20140957 Ver 2_Draft Response to SW Correction & Add Info for Discussion_20171218

Burdette, Jennifer a
From: Spencer Trichell <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 8:50 AM
To: Burdette, Jennifer a; Higgins, Karen; Richard B Gangle; 'Stu Buchanan'; Steve Holden;
Jacob Rosenberg; Wade Hammer; 'Baksh, Jeremy'; [e-mail];
McRacken, James A.
Subject: [External] ACP ICI Revision Discussion
Attachments: Draft County Cumulative Impacts_12-17-17_Clean Redline.pdf; Draft Attachment 3
_Potential Growth 12172017.pdf
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
report. [e-mail].
All, for discussion this morning, I have attached a red line version of the revised cumulative impact
report for ACP indicating the changes from the previous version.
Regards,
Spencer Trichell
Environmental Consultant - Atlantic Coast Pipeline
Dominion Energy Services, Inc.
5000 Dominion Blvd
Glen Allen, VA 23060
0:(804)-273-3472 M:(804)-263-5980
spencer.trichell(a)-o)
i
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic message contains information which may be legally confidential and
or privileged and does not in any case represent a firm ENERGY COMMODITY bid or offer relating thereto which binds
the sender without an additional express written confirmation to that effect. The information is intended solely for the
individual or entity named above and access by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any
disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have
received this electronic transmission in error, please reply immediately to the sender that you have received the message
in error, and delete it. Thank you.

DRAFT
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality —
Response to Information Request Dated Decem0etaber 14-26, 2017
Item 7
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FOR JOHNSTON, CUMBERLAND AND
ROBESON COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA

Cumulative Impacts Assessment for Johnston, Cumberland and Robeson Counties, North Carolina
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SCOPEAND PURPOSE...............................................................................................................1
SCREENING TOOL RESULTS.........................................................................................3
SCREENINGRESULTS..............................................................................................................3
SCOPEOF THE PROJECT........................................................................................................3
JOHNSTONCOUNTY.......................................................................................................4
CUMBERLANDCOUNTY................................................................................................4
ROBESONCOUNTY.........................................................................................................4
Location of the Pipeline Terminus...........................................................................5
POPULATIONGROWTH...........................................................................................................5
AVAILABLELAND.....................................................................................................................5
WATER/SEWER AVAILABILITY............................................................................................6
NATURAL GAS AVAILABILITY..............................................................................................6
MARKET FOR DEVELOPMENT..............................................................................................7
JOHNSTONCOUNTY.......................................................................................................7
CUMBERLANDCOUNTY................................................................................................7
ROBESONCOUNTY.........................................................................................................8
PUBLICPOLICY..........................................................................................................................8
JOHNSTONCOUNTY.......................................................................................................8
CUMBERLANDCOUNTY................................................................................................9
ROBESONCOUNTY.........................................................................................................9
ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL PROJECT -INDUCED GROWTH.........................................10
JOHNSTONCOUNTY.....................................................................................................10
CUMBERLANDCOUNTY..............................................................................................12
ROBESONCOUNTY.......................................................................................................14
NO -ACTION FORECAST................................................................................................14
ACTIONFORECAST.......................................................................................................15
STORMWATER PERMITTING..............................................................................................17
NOTABLE WATER RESOURCES..........................................................................................18
POTENTIAL IMPACT CAUSING ACTIVITIES...................................................................19
WATERBODIES AND WETLANDS..............................................................................19
INDIRECT EFFECTS CONCLUSION....................................................................................20
INDIRECT SUMMARY STATEMENT.
.20
WATER QUALITY STATEMENT..................................................................................21
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS STATEMENT.......................................................................22
REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................25
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Indirect and Cumulative Effects Screening Matrix .......................................... 3
Table 2 Construction and Operational Impacts (in acres) in Johnston, Cumberland, and
Robeson County, North Carolina...... ..................... 4
Table 3 Developed and Undeveloped Land By County ................................................ 5
Table 4-5 Waterbodies and Wetlands By County..... ...................... 19

Cumulative Impacts Assessment for Johnston, Cumberland and Robeson Counties, North Carolina
Table 56 Waterbody and Wetlands Affected by the Atlantic Coast Pipeline By County
......................................................................................................................... 20
Table 1 Indifeet and r,,mW.,tive E€feets Sefeen.
,
Robeson C;etm�, Nef+h C;afe' n
Table 45 Water -bodies and Wei ................................ in
Table 5
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Cumulative Impacts Study Area....................................................................... 2
ii

Cumulative Impacts Assessment for Johnston, Cumberland and Robeson Counties, North Carolina
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects in Johnston,
Cumberland, and Robeson Counties, North Carolina
Attachment 2 Developed and Undeveloped Land in Johnston, Cumberland, and Robeson
Counties, North Carolina
Attachment 3 General Extent of Potential Growth Areas Identified in Johnston,
Cumberland and Robeson Counties, North Carolina
Attachment 4 Wetlands and Waterbodies Crossed by the Atlantic Coast Pipeline in
Johnston, Cumberland, and Robeson Counties, North Carolina
iii

INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT
Atlantic Coast Pipeline
December 2017
SCOPE AND PURPOSE
The purpose of this analysis is to supplement the qualitative cumulative analysis
requested by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) in its
September 14, 2017 and October 26, 2017 letters. In accordance with NCDEQ guidance,
"Cumulative Impacts and the 401 Water Quality Certification and Isolated Wetland Permitting
Programs," dated April 10, 2014, this analysis evaluates and describes secondary' (hereafter
referred to as indirect) and cumulative impacts that could potentially result from construction
and operation of those portions of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP or Project) within the Study
Area, which has been defined by the NCDEQ as Johnston, Cumberland, and Robeson counties,
North Carolina (see Figure 1). Consistent with North Carolina guidance, this analysis focuses on
the cumulative impacts on downstream water quality standards and designated uses.3 The
analysis addresses whether growth will be induced by the Project, and how the water quality
impacts of such growth will be managed.
The categories listed on the Indirect and Cumulative Effects Screening Matrix below
have been shown to influence land development decisions in numerous areas statewide and
nationally. Each characteristic is assessed individually and the results of the table are analyzed
to determine the indirect effects potential of the proposed project.
This cumulative impacts analysis is focused on water quality, wetlands, and water
resources. A cumulative impact assessment of other resources affected by the ACP was included
in the previous submittal to the NCDEQ on September 29, 2017, and the final environmental
impact statement for the Project prepared by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC). Pursuant to guidance provided in the October 26, 2017, Information Request Letter
from NCDEQ, projects included in the cumulative impacts assessment for the Project were
limited to those within Johnston, Cumberland, and Robeson counties that would be constructed
in a similar timeframe or as a result of the Project. Attachment I summarizes the components of
the Project with potential cumulative impacts identified in each county.
"Secondary impact" means actions, or actions directly linked to an activity, that may affect classified surface waters or
wetlands that would not occur bu for the proposed activity.
2 "Cumulative impact' means environmental impacts resulting from incremental effects of an activity when added to other
past, present, and reasonable forseeable future activities regardless of what entities undertake such other actions.
3 A cumulative impact assessment of other resources affected by the ACP was included in the previous submittal to the
NCDEQ on September 29, 2017, and the final environmental impact statement for the Project prepared by the FERC.

Cumulative Impacts Assessment for Johnston, Cumberland and Robeson Counties, North Carolina
ollfon H�/^ q wcrMnwr
9 8auY1
r G/o
1=0=
` 9r1e Pb
S•
Mull.
0 20
Mles
Tat.r-
O Milepost
Man ACP Mainline Atlantic Coast Pipeline
Pipeline 0 above GrouHd F—lity Figure 1 - cumulative Impacts Study Area
east
FIIE: M�LLeriSQF,➢CMSRPPL,Nrfl ISlOOE,fiepor[S,OOE_Fepert_FyureAjiR3AGP OrnulsOve�mpadz_9WMA`ea_mrtl REVI9FJJ i1R1201T 9CAiE. 1 51B BB3 wfen pnr�d a I IN1] 6]HVM 0v GCC
2
s]an
.y
sa3n
fI
cary Raleigh
x 1<nglvaala wa7ea
;--
•,
p0-.
sle� cnr '-�
v, alnslw.o
eensm
�°
Holy sprngs _ !
4
cl3rlx kw
— Johnsto%
tiff
ry
C
CountyFM"
F r F" Valva
'r.
Smithfield M&R 5"
4small
ANI ,
Contractor Yard"'"
90
sa.rde
rata
4oY Pan
F°ur�L aks
>� f
Sum x
toys °'
/ 100
tree@
L,IIVMan 3
pr,
EWn G.6
110
120
wna�p
-
- Fayetteville
mx ow
Poelnra sonln�rn
,,. `.• M&R
P—
�r���., F a 130
ien Brelp
F., HM1, p'i
-
_
td°iae
YfIM
M�rvmse
r�
Contractor Yard 340 w
t
,
Fov ell 1. I 3 3
Cumberland
County
Clnton
wasax
e25
Raelord
Hope
-
155 f1
150
;
x180"
e��
S
RM Sglry:
170
Lmrinbur9
,.
Pembroke Mi
- -
'- �;
Luny 180ie
v
Pen G°Ne
Robes
L—
4 ElleabelH°wn Lahe
Cnu Le nel�n
a
,I„P.r mem
y
ve. 9slr
�ti
IwR
0
FalrnaH
t75n
r
,ct; s
NRs.
ollfon H�/^ q wcrMnwr
9 8auY1
r G/o
1=0=
` 9r1e Pb
S•
Mull.
0 20
Mles
Tat.r-
O Milepost
Man ACP Mainline Atlantic Coast Pipeline
Pipeline 0 above GrouHd F—lity Figure 1 - cumulative Impacts Study Area
east
FIIE: M�LLeriSQF,➢CMSRPPL,Nrfl ISlOOE,fiepor[S,OOE_Fepert_FyureAjiR3AGP OrnulsOve�mpadz_9WMA`ea_mrtl REVI9FJJ i1R1201T 9CAiE. 1 51B BB3 wfen pnr�d a I IN1] 6]HVM 0v GCC
2

Cumulative Impacts Assessment for Johnston, Cumberland and Robeson Counties, North Carolina
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and North Carolina State
Environmental Policy Act, the indirect and cumulative impacts of the Project and other projects
or actions in the same areas are considered. This analysis uses an approach consistent with the
guidelines set forth by the NCDEQ. Under these guidelines, the inclusion of actions within the
analysis is based on identifying commonalities of impacts from other actions to potential impacts
that would result from the Project.
Screening Tool Results
Based on the information gathered from local land use and development plans and
information from mapping and data reviews, a screening tool was developed.
SCREENING RESULTS
The results of the screening tool are summarized in Table 1 and discussed in more detail
below.
TABLE 1
Indirect and Cumulative Effects Screening Matrix
Notable
Scope of
Population
Available
Water/Sewer
Natural Gas
Market for
Water
Rating
Project
Growth
Land
Availability
Availability
Development
Public Policy
Resources
Major
> 3% annual
5000+
All services
All services
Development
Less stringent,
Targeted or
More
new
population
acres of
existing/
existing/
activity
no growth
threatened
Concern
location
growth
land
available
available
abundant
management
resources
?
X
X
X
T
H
X
X
X
X
X
No
No service
Featured
Very
population
Limited
No service
available
Development
More stringent,
incorporated
Less
limited
growth or
land
available now
now or in
activity
growth
in local
Concern
scope
decline
available
or in future
future
lacking
management
protection
SCOPE OF THE PROJECT
Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC (Atlantic) is proposing to construct approximately
600 miles of mainline natural gas transmission underground pipeline, 81 miles of lateral
underground pipeline, three compressor stations, nine metering and regulating (M&R) stations,
and various appurtenant facilities in West Virginia, Virginia; and North Carolina.
Approximately 100 miles of pipeline and 3 M&R stations would be constructed in Johnston,
Cumberland, and Robeson Counties, North Carolina. The proposed route and facility locations
within the 3 North Carolina counties under review are depicted in Figure 1, above. County -
specific descriptions of proposed facilities are provided below.

