themselves do not appear in the updated crossing table. The crossing method for
these waterbodies is needed to provide appropriate comments on the DEIS. Atlantic
should verify that all other waterbodies that will be crossed by the ACP are listed in
the waterbody crossing table.
o Many streams that NCWRC identified in the North Carolina Revised Fish and Other
Aquatic Taxa Collection and Relocation Protocol for Instream Construction
Activities report for Tier 2 aquatics removal are planned to be crossed by open cut
according to the Updated Master Waterbody Crossing Table. According to the
waterbodies crossed table in Appendix K, these streams will be crossed by dam and
flume or pump. More information needs to be provided to explain why these streams
will now be crossed by open cut. Open cut crossings are expected to increase
sediment transport and turbidity downstream of the construction area. Additional
conservation measures should be implemented in streams with sensitive resources to
minimize impacts associated with open cut crossings.
15. Page 4-103. Table 4.2.3-7. The risk of hydrofracture needs to be known before
determining if HDD is the most appropriate crossing technique for Contentnea Creek.
4

NCWRC COMMENTS APRIL 6, 2017
8egli, 07) Ji-
DEIS FOR ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE
16. Page 4-103. Bullet 2. In addition to notifying agencies with regulatory jurisdiction, the
NCWRC would also like to be notified if drilling mud is released into a waterbody.
17. Page 4-105. Floodplains. The DEIS states that graveled lots and areas that are
vegetated have similar rates of rainwater infiltration. Areas that are vegetated are not
defined, but this statement is misleading. Graveled lots and forests do not have similar
rates of infiltration; construction infrastructure in floodplains will affect floodplain
function.
18. Page 4-106. Last paragraph of Blasting section. According to the Updated Master
Waterbody Crossing Table, in -stream blasting and blasting within 1,000 feet of a
waterbody is a potential for crossings in Northampton and Halifax counties in
NC. According to the DEIS, blasting would occur primarily at dry crossings after the
area has been isolated from stream flow. In Northampton and Halifax counties, there
are 13 open cut crossings with potential blasting. The DEIS needs to explain how
blasting will be conducted at open cut stream crossings. The NCWRC recommends
that blasting be conducted in the dry. If blasting is required at an open cut crossing, the
crossing method should be changed to dam and flume or pump to allow for
blasting. This would also allow for collection and relocation of sessile aquatic
organisms, such as freshwater mussels, crayfish, and some fish species that do not flee
from scare charges or banging.
19. Page 4-107. More details are needed in this section regarding water sources, pump
0 rates, measures to treat discharged water, etc. In addition, if municipal water sources
will be the sole sources of water, the DEIS needs to reflect this and include details of
how this water will be transported and discharged. If municipal water has any additives
such as chlorine or chloromine or if an algicide is added to the water, it should not be
released into surface waters unless it is safe for sensitive species including amphibians
and aquatic invertebrates.
20. Page 4-123. We suggest adding "Plant" to the title Aquatic Invasive Species because
this section only pertains to aquatic plants, not other aquatic invasive taxa.
21. Page 4-128. The first sentence of 4.4.1.3 North Carolina refers to VA and WV. This
appears to be in error.
22. Page 4-129. Paragraph 1 and elsewhere. The DEIS references the 2005 NC Wildlife
Action Plan (WAP). The 2015 WAP has been published and should be referenced
instead. It is available at http://www.ncwildlife.org/Plan
23. Page 4-138. Paragraph 2. The term "restoration" is confusing as it is used here.
Restoration typically implies a return to a previous condition. This paragraph should be
reworded to improve clarity and accuracy.