Cumulative Impacts Assessment for Johnston, Cumberland and Robeson Counties, North Carolina
Johnston County
The ACP enters Johnston County from the northeast and extends approximately 38 miles
southwest to the border of Cumberland County. The proposed pipeline route passes near the
towns of Kenly, Micro, Selma, Smithfield, Four Oaks, and Benson. Throughout Johnston
County, 12 permanent and 4 temporary access roads would be utilized along the pipeline.
Johnston County has one M&R station, the Smithfield M&R station, which is approximately
5.5 acre in size and located in central Johnston County. The M&R station is in a rural setting
approximately 2.5 miles west from the town of Smithfield.
The ACP would require approximately 616.4 acres of construction workspace in
Johnston County, of which 254.8 acres would be maintained during operations for the permanent
pipeline right-of-way, permanent access roads, and the Smithfield M&R station. Table 2
includes a summary of the construction and operations impacts.
TABLE 2
Construction and Operational Impacts (in acres) in Johnston, Cumberland, and Robeson County, North Carolina
Construction (Temporary and Permanent) Operation (Permanent)
Johnston County 616.4 254.8
Cumberland County 589.1 270.7
Robeson County 313.5 144.3
Total 1,519.0 669.8
Cumberland County
The ACP enters Cumberland County from the northwest and extends approximately
39.7 miles south, then east, to the border of Robeson County. The proposed pipeline route
passes near the towns of Godwin, Wade, Fayetteville, and Stedman. Throughout the county,
16 permanent access roads would be utilized along the pipeline. In Cumberland County, the
Project includes one M&R station, the Fayetteville M&R station, which is an approximately
7.3 acre site located in northern Cumberland County. The M&R station is approximately ten
miles north of the city of Fayetteville and 1.5 miles west from the town of Wade. The area
immediately surrounding the site is rural and contains agricultural fields. The ACP would
require approximately 589.1 acres of construction workspace in Cumberland County, of which
270.7 acres would be maintained during operations for the permanent pipeline right-of-way,
permanent access roads, and the Fayetteville M&R station (see Table 2).
Robeson County
The Project enters Robeson County from the northeast and extends 22.4 miles southwest
to the southern terminus of the ACP. The proposed pipeline route passes by the towns of
St. Pauls and Rennert, and ends approximately 3.3 miles northwest of the town of Pembroke.
The Pembroke M&R station is an approximately 2.5 acre site. The area immediately
surrounding the site is rural and contains agricultural fields. Throughout Robeson County,
12 permanent and four temporary access roads would be utilized along the pipeline. The ACP
would require approximately 313.5 acres of construction workspace in Robeson County, of
which 144.3 acres would be maintained during operation for permanent pipeline right-of-way,
El

Cumulative Impacts Assessment for Johnston, Cumberland and Robeson Counties, North Carolina
permanent access roads, and the Pembroke M&R station (see Table 2). Since the Project would
impact 1,519 acres and crosses through multiple counties, the potential for this project to
contribute to growth and development was rated as High.
Location of the Pipeline Terminus
The ACP was designed in response to a joint request for proposal (RFP) from Duke
Energy and Piedmont Natural Gas in April, 2014. The purpose of the RFP was to support the
anticipated increase in required natural gas transportation capacity and to provide greater
diversity and reliability of natural gas supply for the State of North Carolina. The RFP was
designed to meet the growing needs for natural gas to meet Duke Energy's electric generation
needs in addition to supporting Piedmont's core load growth. Piedmont has an existing pipeline
system used to distribute natural gas to its customers and also provides the delivery mechanism
for wholesale natural gas supplies from ACP to Duke Energy's natural gas fired electric
generating stations. The RFP specifically required a delivery point at a proposed interconnect
between ACP and Piedmont at Piedmont's existing pipeline "Junction A" located in Robeson
County, North Carolina.
POPULATION GROWTH
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Johnston, and Cumberland Counties have
experienced an estimated population increase of 13.3 and 2.3 percent, respectively, from 2010
until early 2016. The population in Robeson County decreased an estimated 0.7 percent from
2010 until 2016. In comparison, the state of North Carolina had an estimated growth of
6.4 percent during this same period. In 2016, the total estimated population of the
three counties was estimated to be 651,812; approximately 6.4 percent of the total population of
North Carolina (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016). Based on the range of population growth from high
in Johnston County to negative in Robeson County, the potential for this project to contribute to
population growth was rated as Moderate.
AVAILABLE LAND
Table 3 summarizes the undeveloped land in Johnston, Cumberland, and Robeson
Counties based on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gap data (USGS, 2011). Attachment 2
provides figures illustrating the extent of developed and undeveloped land in each county.
Availability of land in Johnston, Cumberland, and Robeson Counties, does not appear to be
limiting; therefore, the potential for this Project to contribute to development based on the
availability of land is rated as High.
TABLE 3
Developed and Undeveloped Land By County
Total Land (Acres) Developed Land (Acres) Undeveloped Land (Acres)
Johnston 372,241 30,754 341,487
Cumberland 369,271 69,063 300,208
Robeson 608,654 36422 572,232

Cumulative Impacts Assessment for Johnston, Cumberland and Robeson Counties, North Carolina
WATER/SEWER AVAILABILITY
Municipal water service is available for the majority of Johnston County; sewer services
are mainly only available for the western portion of the county (Johnston County, 2017).
Municipal water and sewer services are available for portions of Cumberland County, mainly in
the areas in and around the City of Fayetteville (Cumberland County, 2017). In Robeson
County, larger municipalities such as Lumberton, Pembroke, Fairmont, Red Springs, and
St. Pauls, all have municipal water and sewer systems; however these services are lacking in
unincorporated towns (Robeson County, 2014). The figures in Attachment 2 illustrate the
general distribution of sewer and water services for the three counties. For Johnston and
Cumberland Counties, this information is based on the Geographic Information System (GIS)
mapping tools available online for each county (Johnston County, 2017; Cumberland County,
2017). Robeson County did not have available GIS data; as a result, the distribution of sewer
and water services depicted in the Robeson County figure is based on the boundaries of
municipalities identified as containing water and sewer service (Robeson County, 2014). Based
on the availability of municipal water and sewer in the developed or developing areas of
Johnston, Cumberland, and Robeson Counties, the potential for the Project to contribute to
water/sewer availability is rated as Moderately Low.
NATURAL GAS AVAILABILITY
Natural gas service is currently available in larger municipalities of Johnston County such
as Benson, Clayton, Smithfield, and Selma; expansion of these services is ongoing (Johnston
County, 2017). Natural gas utilities are available in the large municipalities of Cumberland
County such as Fayetteville; however, there is limited information available on the extent of
distribution in other areas of the county (Cumberland, 2010). Natural gas availability is limited
in Robeson County. In 2010, it was estimated that approximately 60 to 70 percent of homes in
Robeson County are farther than 0.25 mile away from a gas distribution line (Robeson County,
2014).
While county -specific data is limited, some data and analysis on a state-wide scale is
available. Increased natural gas use by power generators is driving demand in North Carolina.
The electric power sector is the state's largest natural gas -consuming sector. The industrial
sector led the state in natural gas consumption until 2012, when the electric power sector became
the largest user for the first time. The residential sector is the third-largest natural gas -
consuming sector in the state. About one-fourth of North Carolina households use natural gas
for home heating (U.S. Energy Information Agency, 2017).
Existing interstate pipelines have historically transported natural gas into North Carolina,
including Williams (Transco system), TransCanada (Columbia Gas system), and Enbridge (East
Tennessee system). ACP would be an additional carrier of natural gas supply into North
Carolina and would provide a new source of gas. According to the U.S. Energy Information
Agency (EIA), the State of North Carolina utilized 522 MM cubic feet of natural gas in 2016.
ACP would be capable of transporting up to 1.5 MM cubic feet per day to delivery points in
Virginia and North Carolina.
Cel

Cumulative Impacts Assessment for Johnston, Cumberland and Robeson Counties, North Carolina
Based on the expected increase in availability of natural gas in the developed or
developing areas of Johnston, Cumberland, and Robeson Counties, the potential for the Project
to contribute to the availability of natural gas was rated as High.
MARKET FOR DEVELOPMENT
Johnston County
With transportation improvements, approved development, and availability of suitable
land, The Johnston County 2030 Comprehensive Plan estimated 42,500 new dwelling units and
accompanying non-residential growth would occur across the county. It is suggested that future
growth demands should benefit from municipal planning initiatives, decisions and investments
already in place (Johnston County, 2009).
In northern Johnston County, a steady, long-term increase in economic activity due to the
County's proximity to the Research Triangle Park in Durham and Wake Counties has
transformed what had long been an agrarian area to a more diverse mix of urban, agricultural,
and forested landscapes. Conversely, the southern portion of the county has seen little or no
growth due to a limited real estate market, less available public transportation, and limited water
and sewer infrastructure development. According to the County's 2009 comprehensive plan,
Johnston County has experienced significantly high growth rates overall since 1990, a trend that
has continued through 2017.
Urban development is most intense in the western part of the county; however, residential
developments are becoming increasingly dense in central Johnston County between the towns of
Selma and Pine Level. According to the County Comprehensive Plan, additional development
within these two communities "is both likely and desirable." The County Comprehensive Plan
anticipates future municipal annexations (Johnston County, 2009).
According to the Johnston County Planning and Zoning Department Annual Report
(Johnston County Planning and Zoning Department, 2016), there were 611 plats for new
subdivisions reviewed and signed in 2016. This was the most plats signed in one year since the
county assumed map review responsibility in 2009. In 2015, there were 523 plats signed. The
county reported 1,200 subdivision lots recorded or permitted in 2016. Additionally,
1,637 single-family housing units are proposed in the near future. The Report indicates that
development and housing demand is strong, due in -part to steady job and population growth, as
well as, the replacement of existing aging homes (Johnston, 2017).
Cumberland County
Cumberland County is within the Fayetteville Metropolitan Statistical Area. Existing and
future development in the county is centered on Fayetteville and the surrounding area. Other
towns where growth is likely to occur include those along the I-95 corridor. These towns include
Eastover, Falcon, Hope Mills, Spring Lake, and Wade. Another driver for development stems
from housing needs associated with Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base.
The Cumberland County Community Development published the Housing Market
Analysis in 2015 that gave a number of conclusions and recommendations regarding housing
7

Cumulative Impacts Assessment for Johnston, Cumberland and Robeson Counties, North Carolina
needs and developments goals. The Analysis found that housing costs are relatively inflated and
workers in lower -wage jobs are priced out of affordable housing. The analysis acknowledges a
housing shortage that needs to be addressed through new construction and rehabilitation of
vacant properties (Cumberland County, 2015).
Robeson County
Robeson County's future growth and market for development will likely occur near
Lumberton, Maxton, Pembroke, Red Springs, and Saint Pauls. Development corridors in the
county are generally adjacent to the I-95 and I-74 which bisect the county. Based on a review of
city and county websites, press releases, and public documents, there is no information on major
developments pending as of December 2017.
Based on the current and planned development in the entire stud,, a�Johnston,
Cumberland, and Robeson Counties the potential for the Project to support the market for
development was rated as Moderate. At the county level however, only Johnston and
Cumberland County were rated as Moderate, while Robeson was rated as having a Low
potential for Project -supported market development. This distinction is needed because Robeson
County is more characteristically rural, has a steadily declining population, and is less affluent
than Johnston and Cumberland Counties. Furthermore, Robeson County is located furthest from
the state's growth centers and large metropolitan areas where development is more likely to
occur.
PUBLIC POLICY
Johnston County
Several public policy documents influence land use planning and development in
Johnston County. In addition to the County Comprehensive Plan many of the municipalities in
Johnston County have their own comprehensive plans to direct future growth. The towns of
Four Oaks, Clayton, Smithfield, and Selma all have such plans. Planning efforts are coordinated
between municipality governing bodies and the county. Johnston County and local municipal
governments created the Municipal Transition District (MTD) to aid in land use planning and
development. The MTD allows for greater residential densities in some areas to promote
efficient development near existing urban areas. MTDs are more readily served by existing
services and utilities and discourage sprawling suburban development into agricultural areas in
rural Johnston County.
Development in Johnston County is anticipated to occur in existing communities along
the I-95 corridor that have established MTDs. These communities include Kenly, Micro, Selma,
Smithfield, Four Oaks, and Benson. Other cities where development is likely to occur are
Clayton and Princeton. The Annual Report (2016) indicates that the majority of building permits
and recorded lots/subdivisions are within the MTDs of the aforementioned communities. This
demonstrates the general trends of planned and realized development scenarios.
N.

Cumulative Impacts Assessment for Johnston, Cumberland and Robeson Counties, North Carolina
Cumberland County
Cumberland County has adopted a 2030 Growth Vision Plan and a Land Use Policies
Plan (Cumberland County, 2008). The Cumberland County Joint Planning Board divided the
county into several land use planning study areas.
The Cumberland County 2030 Growth Vision Plan shows that the Northeast part of the
county includes open space, farmland, residential, commercial, and industrial land (Cumberland
County, 2011). Rural residential and suburban tract development is relatively dense in some
portions of this section of Cumberland County.
The Draft Wade Study Area Detailed Land Use Plan addresses the City of Wade and
surrounding areas. This includes the land -use designated "Farmland," and areas within the Wade
City limits which are planned for low density residential use, but are currently undeveloped.
The South Central Land Use Plan covers the section of the county south of the Cape Fear
River to the Robeson County line. With the exception of a one -mile strip of land south of the
Cape Fear River to Rainey Road, the land use is designated as "Farmland." Despite this
designation, there are numerous housing tracts with parcels of less than one acre. The land
between the Cape Fear River and Rainey Road is designated for "One Acre Mixed Housing
Types." The Cumberland County zoning ordinance does not specifically address natural gas
transmission pipelines; however, the ordinance contains a "Use Matrix" indicating that
public/community utility stations/substations are allowable in all zoning districts (Cumberland
County, 2010).
The stated overarching goal of land use planning in Cumberland County is to concentrate
development around Fayetteville and maintain traditional agricultural land use in the rural areas
of the county (Cumberland County, 2011). In general, the residents envision Southeast
Cumberland Area remaining a rural farming community intermixed with some small
concentrated residential areas, very limited commercial, and lots of natural areas. This is
accomplished by establishing Farmland Protection Areas throughout the county and limiting
services and utilities to rural areas to control urban development outside of established planning
areas.
Robeson County
Future development in Robeson County is directed, in part, by the goals stated in the
Robeson County Comprehensive Plan (Robeson County, 2014). The Robeson County
Comprehensive Plan was developed to outline goals for enhancing the quality of life for
residents. The plan supports long-term economic growth and protection of natural areas while
providing land -use patterns to support economic development.
The Plan's future land use map seeks to direct growth in and near Municipal Planning
Jurisdictions including Lumberton, Maxton, Pembroke, Red Springs, and Saint Pauls.
Robeson County is largely undeveloped with the majority of existing lands classified as
agricultural lands, rural residential, or vacant. There is no unincorporated land in the county that
M

Cumulative Impacts Assessment for Johnston, Cumberland and Robeson Counties, North Carolina
is zoned. As an estimated minimum, 4,500 new dwellings will be required by 2030 correlating
with population growth (Robeson County, 2014).
Based on the Public Policy designed to control expected growth for Johnston,
Cumberland, and Robeson Counties, the potential for the Project to contribute to public policy
goals was rated as Moderate.
ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL PROJECT -INDUCED GROWTH
The three -county study area could experience project -induced growth if the ACP is
constructed. As examined earlier in this report, there are several existing conditions that help
inform a no -action forecast, which describes the future condition in the absence of the ACP, and
an action forecast, which describes conditions in the future following the implementation of the
ACP. The following analysis considers population growth, available land, water/sewer
availability, natural gas availability, market for development, and public policy to provide a no -
action and action forecast for the study area.
Johnston County
Johnston County has the fastest growing population of the three counties in the study
area. Johnston County's population grew 13.3 percent from 2010 to 2016 and has an estimated
population of 191,450 persons (U.S. Census Bureau). The majority of the county land area is
classified as undeveloped, which consists largely of agricultural land producing cotton, tobacco,
peanuts, soybeans, and various specialty crops. Within Johnston County are dozens of
commercial and industrial zoned properties for sale including existing buildings and shovel -
ready greenfield lots that have sewer and water access. In general, these properties are located
along the major highway and interstate corridors (Johnston County Economic Development
Office, 2017).
There are multiple growth drivers in Johnston County. The county is located east of the
State Capitol of Raleigh in Wake County. The area forming the Wake County / Johnston County
border has recently developed as an expanding commercial and housing market attracting retail
and residential opportunities for thousands of new residents. It is estimated that over 70% of all
new building permits issued within Johnston County occur within this western portion of the
county (Johnston County Economic Development Office, 2017a). As a result of this growth,
average daily traffic counts have increased on the interstate highway networks and four -lane
divided highways of US 70 Business and Bypass. Over one million cars per month traverse the
north/south corridor established by Interstate 95. An even larger volume of traffic utilizes US
Highway 70 between I-95 and the Raleigh Metropolitan Area (NCDOT, 2017). As anticipated,
retail sales have increased, reflecting the expanded population base as well as shopping patterns
of commuters. Johnston County annually exceeds $1 billion per year in retail sales (Johnston
County Economic Development Office, 2017a).
Access to transportation is an important factor in the Johnston County's overall growth
potential. Railroads within Johnston County have impacted development of the 11 major
municipalities. CSX Transportation and Norfolk Southern Corporation provide rail service to
many local industries as well as passenger service for Amtrak. These two railroads converge at
10

Cumulative Impacts Assessment for Johnston, Cumberland and Robeson Counties, North Carolina
Selma, North Carolina west of Exit 98 on Interstate 95. The Raleigh-Durham International
Airport (RDU), with over 100 departures per day, is 30 miles from Clayton. In addition to the
RDU airport, the Johnston County Airport Authority operates an airport located west of
Smithfield. The airport maintains a 5,500 -foot long, 100 -foot wide runway that supports 65,000
pounds for dual -gear aircraft (AirNav, 2017).
Growth potential is also encouraged by existing access to energy. Piedmont Natural Gas
operates and maintains a 10 -inch natural gas main that generally traverses Johnston County from
east to west. In addition to transmitting quantities of gas, numerous two-inch and four -inch
laterals extend from this line to provide gas service to the towns of Benson, Clayton, Smithfield,
Selma, and Wilson's Mills (Rextag, 2017)
Electricity in Johnston County is currently provided by several different electrical
distributors. They include Progress Energy (formally Carolina Power & Light), ElectriCities,
and South River EMC (Johnston County Economic Development Office, 2017a). The Towns of
Smithfield, Selma, Benson, and Clayton provide electrical service through their membership to
North Carolina ElectriCities. The majority of the county has electrical service provided by
Progress Energy.
Utilities such as water and wastewater services are managed by the county and
independently by several county municipalities. The county has a 12 million gallon per day
(mgd) surface water treatment plant and bulk water purchase agreements with public utilities in
adjacent counties. The total supply capacity is 17.6 mgd. A 24" and 16" diameter pipeline
network extends east/west and north/south generally tracking US Hwy. 70 and Interstate 95. The
transmission network is supported by interconnecting 16" and 12" mains, 17 booster pumping
stations, and 11 elevated tanks with an aggregate storage volume of 3.8 million gallons. The
Towns of Benson, Clayton, Kenly, and Princeton operate separate wastewater treatment plants
while the Towns of Smithfield, Selma, Pine Level, Four Oaks, and a portion of the Town of
Clayton's service areas are treated by the Central Johnston County Wastewater Treatment Plant
located in Smithfield. The Central Regional Plant has a capacity of 9.5 mgd (Johnston County
Public Utilities, 2017).
In Johnston County there are several large manufacturing firms that represent the
county's major employers and whose expansion would constitute a significant increase in
employment. Some of those manufacturers include Grifols Therapeutics, Novo Nordisk
Pharmaceutical, Flanders Airpure, Caterpillar, and Air Flow Products (Johnston County
Economic Development Office, 2017a). Information on manufacturers or industries expanding
or entering Johnston County is not known at this time.
There are several specific areas of potential growth identified in Johnston County in the
Land Use Plan. The Plan identifies future land uses broadly into Primary Growth Areas,
Secondary Growth Areas, and Agricultural / Rural Conservations Areas. Primary Growth Areas
are defined as areas in which high levels of growth pressures currently exist or are anticipated in
the near term. That majority of Primary Growth Areas surround the Town of Clayton several
miles beyond the town limits and town planning jurisdiction. Other Primary Growth Areas are in
the vicinity of Micro, Pine Level, Princeton, Selma, and Smithfield. Most of the anticipated
growth in Johnston County is near Clayton, which is heavily influenced by the Raleigh
11

Cumulative Impacts Assessment for Johnston, Cumberland and Robeson Counties, North Carolina
metropolitan area. The figure in Attachment 4 shows the general extent of potential growth areas
in Johnston County.
Secondary Growth Areas are areas in which low to moderate levels of growth pressures
are anticipated over the next 20 years. These areas encompass almost the entire northwest half
of the county in anticipation of continued development around Clayton, I-95, and Highway 70.
The southern portion of the county is much more rural in character and is identified as
Agricultural/Rural Conservations Areas. These are areas in which low levels of growth
pressures are anticipated over the next 20 years and are identified by the County Land Use Plan
as under consideration for rural conservation and agricultural preservation programs.
Cumberland County
Cumberland County is the most populous county in the study area at 324,000, but has
grown gradually between 2010 and 2016 with a population increase of 2.3 percent (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2016). Cumberland County's land area is dominated by its largest city, Fayetteville,
whose urban areas encompass nearly one-third of the county's land area.
The Cumberland County Growth Plan identifies Growth Strategy Areas to guide
development and land use decisions. As mentioned, a significant portion of the county is
classified as Urban Areas and has a full range of urban services in place, or is well located for
provision of urban services. Urban Areas are the county's the top priority areas for planning,
programming, and providing public urban services such as centralized water and sewer, parks,
schools, police, fire and rescue services, garbage service, storm water systems, streets & roads,
transit, cultural facilities, sidewalks, streetlights, and other amenities. To encourage
development in these areas, local government entities may provide incentives in the form of
density bonuses, infrastructure subsidies, or other advantages. New development densities
should be higher than four units per acre (Cumberland County, 2011). By using density bonuses
and development subsides, the county incentivizes dense, urban development over development
in the county's rural and agricultural land.
Most important to the county's future growth and development are those areas designated
as Urban Fringe. Urban Fringe Areas are located to the north of Fayetteville, south of Hope
Mills, and in the area between Eastover, Wade, and Stedman. Urban Fringe Areas include those
parts of the county that are not currently urban in character but that, during the planning period,
are likely to reach a level of development requiring urban services. These areas may have some
services already in place including, particularly, centralized water and sewer. Other services,
including stormwater management, are likely to be in place here within the planning period. The
county considers Urban Fringe Areas as a secondary area for planning, programming, and
providing public urban services. Although local governments will not discourage development
in these areas, the public sector will not provide incentives for development. Those parts of the
Urban Fringe that have good soils and drainage, are not in the floodplain, have road capacity
available, and have sewer service nearby should generally be developed at 3 or more units per
acre (Cumberland County, 2011). Land areas constrained by poor soils and/or lack of
topography and resulting flooding problems should generally be developed at lower densities.
12