NCWRC COMMENTS APRIL 6, 2017
DEIS FOR ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE
24. Page 4-158. 4.5.3.2. Bird Conservation Regions and Birds of Conservation Concern. 0
This section references the Migratory Bird Plan. The most current version of the
Migratory Bird Plan that we have seen is the updated Rev. 3 version dated Jan. 27,
2017. The following species should be added for NC: American oystercatcher,
Bewick's wren, black skimmer, black -throated green warbler, golden -winged warbler,
gull -billed tern, least tern, lesser yellowlegs, Louisiana waterthrush, northern saw -whet
owl, olive -sided flycatcher, pied -billed grebe, red-headed woodpecker, short -billed
dowitcher (should have a since it does not breed in NC), snowy egret, whimbrel (should
have a since it does not breed in NC), willow flycatcher, black -billed cuckoo, blue -
winged warbler, Canada warbler and yellow -bellied sapsucker.
25. Page 4-160. Table 4.5.3.2. For North Carolina, the same text regarding migratory
birds, "avoid clearing vegetation..." should be added for migratory birds. In addition,
the TOYR for migratory birds in NC of April 1— August 31 should be added.
26. Page 4-161. Paragraph 2 and first bullet. Table 2 in the report titled "Survey Report
for Red -cockaded Woodpeckers in North Carolina and Virginia and Bald Eagles and
Rookeries in North Carolina Updated" dated April 2016 shows that there are 10
rookeries in NC within 0.5 miles of the rev. 10 study corridor: WBC 1, -2, -4, -5, -7, -9,
-11, -12, -13, and -15. Two of these are located within the 500 foot vegetated buffer.
WBC9 near milepost 107 in Johnston County is only 185' from the study corridor; this
rookery was omitted from the DEIS. WBC1 near milepost 32 in Halifax County is
415' from the study corridor. To minimize impacts to rookeries, construction activities
should not occur from 15 February to 31 July. Construction activity within 500 feet of
the rookeries is likely to adversely impact breeding success. The Final Migratory Bird
Plan should include conservation measures to minimize impacts to active rookeries.
27. Page 4-161. Next to last paragraph. The Habitat Equivalency Analysis is a vetted and
broadly utilized method for analyzing habitat loss and replacement. The NCWRC
anticipates continued dialogue with Atlantic regarding habitat mitigation in North
Carolina and the HEA.
28. Page 4-163. Last paragraph. The NCWRC is concerned that some priority reptile and
amphibian species (identified as Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) in the
NC WAP) may fall into open trenches. Such species include but are not limited to:
pine barrens treefrog (federal species of concern (FSC), state -threatened (ST)), eastern
tiger salamander (ST), southern hognose snake (FSC, state -special concern) and eastern
coachwhip. More information is needed regarding measures to prevent herps from
falling into trenches and to ensure they do not remain in trenches.
29. Page 4-164. Paragraph 3. The percentages of access road types add up to 108%. This
should be reworded or recalculated.

NCWRC COMMENTS APRIL 6, 2017
DEIS FOR ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE
t = 30. Page 4-171. The list of representative warmwater fish for NC leaves off a lot of species
typically found in streams that will be crossed by the ACP. While several species could
be added to improve the list, deleting pigfish, a marine species, will suffice.
31. Page 4-172. Table 4.6.1-2. For NC, add a TOYR to protect mussels from
sedimentation impacts. No grubbing within 50 feet of surface waters with sensitive
species outside of the growing season (TOYR from November 15 — April 1). The
TOYR for in -water work within Primary Nursery Areas (PNA) in inland fishing waters
is February 15 to September 30. The Anadromous Fish Spawning Area moratorium is
February 15 to June 30. The sturgeon moratorium is February 1 to June 30.
32. Page 4-175. Paragraph 1 of 4.6.1.3. North Carolina. The NCWRC has designated
PNAs in inland fishing waters. Waterbodies crossed by the ACP that are designated as
PNAs in inland fishing waters are the Roanoke River, Neuse River and Cape Fear
River. The Tar River is also a designated PNA in inland waters but the designation
starts at the Rocky Mount Mills Dam. The ACP will cross the Tar River upstream of
this location.
33. Page+181. Paragraph 1 of Anadromous Fish Spawning Areas. Add blueback herring
to the list of anadromous fish.