Cumulative Impacts Assessment for Johnston, Cumberland and Robeson Counties, North Carolina
Development capacity in Cumberland County is also carried by Community Growth
Areas. Community Growth Areas are located around the smaller incorporated communities in
Cumberland including Linden, Godwin, Falcon, Stedman, Eastover, and Wade (Cumberland
County, 2011). These communities normally provide for a full range of urban services through a
combination of municipal and county services. The use of community funds for planning,
programming or providing urban services in these areas is left up to local policy makers in each
community in keeping with community goals. Community Growth Areas may be developed at a
variety of development densities and land use types to meet the housing, business, and
employment needs of area residents. The figure in Attachment 4 shows the general extent of
potential growth areas in Cumberland County.
Development is discouraged in Cumberland County's Rural Areas and Conservations
Areas. These areas are suitable for low intensity residential development with on-site waste
disposal. Premature development of Rural Areas to urban level development and the resulting
loss of valuable farmland and open space is discouraged (Cumberland County, 2011).
Conservation Areas provide for the long-term management and protection of significant, limited,
or irreplaceable natural areas (e.g. riparian buffers along streams, Natural Heritage Areas, critical
wildlife habitat, wetlands, public parks, scenic sites, land trust and other non -profits properties,
historic sites, unique natural features, etc.). Conservation of the natural, cultural, recreational,
scenic or ecologically productive values of these areas is preferred over development in these
areas of Cumberland County and the county discourages the provision of urban services to these
areas that could stimulate development.
There are multiple shovel -ready and developed industrial and commercial sites located in
the county that are marketed by the Fayetteville Cumberland County Economic Development
Corporation. The majority of available sites, include some large industrial parks, are located
along the I-95 corridor around Fayetteville (FCEDC, 2017). These areas coincide with the
county's preferred development locations within Community Growth Areas and Urban Fringe
Areas.
From a development standpoint, the county promotes itself as a growth center and
leverages its location as a benefit to potential manufacturing and logistics operators.
Cumberland County is located within an eight-hour drive to two-thirds of the U.S. population
and has access to several major ports including Wilmington, Morehead City, and Charleston.
Also nearby are Raleigh and the Research Triangle Park, one of the most prominent high-tech
research and development parks in the country with over 200 companies employing 50,000
workers and 10,000 contractors (RTP, 2017).
Cumberland County has Class I rail service from Norfolk Southern and CSX, as well as
regional rail service from the Aberdeen, Carolina & Western. Fayetteville Regional Airport
(FAY) has frequent service to Washington, Charlotte, and Atlanta, with a 7,709 -foot runway that
accommodates larger business and cargo jet traffic (Airnav, 2017).
Cumberland County hosts a variety of industries that have the potential for future growth.
Top manufacturing employers include Goodyear Tire, Purolator Filters, and Eaton Corporation
(Alliance, 2017). A significant economic engine is Fort Bragg. There are approximately 6,000
people exiting the military from Fort Bragg every year and many choose to stay in the county,
13

Cumulative Impacts Assessment for Johnston, Cumberland and Robeson Counties, North Carolina
thereby maintaining a trained workforce and large labor pool for local employers (FCEDC,
2017).
Robeson County
Robeson County is the least populous county in the study area at 135,000 persons. The
population decreased by 0.7 percent between 2010 and 2016 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016).
Robeson is the most characteristically rural of the counties in the study area but has several
potential growth centers in and around the communities of Saint Pauls, Lumberton, Red Springs,
Pembroke, and Fairmont. The figure in Attachment 4 shows the general extent of potential
growth areas in Robeson County.
Robeson County, compared to the other counties, possesses geographic and infrastructure
characteristics that are less suited to enabling future growth. As with Cumberland County, most
East Coast destinations are within a day's trucking distance from Robeson County, and a full
70% of U.S. and Canadian markets (and 170 million consumers) can be reached overnight.
Southeastern North Carolina is also a crossroads for rail service, and a major deep water port is
60 miles to the east (RCED, 2017).
Robeson County is explicit about courting growth and economic development in its
Comprehensive Plan. The county is actively seeking to encourage growth and combat
unemployment through a variety of measures including: increasing the number of state certified
industrial sites; increasing the availability of natural gas, including access to 6-8 inch lines; and
expanding municipal sewer services to both industrial/business and housing sites (Robeson
County, 2014). Approximately 60%-70% of the county by land area is not within 0.25 mile of a
transmission or distribution gas main. This lack of infrastructure is deemed a deterrent to growth
by the county and may act as a barrier to entry for potential industrial and commercial users.
Currently, the Robeson County Economic Development is advertising the sale and lease of
multiple industrial sites around Lumberton that could enable growth and development under the
right market conditions.
Robeson County contains several properties that are designated as Certified Sites under
the North Carolina Certified Sites Program. Certified Sites meet various criteria that make them
shovel -ready for development. The properties are equipped with all the information companies
and site selectors need to develop detailed timelines for development, construction, budgeting,
cost control, risk mitigation and planning (NCDOC, 2017).
No -Action Forecast
The no -action forecast for the study areas differs from community to community and
largely depends on macro -economic considerations that supersede many of the county and
community level conditions discussed in this report. However, there are growth indicators that
can be extrapolated for the purpose of making a no -action forecast.
If the ACP does not proceed, it is likely that the overall population trends and projections
will continue, which will result in continued growth in the study area. Where the growth occurs
can be inferred based on public policy, land cost, and access to infrastructure and utilities as
discussed above.
14

Cumulative Impacts Assessment for Johnston, Cumberland and Robeson Counties, North Carolina
In Johnston County, it is reasonable to forecast increasing urbanization and growth over a
wide geographic area that would proceed regardless of the ACP. Raleigh has such a large
influence over growth and development in the region that one could anticipate significant growth
in and around Clayton, which will extend to the smaller communities along the I-95 and
Highway 70 corridors. Relatively speaking, the towns of Pine Level and Princeton stand to see
the most dramatic growth if industrial users locate or expand in the area south of I-95 along
Highway 70.
In Cumberland County it is assumed that growth and development will continue
gradually based on the strengths of new tech industries and a strong labor market maintained, in
part, by proximity to Fort Bragg, which is an economic multiplier for Fayetteville and the county
as a whole. Proximity to the Research Triangle Park also favors development because tech
services and manufacturing firms tend to benefit greatly from economies of agglomeration. In
accordance with the county's 2030 growth Strategy Map, one could reasonably assume steady
growth and continued development to the north of Fayetteville, southwest of Hope Mills, and
perhaps more pronounced growth in the unban fringe areas between Stedman and Eastover.
In Robeson County, very modest growth or stagnation could be expected based on
existing conditions. This no -action forecast is based on the declining population, lack of
growing industry, high -unemployment, and a need for increased gas delivery and infrastructure.
Impacts of state subsidies and pro -development policies could encourage growth and
development, though certain market conditions would need to be met to entice capital
expenditures. In a growth scenario one might anticipate the success of the Certified Sites and
growth in and around the communities of Pembroke, Lumberton, and Saint Pauls.
Action Forecast
The action forecast for the implementation of the ACP is informed by demand for natural
gas observed in North Carolina. The ACP would serve the growing energy needs of multiple
public utilities and local distribution companies (LDCs) in North Carolina. Based on current
customer commitments, approximately 79.2 percent of the natural gas transported by the ACP
will be used as a fuel to generate electricity for industrial, commercial, and residential uses. The
remainder of the natural gas will be used directly for residential (9.1 percent), industrial (8.9
percent), and commercial and other uses such as vehicle fuel (2.8 percent). By providing access
to low-cost natural gas supplies, the ACP will increase the reliability and security of natural gas
supplies in North Carolina.
In recent years, demand for natural gas in North Carolina has grown
significantly. Demand for natural gas for all uses grew by 78 percent in North Carolina between
2009 and 2013. Demand for gas-fired electric power generation grew by 417 percent in North
Carolina from 2009 to 2014 (EIA, 2015a, 2015b, 2015c, 2015d, and 2015e).
Demand for natural gas in North Carolina is expected to increase in coming decades due
to a combination of population growth and displacement of coal-fired electric power
generation. The U.S. Census Bureau predicts 4.2 million new residents in North Carolina
between 2000 and 2030 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014). At the same time, use of natural gas for
power generation is expected to increase significantly. By 2035, natural gas is expected to
15

Cumulative Impacts Assessment for Johnston, Cumberland and Robeson Counties, North Carolina
surpass coal as the most common fuel for electric power generation due to coal-fired plant
retirements and low natural gas prices. The EIA (2015a) expects renewable generation to grow
2.0 percent per year from 2013-2040, meeting a part of the demand for power, but more than 60
percent of new generating capacity needed from 2025 to 2040 will be fueled by natural gas.
A study prepared by ICF International (2015) projects that electric power generation in
North Carolina will increasingly rely on natural gas over the next two decades. As a result,
demand for natural gas for power generation in North Carolina is expected to grow 6.3 percent
annually between 2014 and 2035, increasing from 1 to 3.7 billion cubic feet per day.
There are currently no interstate natural gas transmission pipelines that supply eastern
North Carolina. A new source of natural gas would bring with it the opportunity to enable major
manufacturing to locate in the eastern part of the state. The types of manufacturing could include
those that typically require large quantities of natural gas (tire, glass, automotive, agricultural,
pulp and paper, chemical, specialty fabrics, and lumber). In correspondence with local economic
development officials, there have been extensive studies to analyze the industry sectors that are a
fit for southeast North Carolina. There are multiple industry sectors that are drawn to natural gas
infrastructure when considering where to locate or expand their operations including food
manufacturing, agribusiness, advanced manufacturing (e.g. automotive and aerospace), and
industries serving the Department of Defense. For example, North Carolina is actively trying to
recruit the Toyota/Mazda Project (Charlotte Observer, 2017). If North Carolina is successful, it is
projected that numerous product suppliers would also locate in nearby counties. Potential users
would look to the rural areas east of Randolph County, within the study area, due to access to
ACP and the I-95 corridor.
The action forecast, which describes conditions in the future following the
implementation of the ACP, anticipates growth and development in Johnston County. In a recent
correspondence with the Johnston County Economic Development (JCED) office, a
representative there stated that Johnston County is at an extreme disadvantage in siting major
commercial/industrial development due, in part, to the way that site data is collected and scored
to inform decisions on where to build manufacturing and other facilities for large corporate
users. Johnston County is often dropped from consideration by those searching for
commercial/industrial sites because of the lack of natural gas access. In the opinion of the JCED,
the implementation of ACP and the corresponding availability of natural gas will help foster
development and economic growth in Johnston County (JCED, 2017b). Considering the
implementation of ACP, coupled with continued population growth and ample transportation
access, it is reasonable to assume that the action forecast for Johnston County would be favorable
to increased growth potential compared to the no -action forecast.
The action forecast for Cumberland County also assumes increased growth and
development based on the increased availability of natural gas infrastructure. In a recent
correspondence with the Fayetteville Cumberland Economic Development Corporation
(FCEDC), it was explained that the elected bodies in Cumberland County desire to attract, grow,
and diversify the county's industrial base to increase tax revenues and create job opportunities
for residents. In the absence of the ACP, some sectors will be able to continue growing;
however, there are industries that the county could not accommodate in terms of infrastructure
and lack of natural gas (FCDEC, 2017a). The ACP would provide natural gas that could remedy
C[:

Cumulative Impacts Assessment for Johnston, Cumberland and Robeson Counties, North Carolina
this aspect of the Cumberland County's competitive disadvantage at attracting
commercial/industrial users. Given the favorable economic conditions present in Cumberland
County supported by high-tech industry and existing transportation infrastructure, it is reasonable
to assume that the action forecast would be favorable to growth and development.
The action forecast for Robeson County can be characterized as having the potential for
only modest increases in development. Unlike Johnston and Cumberland County, the potential
for Project -induced growth in Robeson County is low due to a combination of development
obstacles that include a declining population, lack of utility infrastructure, and separation from
development hubs in Fayetteville and Raleigh. The low growth assumption is based on ACP
bringing natural gas infrastructure to several sites marketed under the North Carolina Certified
Sites Program. State and County involvement with economic development policy could provide
incentives for business to locate in Robeson and the availability of gas infrastructure may
provide the missing infrastructure component that could draw users looking for less expensive
developable land away from the established technology and manufacturing centers in and around
Raleigh and other communities in the study area. However, due to the slower population growth
and diminished market for development in Robeson County, the action forecast is tempered
compared to Johnston and Cumberland County.
STORMWATER PERMITTING
Stormwater permitting requirements are not uniform in North Carolina. Often, regulatory
regimes in North Carolina differ from county to county, town to town, and sometimes cross
multiple jurisdictions to protect specific river basins and watersheds. In many cases, a
construction stormwater permit, usually concerning erosion and sediment control, will be
required if development disturbs more than one acre of land. Post -construction stormwater
permitting, dealing with increases in impervious surfaces, is location -specific in North Carolina.
Post -construction stormwater permits are often required at the state, county, and town level due
to the project footprint falling within areas with state and local stormwater programs
simultaneously.
Nearly all of Johnston County falls under the jurisdiction of the Johnston County
Stormwater Management Program (Johnston County Public Utilities, 2017). The program was
adopted with goal of reducing the amount of nitrogen delivered to the Neuse River Basin from
point and non -point sources by a minimum of 30 percent of the 1995 -loading rate. Wastewater
treatment plants and industrial plants are considered point source discharges. Point source
discharges are regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
administered through the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of
Water Quality (DWQ). Non -point source discharges originate from rainfall or snow melt
flowing across lawns, streets, parking lots, agricultural fields, forests, industrial sites,
construction sites, etc.
In May 1998, the Johnston County Board of Commissioners adopted the Johnston
County Stormwater Management Ordinance. The intent of the ordinance was to protect streams
from the secondary impacts of development. Later in 1998, the Environmental Management
Commission adopted the Neuse River Basin — Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy:
Basin -wide Stormwater Requirements (Neuse Rules). In those rules, Johnston County was
17

Cumulative Impacts Assessment for Johnston, Cumberland and Robeson Counties, North Carolina
identified as one of 15 local governments required to adopt a stormwater program specifically
addressing nitrogen reduction.
Cumberland County has two primary stormwater regulatory regimes. The North Carolina
DWQ oversees the majority Cumberland County's stormwater permitting through the NPDES
Stormwater Phase II Final Rule. The Phase II program expands the Phase I program by
requiring additional operators of municipal sewer systems in urbanized areas and operators of
small construction sites, through the use of NPDES permits, to implement programs and
practices to control stormwater runoff. Phase II is intended to further reduce adverse impacts to
water quality and aquatic habitat by instituting the use of controls on the unregulated sources of
stormwater discharges that have the greatest likelihood of causing continued environmental
degradation. North Carolina is an EPA delegated state for the federal NPDES program and
implements this program through the DWQ (North Carolina DEQ, 2017). The City of
Fayetteville in Cumberland County also administers a Stormwater Program encompassing the
Fayetteville metropolitan area. Under the requirements of the Stormwater Phase II regulations,
the City of Fayetteville independently maintains its stormwater utility to fund its program
activities.
Robeson County is not under the jurisdiction of the NPDES Stormwater Phase II Final
Rule. However, a delineation process is underway to add the towns of Lumberton and Red
Springs as Phase II Designation Candidates. If these areas are delineated, post -construction
stormwater and other Phase II requirements would apply (NCDEQ, 2017aJ
Robeson, Johnston, and Cumberland County are all participants in the North Carolina
Water Supply Watershed Protection Program. The Program applies to areas within the
designated Public Water Supply Watersheds with the purpose of protecting the state's drinking
water supplies through inventorying and establishing critical areas, protected areas, and creating
buffering requirements for protecting surface waters. The Environmental Management
Commission gives authority to local administrators to issue Watershed Protection Permits and
Watershed Protection Occupancy Permits according to the provisions of the ordinance.
ACP and all other developments occurring within the jurisdiction of the aforementioned
stormwater permitting authorities in North Carolina are required to conform with ordinances and
regulations adopted at the state and local level. The provisions of the stormwater permitting
ordinances anticipate and mitigate stormwater impacts for a variety of development sizes and
types. Based on the comprehensive stormwater permitting regulations in place in North
Carolina, Atlantic anticipates that cumulative impacts would result in minimal adverse impacts
on the affected watersheds.
NOTABLE WATER RESOURCES
Johnston, Cumberland, and Robeson Counties include portions of 6 major watersheds in
the State of North Carolina:
Upper Cape Fear and Lumber Watersheds (Robeson and Cumberland Counties);
Little Pee Dee Watershed (Robeson County);
18

Cumulative Impacts Assessment for Johnston, Cumberland and Robeson Counties, North Carolina
• Upper Neuse Watershed (Johnston County);
• Contentnea Watershed (Johnston County);
• Black Watershed (Johnston and Cumberland Counties); and
• Lower Cape Fear Watershed (Cumberland County).
The major rivers flowing through the counties include the middle or lower reaches of the
Neuse, Cape Fear, and Lumber rivers and their tributaries.
Table 4 summarizes the wetlands and waterbodies in Johnston, Cumberland, and
Robeson Counties based on National Wetlands Inventory data and the National Hydrography
Dataset (USGS, 2017; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS], 2017).
The figures in Attachment 2 illustrate the wetland and waterbodies present in the three
counties. Based on the amount of wetlands and waterbodies in Johnston, Cumberland, and
Robeson Counties, this category is rated as Moderately -Low.
POTENTIAL IMPACT CAUSING ACTIVITIES
Waterbodies and Wetlands
Waterbodies are defined by the FERC as "any natural or artificial stream, river, or
drainage with perceptible flow at the time of crossing, and other permanent waterbodies such as
lakes and ponds." The term "waterbodies," as used here, is best understood as those water
features — excluding wetlands — that are potentially subject to jurisdiction under the Clean Water
Act. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Environmental Protection Agency jointly
define wetlands as "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions."
19
TABLE 4
Waterbodies and Wetlands
By County
Johnston County
Cumberland County
Robeson County
Waterbody Classifications
Miles of Waterbodies
Canal/Ditch
13
192
414
Intermittent
1,286
499
965
Perennial
748
812
1,031
Waterbody Total
2,047
1,503
2,410
Wetland Classifications
Acres of Wetlands
Open Water
7,538
7,241
3,306
Emergent
497
949
5,091
Scrub -Shrub
3,607
11,148
15,943
Forested
62,817
58,987
147,366
Wetland Total
74,459
78,325
171,706
The figures in Attachment 2 illustrate the wetland and waterbodies present in the three
counties. Based on the amount of wetlands and waterbodies in Johnston, Cumberland, and
Robeson Counties, this category is rated as Moderately -Low.
POTENTIAL IMPACT CAUSING ACTIVITIES
Waterbodies and Wetlands
Waterbodies are defined by the FERC as "any natural or artificial stream, river, or
drainage with perceptible flow at the time of crossing, and other permanent waterbodies such as
lakes and ponds." The term "waterbodies," as used here, is best understood as those water
features — excluding wetlands — that are potentially subject to jurisdiction under the Clean Water
Act. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Environmental Protection Agency jointly
define wetlands as "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions."
19

Cumulative Impacts Assessment for Johnston, Cumberland and Robeson Counties, North Carolina
Atlantic corresponded with the USFWS to determine which streams are sensitive based
on the presence, or anticipated presence of species protected under the Endangered Species Act
(16 U.S. Code §1531 et seq.). The FERC (lead federal agency) and the USFWS determined that
no North Carolina aquatic species would "likely be adversely affected" based on communication
between the two agencies. A summary of waterbodies and wetlands delineated along the ACP in
Johnston, Cumberland, and Robeson Counties is provided in Table 5. Figures illustrating the
wetlands and waterbodies crossed by the ACP are included as Attachment 3.
Cumulative effects on surface water resources impacted by construction and operation of
the Project in Johnston, Cumberland, and Robeson Counties, North Carolina would be limited to
waterbodies that are affected by other projects located within the same watershed (see
Attachment 1). Atlantic would minimize impacts on waterbodies and wetlands by implementing
its sediment and erosion control plan (S&ECP) and adhering to all applicable state and federal
permit conditions. Atlantic has developed the S&ECP using the FERC Plan and Procedures4,
and the North Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual. To further
minimize impacts, USFWS identified sensitive waterbodies within the Project area. Atlantic
would implement enhanced erosion and sediment control measures at these crossings.
INDIRECT EFFECTS CONCLUSION
Indirect Summary Statement
The North Carolina Administrative Code adopts the federal definition of indirect impacts
as impacts that "are later in time or further removed in distance." (Council on Environmental
Quality 1986, 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1508.8). The majority of land
development outside of the proposed Project is expected to occur within or near urban areas of
Johnston, Cumberland, and Robeson Counties. The Project has been routed to avoid urban areas
and areas with planned developments identified during the routing process. According to the
4 Refers to the 2013 versions of the FERC's Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan (Plan) and
Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures (Procedures)
20
TABLE 54
Waterbody
and Wetlands Affected by the Atlantic Coast Pipeline By County
Johnston County
Cumberland County
Robeson County
Waterbody Classifications
Waterbody Affected Bank Length (Feet)
Ephemeral
560
2,205
540
Intermittent
2,215
5,055
1,813
Perennial
1,493
3,430
1,232
Waterbody Total
4,268
10,690
3,584
Wetland Classifications
Wetlands Affected (Acres)'
Palustrine Emergent
1.2
4.6
2.6
Palustrine Forested
82.4
81.5
54.4
Palustrine Scrub -Shrub
4.5
21.2
18.0
Wetland Total
88.1
107.2
75.0
' Acreage of wetland within the construction footprint.
Cumulative effects on surface water resources impacted by construction and operation of
the Project in Johnston, Cumberland, and Robeson Counties, North Carolina would be limited to
waterbodies that are affected by other projects located within the same watershed (see
Attachment 1). Atlantic would minimize impacts on waterbodies and wetlands by implementing
its sediment and erosion control plan (S&ECP) and adhering to all applicable state and federal
permit conditions. Atlantic has developed the S&ECP using the FERC Plan and Procedures4,
and the North Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual. To further
minimize impacts, USFWS identified sensitive waterbodies within the Project area. Atlantic
would implement enhanced erosion and sediment control measures at these crossings.
INDIRECT EFFECTS CONCLUSION
Indirect Summary Statement
The North Carolina Administrative Code adopts the federal definition of indirect impacts
as impacts that "are later in time or further removed in distance." (Council on Environmental
Quality 1986, 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1508.8). The majority of land
development outside of the proposed Project is expected to occur within or near urban areas of
Johnston, Cumberland, and Robeson Counties. The Project has been routed to avoid urban areas
and areas with planned developments identified during the routing process. According to the
4 Refers to the 2013 versions of the FERC's Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan (Plan) and
Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures (Procedures)
20