34. Page 4-181. Paragraph 3 of Anadromous Fish Spawning Areas and continuing on page
4-182. Some of these waterbodies listed do not support anadromous fish at the ACP
crossing location due to migration barriers downstream. While the Tar River supports
anadromous fish, the ACP will cross the Tar River upstream of Rocky Mount Mills
Dam and Tar River Reservoir; these impoundments prevent upstream migration of
anadromous fish. Likewise, the ACP will cross Contentnea Creek upstream of Wiggins
Mill Reservoir in Wilson, Wilson County; this impoundment prevents upstream
migration of anadromous fish. At the ACP crossing location, the waterbody referred to
as the Black River is the South River.
35. Page 4-182. Paragraph 2. The TOYR for in -water work for PNAs in inland fishing
waters would apply to the Roanoke, Neuse and Cape Fear Rivers. This TOYR is
February 15 to Sept. 30. This would be extended to February 1 to September 30 for the
Roanoke and Neuse Rivers because the sturgeon moratorium would also apply.
36. Page 4-182. The Stream Crossing Habitat Map for Stony Creek, found in Appendix B
of the Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Aquatic Species Studies for the Proposed
Atlantic Coast Pipeline in North Carolina draft report dated 13 Oct. 2016, indicates that
a Neuse River waterdog was found at a trap site in Stony Creek. This record for Neuse
River waterdog from Stony Creek is not reported in other ACP reports. The validity of
this record should be verified prior to the completion of aquatic surveys for NC and
publication of the final report.
0

NCWRC COMMENTS APRIL 6, 2017
DEIS FOR ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE
37. Page 4-184. Paragraph 1 of Freshwater Mussels. Given the number of listed and
petitioned freshwater mussels in waterbodies crossed by the ACP, this section should
be expanded. While they were not collected during any surveys, there are records for
two federally endangered mussel species in streams crossed by the ACP in NC: Tar
River spinymussel and dwarf wedgemussel. The Tar River spinymussel is only
currently found in four streams in North Carolina: Fishing Creek, Little Fishing Creek,
Swift Creek, and Little River. The ACP crosses three of these streams.
38. Page 4-184. Paragraph 1 of Freshwater Mussels. Per recommendation by the
NCWRC, surveys for freshwater mussels were only done in second order and larger
streams in the Neuse and Tar River basins, select streams in the Roanoke River basin,
and streams in the Neuse and Tar basin that did not meet the second order threshold but
were large enough to support freshwater mussels.
39. Page 4-184. Paragraph 1 of Freshwater Mussels. According to the Rare, Threatened,
and Endangered Aquatic Species Studies for the Proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline in
North Carolina draft report dated 13 Oct. 2016, Atlantic pigtoe (live) was collected at 4
sites: Fishing Creek, Swift Creek, Tar River and Contentnea Creek. There is no
mention of a deadshell Atlantic pigtoe collected at any NC site during surveys for the
ACP. The reference to the collected deadshell should be verified, refer to collection
site if accurate or deleted.
40. Page 4-184. Paragraph 2 of Freshwater Mussels. The NCWRC has reviewed and
provided comments on the North Carolina Aquatics Relocation Plan. However, the
methodology outlined in this plan is not specific to mussels. The NCWRC has
discussed guidelines for a separate mussel relocation plan and expect to review the first
draft of a mussel relocation plan from ACP representatives in April 2017.
41. Page 4-188. Last paragraph. Freshwater mussels will be relocated in NC as well as
WV and VA.
42. Page 4-190. Paragraph 2. Another advantage of HDDs is that by not clearing a right-
of-way through the riparian zone, off-road vehicles are not provided new access to
drive along and through streams.
43. Page 4-190. Last paragraph. The last paragraph states "Atlantic and DTI would
conduct in -water work, except that required to install or remove equipment, outside of
the sensitive fisheries TOYR..." Installing and removing equipment has high potential
to impact aquatic resources and should also occur outside of TOYRs.
44. Page 4-191. Paragraph 3. To prevent entrainment and impingement of aquatic
organisms, the NCWRC recommends intake velocities, as measured through the intake
screening material, of 0.25 feet per second or less and mesh sizes of 1 mm in waters
containing sensitive species.

NCWRC COMMENTS APRIL 6, 2017
DEIS FOR ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE
45. Page 4-192. Open Cut Crossings. As mentioned in Comment #13, the NCWRC
received an updated Master Waterbody Crossing Table for the ACP on 23 March 2017.
The Updated Waterbody Crossing Table has the Neuse River being crossed using a
cofferdam. Other streams that were planned to be crossed with a dam and pump or
flume are now planned to be crossed using the open cut method. As a result of this
update, some information in this section is obsolete. Such updates while the DEIS is
out for review make it difficult to accurately review the document. More open cut
crossings are planned with this updated table. There are now 11 intermittent streams
and 39 perennial streams that will be crossed with open cut in NC. In NC, there are 32
waterbodies classified as ephemeral and 3 classified as canal / ditch that are planned to
be crossed using a dam and pump or flume. Its seems counterintuitive that ephemeral
channels which rarely contain water will be crossed in the dry (dam and flume or
pump) while intermittent and perennial streams that are likely to contain water will be
impacted by wet construction (open cut). More discussion is needed to explain the
rationale for using various crossing techniques. Furthermore, this updated water
crossing table needs to be available to all DEIS reviewers so that comments can be as
pertinent and up to date as possible.
o According to Rev. 11 a of the ACP route, the ACP will, cross Mingo Swamp in
Sampson County; South River (referred to as Black River in the DEIS) in
Cumberland County, and Big Marsh Swamp, Tenmile Swamp and Saddletree Swamp
in Robeson County. While the Updated Master Waterbody Crossing Table lists
crossings for several unnamed tributaries to the waterbodies, the waterbodies
0 themselves do not appear in the updated crossing table. The crossing method for
these waterbodies is needed to provide appropriate comments on the DEIS. Atlantic
should verify that all other waterbodies that will be crossed by the ACP are listed in
the waterbody crossing table.
o The crossing method for Stony Creek in Nash Co., NC has been changed from dam
and pump or flume to open cut. During Neuse River waterdog trapping surveys, NC
spiny crayfish was observed in traps. The NCWRC recommends that Stony Creek be
crossed in the dry or Atlantic provide sufficient rationale explaining why an open cut
is necessary. Also see the previous comment for Page 4-182 regarding the Stream
Crossing Habitat Map for Stony Creek.
46. Page 4-193. Blasting. Blasting should occur in the dry after aquatic species have been
collected and relocated.
47. Page 4-193. Water Appropriation and Discharge. More details are needed in this
section regarding water sources, pump rates, measures to treat discharged water, etc. In
addition, if municipal water sources will be the sole sources of water, the DEIS needs to/-'
reflect this and include details of how this water will be transported and discharged. Ifs
municipal water has any additives such as chlorine or chloromine or if an algicideis
added to the water, it should not be released into surface waters unless it is safe for
sensitive species including amphibians and aquatic invertebrates.
9

NCWRC COMMENTS APRIL 6, 2017
DEIS FOR ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE
48. Page 4-200. Table 4.7.1-1. Indiana bat was heard during acoustic surveys for the ACP
in NC in the following counties: Cumberland, Halifax, Nash, Wilson and Northampton.
Northern long-eared bat was heard during acoustic surveys for the ACP in NC in the
following counties: Halifax, Nash, Wilson, Johnston, Cumberland, Northampton, and
Robeson (all counties except Sampson). During aquatic surveys for the ACP, Neuse
River waterdog was collected from streams in Halifax, Nash and Johnston counties.
Page 4-223 discusses Atlantic sturgeon in the Neuse River but this population is not
included in this table.