Cumulative Impacts Assessment for Johnston, Cumberland and Robeson Counties, North Carolina
counties' comprehensive plans, future development activities are anticipated for the areas around
Selma, Pine Level, Fayetteville, and Lumberton, which the ACP largely avoids, but with
additional infrastructure could be served by new sources of natural gas in the county.
Customers of the ACP in North Carolina have indicated that the majority of the gas
would be used for power generation, with the remainder for commercial, industrial, and
residential customers. Natural gas transported by the ACP would provide an alternate source of
fuel, increased reliability, and support projected growth, and would be but one of several factors
potentially contributing to growth in the study area. While it is not possible to identify specific
growth or development that would be likely to result from the additional natural gas availability,
it is assumed that the Project would support existing planned development in the study area and
may induce growth in other areas. In Johnston County, ACP could increase development around
communities such as Micro, Pine Level, Princeton, Selma, Smithfield and Clayton.
Development can also be anticipated along the Highway 70 and I-95 corridors, areas crucial to
the transportation of raw materials and finished goods. In Cumberland County, increased
development may be seen in around Fayetteville, Eastover, Wade, Falcon, and Hope Mills.
Robeson County could see more moderate development around Lumberton and specific site
development at the North Carolina Certified Site locations in the county. In most cases,
commercial and industrial development is anticipated which may spur growth in residential
development. Depending on the availability of existing housing stock and potential increased
demand of additional housing stock, ACP might encourage redevelopment of urban areas or
encourage new construction in a more suburban setting.
The Project would have direct wetlands/waterbodies impacts on the areas crossed, and
could have indirect impacts on wetlands/waterbodies outside of the immediate vicinity of the
pipeline right-of-way, aboveground facilities, and access roads depending on the scale and
location of development activities undertaken as a result of increased natural gas availability.
Atlantic has no commitment to potential customers or reasonably foreseeable plans to
extend ACP beyond the current terminus. Because there is no planned expansion that can be
scoped or analyzed, the potential for extension of the pipeline is not addressed in this report.
Water Quality Statement
Atlantic would avoid or minimize direct impacts on wetlands and waterbodies by
implementing mitigation measures and requirements outlined in the federal, state, and local
authorizations issued to the Project. This includes measures outlined in the USACE Section 404
permit and the S&ECP plan developed for the ACP that incorporates requirements from the
FERC Plan and Procedures and the North Carolina General Permit to Discharge Stormwater
under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System for Construction Activities, general
permit NCGO10000. The S&ECP plan review is being coordinated with NCDEQ staff out of the
Raleigh and Fayetteville Regions. Atlantic would follow the requirements of the Section 404
permit, the general permit NCGO 10000, and the approved S&ECP plan to minimize potential
impacts on wetlands and waterbodies.
The ACP would cross one 303(d) impaired water, Moccasin Creek in Johnston County,
which is impaired for benthos. As noted above, Atlantic would follow the requirements of
21

Cumulative Impacts Assessment for Johnston, Cumberland and Robeson Counties, North Carolina
general permit NCGO10000 and the approved S&ECP plan to minimize potential impacts on
waterbodies, including Moccasin Creek.
It is unlikely that significant or permanent indirect effects to waterbodies would result
from construction activities within the stream channels and adjacent banks of the waterbodies.
Short term increases in sedimentation and turbidity could result from in -stream construction
activities, trench dewatering, and storm water runoff from construction areas. These impacts are
expected to primarily be limited to in -stream construction. Impacts are expected to be short-
term, given that waterbody crossings would occur as quickly as possible and stabilization of the
construction area would occur immediately after the crossing of each waterbody, so that
conditions would be stabilized shortly after stream restoration activities are complete.
Direct impacts to the majority of affected wetlands are anticipated to be short-term.
Temporary impacts on wetlands would occur within the construction limits of disturbance, with
long-term conversion of forested and scrub -shrub to emergent wetlands due to maintenance of
the pipeline right-of-way according to the FERC Procedures and U.S. Department of
Transportation requirements. The majority of the impacts would be temporary as revegetation
would occur through reseeding with and reestablishment of native vegetation after construction.
As a result, Atlantic does not anticipate significant direct and indirect impacts to water quality.
Some proposed access roads associated with the ACP would be built within floodplains.
Atlantic would implement design criteria based on the No -Rise Certification required for
construction projects within a designated Special Flood Hazard Area. Floodplain management
regulations (44 CFR Section 60.3 (d)(3)) prohibit any encroachment or modification of
regulatory floodways unless hydrologic and hydraulic analysis can demonstrate that the action
would not increase flood levels. This analysis must be reviewed and approved by a professional
engineer. Review of the application and analysis would be conducted by either the county or
deferred to the State. The proposed pipeline for the ACP Project would be buried underground.
As a result, floodplains along the pipeline route would not be modified except temporarily during
construction. Following the completion of construction activities, contours would be restored to
preconstruction conditions to the extent practicable.
As noted in the sections above, there are various zoning restrictions, land use plans, and
regulatory programs that serve to control impacts to water resources in the three impacted
counties. These programs and instruments would apply to any direct or indirect development
that would result from the proposed ACP.
Cumulative Effects Statement
As with most linear projects, water resources such as wetlands and streams cannot be
completely avoided because of the extensive and reticulated nature of the waterbodies. Atlantic
has worked with the FERC, USACE, USFWS, and North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission staff to incorporate adjustments to the pipeline route or adopt alternative
construction measures to avoid waters of the U.S. with special ecological value where feasible.
In addition, Atlantic has incorporated dry crossing methods at each waterbody crossing in North
Carolina at the request of the NCDEQ, with an option of coordinating review of site-specific
conditions where dry or difficult construction conditions are present.
22

Cumulative Impacts Assessment for Johnston, Cumberland and Robeson Counties, North Carolina
Loss of wetlands associated with the Project in the three Counties under review would be
limited to 0.54 acre (0.17 acre in Johnston County and 0.37 acre in Cumberland County) which
are all attributable to improvements to permanent access roads. Where a permanent loss of
waters of the U.S. is unavoidable, Atlantic has proposed compensatory mitigation to offset
impacts within the associated watershed and to mitigate impacts to a no more than minimal level.
In addition, as part of the Section 404 review process, Atlantic has proposed compensatory
mitigation for impacts that do not constitute a loss of waters of the U.S., but would result in a
permanent conversion of forested or scrub/shrub wetlands (e.g., forested wetlands converted to
emergent wetlands due to long term maintenance of the right-of-way).
The direct impacts associated with construction are planned to occur in an expedient and
efficient manner such that impacts on the waterbody and in the case of streams, the impacts to its
banks are temporary in nature. Based on the short duration and nature of the waterbody
crossings, Atlantic anticipates that cumulative impacts would result in minimal adverse impacts
on the waterbodies within the watershed basin and sub -basins crossed.
Atlantic has also identified other projects that are recent, underway, or planned within the
three counties crossed by the ACP (Attachment 1). Among these projects, 4 proposed projects
associated with Piedmont Natural Gas are connected to the ACP:
• Piedmont Natural Gas Facility Modifications at the Smithfield M&R Station in
Johnston County;
• Piedmont Natural Gas Facility Modifications at the Fayetteville M&R Station in
Cumberland County;
• Piedmont Natural Gas Facility Modifications at the Pembroke M&R Station in
Robeson County; and
• Piedmont Natural Gas 26 miles of 20 -in Diameter Pipeline in Robeson County
The three Piedmont M&R station projects would involve modifications to piping
associated with connections to the ACP delivery and measurement of natural gas. The proposed
pipeline addition would provide a connection to an existing power plant. All of these projects
are subject to federal and state regulatory review and approval, which would address any impacts
to water resources.
It is expected that other projects, including housing, industrial, and commercial
developments, Department of Transportation projects, and other energy projects would all be
subject to state and federal regulatory review and approval. Any project affecting wetlands or
waterbodies within the three counties would be required to obtain permits from the USACE and
NCDEQ Division of Water Resources and adhere to the permit requirements. Projects would
also be required to obtain and adhere to local floodplain permit requirements. Stormwater
permitting in Johnston,— and Cumberland, ara RebesCounties is ffiai4y-managed at the state
level but development projects also need to adhere to applicable local programs, including the
Johnston County Stormwater Management Program and the City of Fayetteville Stormwater
Program. All three counties are participants in the North Carolina Water Supply Watershed
23

Cumulative Impacts Assessment for Johnston, Cumberland and Robeson Counties, North Carolina
Protection Program, which works to protect the States' drinking water supplies through
inventorying and establishing critical areas, protected areas, and creating buffering requirements
for protecting surface waters. Based on the permitting programs discussed above, the cumulative
impacts on water resources from other projects would be adequately minimized.
Although Robeson County is not subject to the NPDES Stormwater Phase II Rule, the
cumulative effects to wetlands, waterbodies, and water quality from Project -induced growth and
development would likely be minimized for number of reasons. First, the growth projection for
Robeson County is lower than the other counties in the study area and does not contribute to the
action forecast assumptions to the extent predicted in Johnston and Cumberland County.
Second, the demographics and market for development suggest that any new development in
Robeson County would leverage existing commercial and industrial sites located in Lumberton
where attention to watershed Drotection and stormwater retention infrastructure exists.
The most significant mitigating factor in the cumulative effects analysis would be the
likely concentration of development at Robeson County's five North Carolina Certified Sites,
three of which are located in existing industrial parks. Certified Sites have several water
resource protections measures within the site certification process. To meet certification criteria,
the program requires a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA). The ESA must be less
than four years old in order to keep the certification valid. Also required is a wetlands
determination and waterbodies map that report on the location of jurisdictional wetlands and
waterbodies. If jurisdictional wetlands or waterbodies are present and must be disturbed, a
Wetland Mitisation Plan is reauired.
The Certified Sites program m requires that the site/park must be outside of protected
designated Watershed Areas. If not, the site/park must be specifically, exempted by the
appropriate local governmental agency, and evidence of a site's exemption status must be
provided in a letter staring that the development is an approved use of the Watershed Area or is
compatible with the approved Watershed Use Ordinance/Plan (EDPNC, 2017). Because of the
Certified Sites Program requirements, project -induced development impacts on the State's water
resources would be mitigated in Robeson County.
In summary, due to the need to comply with existing watershed protection regulations
and programs, the implementation of specialized construction techniques, the relatively short
construction timeframe at any one location and carefully developed resource protection and
mitigation plans, minimal cumulative effects are anticipated when the impacts of the ACP are
considered along with the projects identified in Attachment 1. The additional natural gas being
brought to the area is expected to result in indirect development in Johnston, Cumberland, and
Robeson County, particularly in areas where other utilities (i.e., municipal water and sewer) are
already present. As with the ACP, these other projects would also be required to adhere to state
and federal water quality regulations and permit requirements, limiting the potential for adverse
cumulative impacts on water quality. In addition, many of the projects are spatially separated
from the Project, reducing the likelihood of significant water quality impacts.
24

Cumulative Impacts Assessment for Johnston, Cumberland and Robeson Counties, North Carolina
REFERENCES
AirNay. 2017. Airport Information. Available online at: htlp://www.aimay.com/airports/.
Accessed November 2017.
Charlotte Observer. 2017. Toyota -Mazda auto plant could land in North Carolina. Available
online at: httn://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/business/articlel66729887.html.
Accessed December 2017.
Council on Environmental Quality. 1986. 40 CFR 1508.8(b). Indirect effects.
Cumberland County. 2008. 2030 Growth Vision Plan Policies and Actions. Available online at:
https://www. co. cumberland.nc.us/planning/downl oads/growth/203 0_ Growth_ Vision_ PI
an_Sept08_032709_P1Bdcopy.pdf. Accessed October 2017.
Cumberland County. 2010. Cumberland County 2010 Land Use Plan. Available online at:
http://www.co.cumberland.nc.us/plannin /2g 010 growth plan.aspx. Accessed November
2017.
Cumberland County. 2011. Cumberland County 2030 Growth Vision Plan. Available Online
at: httn://www.co.cumberland.nc.us/nlanniniz/downloads/land use/Northeast Studv/
Vision Northeast Study03-23-2011.pdf. Accessed October, 2017.
Cumberland County Community Development Department. 2015. Consolidated Plan 2015-2020
Housing Market Analysis. Available online at: https://www.co.cumberland.nc.us/docs/
default-source/communi . -development-documents/housing market anal_
cumberland.pdf?sfvrsn=d4cd0229_0. Accessed November 2017.
Cumberland County. 2017. Cumberland County website. Available online at:
htlp://www.co.cumberland.nc.us/. Accessed November 2017.
Economic Development Alliance of Fayetteville and Cumberland County, North Carolina. 2017.
Top Employers for Cumberland County, NC. Availaible online at:
http://www.fayedc.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Top-Emplopdf. Accessed
December 2017.
Economic Development Partnership of North Carolina. 2017. Certified Sites Version 6.1.
Available online at:
httns://www.nccommerce.com/Portals/ 12/Documents/Certified%20 Sites/Certified- Sites -
Guidelines _ March%202017.pdf. Accessed December 2017.
Fayetteville Cumberland County Economic Development Corporation. 2017. Available Land.
Available online at: htlp://www.fUedc.com/sites-buildings/available-land/. Accessed
December 2017.
Fayetteville Cumberland County Economic Development Corporation. 2017a. Email
correspondence with FCEDC President and CEO Robert Van Geons dated December 6,
2017.
25