49. Page 4-201. Table 4.7.1-1. During aquatic surveys for the ACP, Carolina madtom was
collected from streams in Wilson, Johnston and Nash counties.
50. Page 4-207. Paragraph 2. The first sentence of paragraph 2 indicates that Indiana bats
have potential to occur in WV and VA but does not include NC. Indiana bats were
heard during acoustic surveys for the ACP in NC in the following counties:
Cumberland, Halifax, Nash, Wilson and Northampton. The 4th paragraph on this page
says that Indiana bats were acoustically detected at 27 sites in NC.
51. Page 4-207. Table 4.7.1-2. The table title should specify Acoustic survey results.
52. Page 4-214. Last paragraph. This paragraph should elaborate on the results of
Atlantic's assessment of NLEB activity during winter months in NC. NLEB have been
shown to be active (not hibernating) and present on the landscape during the winter
months in NC. `D
53. Page 4-215. Table 4.7.1-7. The table title should specify Acoustic survey results.
54. Page 4-215. Paragraph 2. While winter tree clearing and avoiding tree clearing during
breeding season months is the preferred methodology, it should be noted that NLEB
have been shown to be active (not hibernating) and present on the landscape during the
winter months in NC.
55. Page 4-218. 4.7.1.5 Red -cockaded Woodpecker. Red -cockaded woodpeckers are also -
known to occur in Cumberland County. In addition to numerous other SGCN in NC,
RCWs are habitat specialists and typically prefer longleaf pine habitat. As such, the
NCWRC recommends that longleaf pine is replanted in all areas where it will be
impacted and/or removed.
56. Page 4-221. Paragraph 1. Atlantic filed the report titled North Carolina Revised Fish
and Other Aquatic Taxa Collection and Relocation Protocol for Instream Construction
Activities on the FERC docket on March 10, 2017.
57. Page 4-221. Paragraph 6. More information is needed about how and where silt
retention barriers may be installed to further reduce downstream sedimentation. The
r)
10

NCWRC COMMENTS APRIL 6, 2017
DEIS FOR ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE
r)
NCWRC recommends additional measures to minimize sedimentation in streams with
sensitive species and in streams crossed by the open cut construction method.
58. Page 4-223. The ACP crosses the Tar River upstream of two impoundments.
59. Page 4-227. Paragraph 3. Carolina madtom was also collected in Swift Creek during
surveys for the ACP. The last sentence of the paragraph regarding the SHP should be
reworded.
60. Page 4-227. Paragraph 6. Regarding the North Carolina Aquatics Relocation Plan, not
only will aquatic animals be removed at all dry crossing sites (Tier 1) during
dewatering, at selected sites identified for Tier 2 removal, animals will be removed
before any in -water work, such as temporary dam construction, begins. This would
also apply to selected crossings that are currently planned for open cut crossings.
While it is true that removal of aquatic animals may result in stress, physical damage or
death, not removing them prior to in -water construction is expected to cause worse
results.
61. Page 4-232. Paragraph 3 of 4.7.1.13 Freshwater Mussels. Although the USFWS has
said that no mussel surveys are needed at HDD sites, mussel surveys have been
conducted at 5 sites planned for HDD: Fishing Creek, Swift Creek, Tar River,
Contentnea Creek. and Little River.
62. Page 4-234. Paragraph 3 of Tar River Spinymussel. Little River is not in the Tar River
system.
63. Page 4-236. Paragraph 1 of Freshwater Mussels Impacts Assessment. While the first
sentence is true, it is somewhat misleading, at least for NC, because freshwater mussels
that are not currently under ESA review will also be relocated. As noted previously,
the North Carolina Aquatics Relocation Plan does not pertain specifically to mussels.
Another document that focuses on mussel relocation is expected to be developed in
April 2017.
64. Page 4-236. Paragraph 2 of Freshwater Mussels Impacts Assessment. Swift River
should be Swift Creek.
65. Page 4-237. Last paragraph. It is unclear what resources are found in Polecat Branch
that would raise a concern.