Cumulative Impacts Assessment for Johnston, Cumberland and Robeson Counties, North Carolina
ICF International. 2015. The Economic Impacts of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline. Prepared by
ICF International for Dominion Transmission, Inc. February 9, 2015. Available online
at https://www.dom.com/library/domcom/pdfs/gas-transmission/atlantic-coast-pipeline/
acp-icf-study_pdf. Accessed November 2017.
Johnston County. 2009. 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Available online at: htlp://www.johnston
nc.com/mainpage.cfm?category_level_id=766. Accessed October 2017.
Johnston County Economic Development Office. 2017. Available Properties Interactive Map.
Available online at: http://www.johnstonnc.com/ed2/EDMap.html. Accessed November
2017.
Johnston County Economic Development Office. 2017a. Information for Developers. Available
online at: http://wwwjcnced.com. Accessed November 2017.
Johnston County Economic Development Office. 2017b. Email correspondence with JDEC
Director Chris Johnson dated December 5, 2017.
Johnston County Planning and Zoning Department. 2016. Johnston County Planning and Zoning
Department Annual Report. Available online at: http://www.johnstonnc.com/mainpage
.cfm?category _level_id=74I&content id=4034. Accessed November 2017
Johnston County. 2017. Johnston County website. Available online at: Johnston County Public
Utilities. 2017. Johnston County Public Utilities website. Available online at:
http://www.johnstonnc.com/. Accessed November 2017.
Johnston County Public Utilities. 2017. Johnston County Public Utilities website. Available
online at: htlp://www.johnstonnc.com/. Accessed November 2017.
North Carolina DEQ. 2017. Stormwater Program website. Available online at:
htlps://deg .nc. Dov/about/divisions/energy-mineral-land-resources/energy-mineral-land-
permits/stormwater-permits/phase-ii-designations. Accessed November 2017.
North Carolina DEQ. 2017a. Phase II Designations. Available online at:
https://deq.nc. gov/about/divisions/energy-mineral-land-resources/energy-mineral-land-
permits/stormwater-permits/phase-ii-designations. Accessed December 2017.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. 2017. Interactive Traffic Volume Map. Available
online at: htlps://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/State-Ma]2ping/Pages/Traffic-Volume-
Maps.aspx. Accessed November 2017.
Research Triangle Park. 2017. RTP, Who we are. Available online at: htlps://www.rtp.org/about-
us/. Accessed December 2017.
Rextag. 2017. U.S. Infrastructure. Available online at: htlps://rextag.com/natural-gas-amp-misc.
Accessed November 2017.
W

Cumulative Impacts Assessment for Johnston, Cumberland and Robeson Counties, North Carolina
Robeson County. 2014. Comprehensive Plan with a Health & Wellness Component. Available
online at: http://publichealth.southemregionalahec.org/robeson/docs/3-10-
2014%20DRAFT%20Robeson%20County%20Comp%20Plan.pdf. Accessed October
2017.
Robeson County Economic Development. 2017. Infrastructure. Available online at:
https://www.robesoncounlyoed.org/copy-of-about-1. Accessed December 2017.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2014. 2005 Interim State Population Projections. Available online at
https://www.census.gov/population/prof ections/data/state/proj ectionsagesex.html.
Accessed October 2014.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2016. Quickfacts Census Data. Available online at:
htlps://www.census. gov/guickfacts/fact/table/NC,j ohnstoncounlynorthcarolina,cumberla
ndcountynorthcarolina,robesoncountynorthcarolina/POP060210. Accessed October,
2017.
U.S. Energy Information Agency. 2017. North Carolina Profile Data, State Profile and Energy
Estimates. Available online at: htlps://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=NC. Accessed
November 2017.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2015a. Annual Energy Outlook 2015. Available
online at http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/. Accessed June 2015.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2015b. Market Trends; Electricity Demand.
Available online at htip://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/MT electric.cfm. Accessed June
2015.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2015c. Market Trends; Natural Gas. Available online
at http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/mt_natural gas.cfm. Accessed June 2015.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2015d. Natural Gas Summary for Virginia. Available
online at htlp://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng sum _lsum_dcu_SVA _a.htm. Accessed June
2015.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2015e. Natural Gas Summary for North Carolina.
Available online at http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng sum lsum dcu SNC a.htm.
Accessed June 2015.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2015f. Natural Gas Pipelines in the Southeast Region.
Available online at htlp://www.eia.gov/pub/oil gas/naturalgas/analysis Publications/
ngpipeline/southeast.html. Accessed November 2017.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017. National wetland Inventory. Available online at:
https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/nwi/index.html. Accessed October 2017.
U.S. Geological Survey. 2011. USGS Land Cover GAP Data: Vegetation Data. Available
Online at: https://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/data/
27

Cumulative Impacts Assessment for Johnston, Cumberland and Robeson Counties, North Carolina
U.S. Geological Survey. 2017. National Hydrography Dataset. Available online at:
http://nhd.usgs.gov/data.html. Accessed October 2017.
28

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality —
Response to Information Request Dated October 26, 2017
Item 7
Attachment 1
PAST, PRESENT, AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE PROJECTS IN
JOHNSTON, CUMBERLAND, AND ROBESON COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA

1-1
ATTACHMENT 1
Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects in Johnston,
Cumberland, and Robeson Counties,
North
U.S. Highway to
Carolina
Interstate Highway
Closest
Piedmont
Johnston
Piping
Intersects at
Construction in
No
Distance and
Natural Gas
Potential
modifications and
the
Winter of 2018
Direction
Wetland /
additions for
Smithfield
Common
From
Waterbody
Project Name
Proponent
Counties
Description
Project
Status
Impacts?
Selma -Wake 230
Duke Energy
Johnston
Construction of line
12.6 miles
In Progress -
Yes
kV Line
tap
west of MP
Summer 2015
Johnston
Line relocation
4.3 miles
Anticipated
Yes
78.0
through Winter
east of MP
Spring 2016
2017
I-40 Widening —
North Carolina
Johnston
Road widening
20.4 miles
Anticipated in
Yes
Southeast Raleigh
Department of
Summer 2017;
northwest of
Fall 2018
to Clayton Project
Transportation
status unknown
MP 86.5
Duke Energy
Johnston
Line replacement
(NCDOT)
Anticipated
No
kV Line
U.S. 70 Corridor
NCDOT
Johnston
Raleigh to
Intersects
In development
Yes
103.0
through
Morehead City
near MP
Winter 2016;
major road
92.2
1-1
expansion from
U.S. Highway to
Interstate Highway
Piedmont Facility
Piedmont
Johnston
Piping
Intersects at
Construction in
No
Modifications
Natural Gas
modifications and
the
Winter of 2018
additions for
Smithfield
interconnect at the
M&R
Smithfield M&R
Station
Station
Lee -Selma 115 kV
Duke Energy
Johnston
Line relocation
4.3 miles
Anticipated
Yes
Line
east of MP
Spring 2016
95.0
through
Summer 2017;
status unknown
Erwin -Selma 230
Duke Energy
Johnston
Line replacement
9.5 miles
Anticipated
No
kV Line
west of MP
Summer 2015
103.0
through
Winter 2016;
status unknown
Complete 540
North Carolina
Johnston
Completion of
Location
Anticipated
Yes
Department of
Highway 540 toll
unknown
Spring 2018 to
Transportation
road
Spring 2022
Solar Farm
Robert &
Johnston
New solar farm
Abutting
Completed 2015
Yes
Wellons Inc.
Smithfield
-2017
M&R
Station
R-3410 Road
NCDOT
Johnston
Widening NC 42
17 miles
Right-of-way
Yes
Widening
from NC 50 to US
northwest
acquisition is
70
not scheduled to
begin before
2023
I-4739
NCDOT
Johnston
Intersection
15 miles
In Development,
No
Intersection
Improvement at
west
Construction
Improvement
Cleveland Road and
date unknown
Cornwallis Road
I-5111
NCDOT
Johnston
Widening 1-40 from
18 miles
2019
Yes
I-440 to NC42
West
1-1

1-2
ATTACHMENT 1
Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects in Johnston,
Cumberland, and Robeson Counties,
North
Carolina
Closest
Distance and
Potential
Direction
Wetland /
Common
From
Waterbody
Project Name
Proponent
Counties
Description
Project
Status
Impacts?
U-3334
NCDOT
Johnston
Extending Booker
4 miles West
In Development,
Yes
Dairy Road
Construction
date unknown
Piedmont Facility
Piedmont
Cumberland
Piping
Within the
Construction in
No
Modifications
Natural Gas
modifications and
Fayetteville
Winter 2018
additions for the
M&R
interconnect at the
Station
Fayetteville M&R
Station
Fayetteville Outer
NCDOT
Cumberland
New road
6.3 miles
In progress —
Yes
Loop
construction and
west of MP
2016 through
existing road
133.0
2020
improvements
Fort Bragg
Duke Energy
Cumberland
Install reconductor
12.8 miles
In progress —
No
Woodruff —
line
west of MP
Fall 2014
Manchester
134.0
through
Spring 2017;
status unknown
Erwin -Fayetteville
Duke Energy
Cumberland
Relocate structures
7.7 miles
Completed in
Yes
115 kV — Change
for NCDOT project
northwest of
Spring 2015
and Relocate
MP 142.0
Fayetteville Fort
Duke Energy
Cumberland
Line relocation
15.0 miles
In progress —
Yes
Bragg 230 kV Line
west of MP
Winter 2014
— I-295 Bypass
142.0
through Spring
2016; status
unknown
Fayetteville
Duke Energy
Cumberland
Install new tap line
2.7 miles
In progress —
No
Vander 115 kV
west of MP
Summer 2014
Line — Tap to
142.0
through Spring
Vander
2016; status
unknown
Fayetteville
Duke Energy
Cumberland
Install new tap line
6.8 miles
In progress —
No
Dupont 115 kV
west of MP
Winter 2014
Line — Cumberland
142.0
through Spring
Solar
2016; status
unknown
Fayetteville
Duke Energy
Cumberland
Install new tap line
6.8 miles
Completed in
No
Dupont 115 kV
west of MP
Summer 2015
Line — Grays Creek
142.0
Tap
Fayetteville
Duke Energy
Cumberland
Install line switches
6.8 miles
In progress —
No
Dupont 115 kV
west of MP
Winter 2014
Line — Line
142.0
through Winter
Switches
2016; status
unknown
Fayetteville Fort
Duke Energy
Cumberland
Line relocation
16.4 miles
Completed in
Yes
Bragg 230 kV Line
west of MP
Winter 2015
— Clifdale Road
142.0
1-2