66. Page 4-264. 4.7.4.3 North Carolina. The NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) is now
located within the NC Department of Natural and Cultural Resources. The NC
Department of Agriculture is responsible for plant conservation. The NHP maintains
and publishes the Rare Plant and Rare Animal lists every two years. These lists report
the regulated State and Federal Status for plants and animals and NHP also identifies
additional categories including "Significantly Rare" and the various levels of "Watch"
11

1
NCWRC COMMENTS APRIL 6, 2017 DEIS FOR ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE
r,
list. These are non -regulatory statuses based upon evaluation of species' level of -
imperilment and level of knowledge of a species' status in the State.
67. Page 4-265. Paragraph 1. The NCWRC also requested surveys for southern hognose
snake, Bachman's sparrow, cerulean warbler, bald eagle and red -cockaded woodpecker.
68. Page 4-265. Paragraph 3. North Carolina does not use NETHCS.
69. Page 4-265. Table 4.7.4.3. The title of this table should be changed. The table does
not list all Federal listed species in NC as the title implies, and it includes species that
are not found along the path of the ACP in NC such as Roanoke logperch and Cape
Fear shiner. Indiana bat should be added to the list for NC to be consistent with other
portions of the DEIS.
70. Page 4-266. Bats. According to the North Carolina Segment Protected Bat Species
Year 2 Presence/Probable Absence Survey Report dated 13 October 2016, a roost tree
for the federal species of concern and state -threatened, Rafinesque's big -eared bat
and/or federal species of concern and state -special concern, southeastern myotis, is
located within the proposed workspace for the ACP. Access road 16 -088 -AR 1, an
existing road, is proposed for regrade and gravel. While the roost tree is not slated for
removal, activity, noise and traffic on the access road may impact bats roosting in this
tree, causing breeding failure or abandonment of pups. The NCWRC recommends
avoiding work in this area until breeding season is over and bats have left the area for
their winter hibernacula.
71. Page 4-266. Freshwater mussels. As mentioned previously, there will be an additional
document detailing freshwater mussel removal and relocation.
72. Page 4-268. Table 4.7.4-4. For NC, Neuse River waterdog, Bachman's sparrow and
southern hognose snake should be added.
73. Page 4-289. Paragraph 3 of Timber Removal. Atlantic should consult with federal and
state agencies if timber removal schedules are altered.
74. Page 4-291. Paragraph 6. Atlantic should consult with federal and state resource
agencies about specific plans to use timber for instream or upland wildlife habitat
diversity structures.
75. Page 4-292. Paragraph 4. Logs and slash should not be yarded across any waterbodies
unless fully suspended, not just across perennial streams.
76. Page 4-296. Paragraph 1. According to the USFWS, communication towers kill an
estimated 4-5 million birds per year. Due to the impacts that wireless communication
facilities have on birds and bats, USFWS has developed guidance on the siting,
construction, operation and decommissioning of communications towers. The
12

NCWRC COMMENTS APRIL 6, 2017
DEIS FOR ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE
01 NCWRC urges Atlantic to comply with as many recommendations as possible,
particularly the use of bird -friendly lighting and the avoidance of guy wires. Please
review the guidance that was issued from the USFWS office in Raleigh, NC:
https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/pdfs/CommunicationTowerGuidanceLetter 12232013.pdf
77. PAGE 4-328. Table 4.8.5-3. The proposed crossing methods in this table are not
consistent with those listed elsewhere in the DEIS or in the updated Master Waterbody
Crossing Table. Fishing River should be Fishing Creek and Black River should be
South River.
78. Page 4-330. Table 4.8.5-4 and bottom of page. Averasborough Battlefield is in Harnett
County, not Johnston County.
79. Page 4-337. Table 4.8.8-1. The proposed crossing methods in this table are not
consistent with those listed elsewhere in the DEIS or in the updated Master Waterbody
Crossing Table. Black River should be South River.
80. Page 4-484. Cumulative Impacts. The Cumulative Impacts section does not adequately
consider the future impacts that will occur as a result of building the ACP to transport
natural gas. This section should also discuss the potential for constructing additional
distribution lines to deliver natural gas to residential customers. Construction of
additional distribution lines has the potential to cause similar impacts to aquatic and
terrestrial resources as those associated with the ACP.
81. Page 4-497. This section needs to be updated based on the Updated Master Waterbody
Crossing Table.
82. Page 4-501. Paragraph 1. This paragraph should be updated per previous comments
regarding Table 4.7.4-4 on page 4-268 and section 4.7.4.3 on page 4-264.
83. Page 5-9. Paragraph 4. The NCWRC is also concerned about forest fragmentation and
the impacts on interior forest and their associated wildlife species resulting from the
proposed ACP. North Carolina provides migratory corridors as well as breeding habitat
for hundreds of species of birds. The loss of habitat and increased fragmentation will
result in edge effect, which will intensify predation, reduce productivity, allow for the
spread of invasive species and displace already imperiled species. The NCWRC agrees
that more information is needed regarding fragmentation analysis, effects of forest edge
creation on wildlife and measures to avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts to interior
forest habitat.
84. Page 5-10. Last paragraph. Not only will aquatic animals be removed during
dewatering, animals will be removed before any in -water work, such as temporary dam
construction, begins. This would also apply to selected crossings that are currently
planned for open cut crossings.
13

NCWRC COMMENTS APRIL 6, 2017
DEIS FOR ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE
85. Page 5-15. This paragraph should be updated per previous comments regarding Table
4.7.4-4 on page 4-268 and section 4.7.4.3 on page 4-264.
Atlantic has continued to provide additional information about the ACP project while the DEIS
is being reviewed. Additionally, some species surveys have not yet been completed due to
landowner access restrictions. These factors make accurately reviewing the DEIS difficult. In
particular, the waterbodies crossed table in Appendix K of the DEIS is now outdated. While
NCWRC received an updated waterbody crossing table, other DEIS reviewers did not. We are
also concerned that there will be no more opportunities to provide comments on the ACP project
after the DEIS comment period ends. Given these concerns, NCWRC recommends a
supplemental DEIS that addresses concerns raised during the comment period and provides
updates to new information supplied by Atlantic since the DEIS was issued. If a supplemental
DEIS is not practical, NCWRC asks to receive the final EIS at the same time as cooperating
agencies, along with the opportunity to provide written comments on the final EIS at this early
time.
The cumulative impacts portion of the DEIS does not adequately account for future impacts to
natural resources resulting from the construction of the ACP and the delivery of natural gas to
portions of eastern North Carolina. We anticipate future infrastructure projects that will
distribute natural gas delivered by the ACP to residential customers. New distribution lines
would be expected to cross waterbodies, fragment forest blocks, reduce wetland functionality
and cause other impacts similar to the ACP. More information is needed about these foreseeable
future impacts that are a direct result of the ACP.
We recognize, as do many of our natural resource partners, that there are likely areas along
the ACP where recommended avoidance and minimization measures (AMMs) for a
species or resource may conflict with recommendations for another. To facilitate our
understanding of where such conflicts may occur, we recommend the creation of
an environmental constraints map and/or table that identifies the AMMs that have been
recommended for each pipeline segment. We recommend that the map be organized by
county and be provided to all natural resource agencies for review. Where there are
identified conflicts between recommendations, the natural resource agencies will work
together to prioritize the AMMs for each county and provide that information to the
applicant and permitting agencies.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply Header Project. Please feel free to contact
me at gabriela.garrison(aDncwildlife.org or [phone] or Vann Stancil at
[e-mail] or [phone] if you have any questions or concerns about
these project comments.
ec: Vann Stancil, NCWRC
John Ellis, USFWS
David Cox, NCWRC
Shannon Deaton, NCWRC
Lyn Hardison, NCDEQ
14