1-3
ATTACHMENT 1
Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects in Johnston,
Cumberland, and Robeson Counties,
North
Carolina
Closest
Distance and
Potential
Direction
Wetland /
Common
From
Waterbody
Project Name
Proponent
Counties
Description
Project
Status
Impacts?
Richmond — Fort
Duke Energy
Cumberland
Install transmission
21.8 miles
In progress —
Yes
Bragg 230 kV
loop
west of MP
Summer 2015
147.0
through Fall
2018
U.S. 401 Corridor
NCDOT
Cumberland
Road expansion
Unknown
Anticipated
Yes
Study
study
environmental
impact
statement date
2015; Not
funded
McClauren
McClauren
Cumberland
36 -lot residential
Crossed
Construction
Yes
Subdivision
Subdivision
development
schedule
unknown
St. Pauls Johnson
Johnson
Robeson
New asphalt plant
2.2 miles
In progress —
Yes
Brothers Facility
Brothers
southeast of
Phase I
Utility and
MP166.6
completed in
Paving
July 2014
Company
Weatherspoon
Duke Energy
Robeson
Install tap for solar
2.8 miles
In progress —
Yes
Plant — Fayetteville
facility
southeast of
Fall 2014
Solar Farm Tap
MP 167.0
through Spring
2016; status
unknown
Weatherspoon
Duke Energy
Robeson
Install tap for solar
2.3 miles
In progress —
Yes
Plant — Solar Tap
facility
southeast of
Fall 2014
MP 167.0
through
Summer 2016;
status unknown
Weatherspoon
Duke Energy
Robeson
Replace existing
10.6 miles
Anticipated —
No
Plant — LOF 115
structures
south of MP
Winter 2016
kV Structure
170.0
through Spring
Replace
2017; status
unknown
Weatherspoon-
Duke Energy
Robeson
Line relocation
11.6 miles
In progress —
Yes
Raeford 230 kV
northwest of
Summer 2015
Line Relocate
MP 170.0
through Fall
2018
Weatherspoon-
Duke Energy
Robeson
Line replacement
May
In progress —
Yes
Raeford 230 kV
intersect
Summer 2015
Line Replacement
near MP
through Spring
170.0
2017; status
unknown
I-95 Diverging
NCDOT
Robeson
Intersection
9.2 miles
In progress —
Yes
Diamond
improvement
south-
anticipated
Interchange in
project
southeast of
completion in
Lumberton
MP 178.0
Spring 2016;
status unknown
1-3

1-4
ATTACHMENT 1
Summer 2016;
Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects in Johnston, Cumberland, and
Robeson Counties,
North
Weatherspoon
Duke Energy
Robeson Replace existing
Carolina
In progress — No
Plant — Marion 115
structures
south of MP
Winter 2015
kV Structure
Closest
180.0
through Spring
Replace
Distance and
2016; status
Potential
unknown
Direction
Piedmont
Wetland /
Intersects at
Anticipated Yes
Common
Natural Gas
From
the
Waterbody
Project Name
Proponent
Counties
Description
Project
Status
Impacts?
Weatherspoon —
Duke Energy
Robeson
Convert to remote
3.2 miles
Complete —
No
LOF 115 kV
Piedmont
Piedmont
control
south of MP
Spring 2014
Aboveground
Natural Gas
modifications and
Pembroke
Winter of 2018
180.0
through Fall
additions for the
M&R
interconnect at the
2015
Weatherspoon
Duke Energy
Robeson
Replace structures
21.4 miles
In progress —
No
Plant — Delco
southeast of
Winter 2015
MP 180.0
through
1-4
Summer 2016;
status unknown
Weatherspoon
Duke Energy
Robeson Replace existing
14.2 miles
In progress — No
Plant — Marion 115
structures
south of MP
Winter 2015
kV Structure
180.0
through Spring
Replace
2016; status
unknown
Piedmont Pipeline
Piedmont
Robeson 26 miles of 20 -inch
Intersects at
Anticipated Yes
Natural Gas
natural gas pipeline
the
Winter of 2018
Pembroke
M&R
Station
Piedmont
Piedmont
Robeson Piping
Within the
Construction in No
Aboveground
Natural Gas
modifications and
Pembroke
Winter of 2018
Facilities
additions for the
M&R
interconnect at the
Station
Pembroke M&R
Station
1-4

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality —
Response to Information Request Dated October 26, 2017
Item 7
Attachment 2
DEVELOPED AND UNDEVELOPED LAND IN JOHNSTON, CUMBERLAND, AND
ROBESON COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality —
Response to Information Request Dated October 26, 2017
Item 7
Attachment 3
GENERAL EXTENT OF POTENTIAL GROWTH AREAS IDENTIFIED IN
JOHNSTON, CUMBERLAND AND ROBESON COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality —
Response to Information Request Dated November 28, 2017
Item 7
Attachment 4
WETLANDS AND WATERBODIES CROSSED BY
THE ATLANTIC CAOST PIPELINE IN JOHNSTON, CUMBERLAND, AND
ROBESON COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA

•
_ U KreifRve \
v.,
Bunn
Raleigh
rnightdale,
1;."
/ Spring Hope
Spring Nope
„d
Nc�Rd x
�
Ra
a°
_
H'ake�►
o� --
"f
d
oRolesvRolesville
�s
g
� yid
-
4 Poole Rd
a
Cas
m StricklarrdR
G4r4.,, Neuse
�9IiL6 Rolesvr\\g6
hopper Rd
eS at v
yip ts
X C11
SbJ 96
�
\
\l
c
n
LY n Kl139
Garner
c
c �''n,
/
/
• e s
X
Pd Gamer
ul
100 _
Tche -Lodge
arbor Dr
E y
F New Hdpe
a°//a/oeRv
°S
pa a
L
P�
•s` god 44
�~
ZebulonZebulon
Gannq, nig
'� 03
ao
ferr T Rao Rd
I
C►layton
•
10 vd-
KOW
Middlesex 'eelj
���r.
Raleigh
rnightdale,
1;."
Bailey
\Wehd"ell u�.i6aALrBaileyy
,�
wasrP61) Raleig"hBo"
1914,
S
o� --
"f
d
P
s•�
g
� yid
-
4 Poole Rd
a
Cas
o-
a
t'Yon c
R•\tz
°off
el
hopper Rd
r-- -�
_
X C11
Ot
Garner
c
i
n 1
tT
X
Pd Gamer
100 _
Tche -Lodge
arbor Dr
0S.P0
Buies Creek Coats
_
T_
ao
ferr T Rao Rd
or
C►layton
n
r
i
X
100 _
Buies Creek Coats
_
II T ` -
�h°te
Benson.
Y
Mar -
—
-S t°�0��:
ErwlErwin
_
Dunn"'1
E21 7j
5\N
_
1
�
\
Linden / - _ 120
Plain View
"y f'
\ Ob•rry Rd
NNton Grove
Lumbee ScItsa /
yp
m°
i7
NC ylghw
IeGodwin
a
m ��
55
e _ +> 55
!
o�d'`
Spivey's
°yam
Mount Olivejll
i
µdoff
Corner
D F I
Falcon)
``�ONwY ,r Vann
,,10
a o -
11310 t
'� Crossroads
5' m
��.�a+
o.
W Da,d I
Ca�ylpso
Wad
� ',
3 >
S
rsy
Noncine k� &
µ
I �
d'
1 5
Miles
Faison
= rar 3vI i
_M
This information is for environmental review purposes only.
O Milepost
N
/N/ Centerline
Atlantic Coast Pipeline
- Construction Impact Footprint
Aflanticl
General Extent of Potential Growth Areas
Developed
Coast
Johnston County, North Carolina
Undeveloped
Pipeline
=M
ERM
® General Extent of Potential Growth Areas'
aBased on the Action and No Action Forecast and available county information
FILE: M:\Clients\D-F\DOM\SRPP\ ArcGIS\2017\12\07 Potential -Growth -Areas NC\ ACP Johnston PGA.mxd REVISED: 12/08/2017 SCALE: 1:255,000 when printed at 1 1x1 7
DRAWN BY:JML

/ Rock `s \ cKP tS
Broadway State Park '!y 16'. — \G.-1
otoaw►ay \ s. \ FO
Qaz 30
Paul Green Mamers Buies Creek `1°�' so
Mer..onal Hwy _ a� �i fi \COatg �erc Z
/ 421't-- Nc_ S
/ Lillington ---
/ Li6rr�b.�� s — LL
/ \
Benson
,ton Rd 9 ti
v
/ � 2
/ e clic
-_°h Rd
F27l y ErwiErwin
ti
871_
0 ' Bunnlevel Dunn
oc o
• -ohar� r.l. � i "' v
t \
�a 2A - \H ,p H inert Uqq'
ry
-in en 120 Plain View ,
pd Coharle Sdtsa
O �
` o
'sr a
Godwin 4j, m
- % Spivey's
\ - -- Corner
Fa on, "*4
4
�y
1 ; Y Spring''Fayetteville.M8&1Nade l
Y - y4j
All 1.
Rab
Easi
y
Bonnie.Doohe �aF - .r tRd 3�
� H
140_
t #y
Ii, ay'e'tteviIIeflhl
Contractor Yards J(242
VandNi
e
�_. Salemburg
Stedman--, J
o _
Autrty�
Cumberland
�illea
Rockfish -
,.fish Rd
CU
I k VJ1..11..1
IHopeyMills 5 t
` . „� > • uLl: J y
Ro Ro�ro
l 7
A_
J
-b.- � � %' 150 - - •' _
t.
�
� � y ;
Parkton n
11 N
Lumber Bridge
' i
Rex -`16Q - �. � _ ��� r t'_ � - yf �`,',�•
Jerome ,
Shannon
Rennert
F: i ni t St Pauls Saint Pauls
i.t ui >nh\ 0� . E Bra r� c
v�ch Rd!f Drys, `\, A y
170 f$ TI
p
06
White Oak
Wntte vat,
RrvarPd
P Buie
\ ia,Hheaal
fr
\`
i
f
�[;1tirc�w` Rd 131
/
,y
Dublin) ;vhit-
�� d1 White Lake
0 2.5 5
-
Miles environmental review purposes only.
O Milepost
N
Centerline
- Construction Impact Footprint Atlantic Atlantic Coast Pipeline
Developed Coast General Extent of Potential Growth Areas
Undeveloped pipeline =M Cumberland County, North Carolina ERM
® General Extent of Potential Growth Areasa a Based on the Action and No Action Forecast and available county information
FILE: M:\Clients\D-F\DOM\SRPP\ ArcGIS\2017\12\07 Potential -Growth -Areas NC\ ACP Cumberland PGA.mxd REVISED: 12/08/2017 SCALE: 1:250,000 when printed at 11x17 DRAWN BY: JML

o f , '"o -
ao �1 t QaCbrfdaleRd c `9ane�'Rd Fayetteviliale
.� i ++jJ � 2111, � \� �
re
� m 9 I � dR� J _ _� go6ue°� .i n - 29 --
�.� + Ar Y Rd oa `^ paew O A Vander
'Mac
\ it 8°o gQd ��` 1_91 a 4�0�
livey ,` Five Points e0`` Cumberland af.9
rrvation •� � r � a
-- YP a 2 210)
\ SilveriGq Rockfish Rd $
� RocM6shRd 1
Nry =
Raeford; ttng Ra
Raeford
l IHopelMills 87
s BovAore
p
a 9
Dundarrach
r -I
4
n `Saintpaulsgd ' _ •c
Parkton
a' Wa raml Lumber"Bridge ' �_ Ti
��j Rex- I 160 �Il
�, 'Shannon-
r��d,,
_
Red-Sp_nngs Renriert v-
,
Samt-Pauls
I r �
`n- Mkulla , - _ 1I•%0•
acll East ,
,;' Laurinburg a
Laurinburg x i
Laurinburgd T -
✓atksOn n _ sY J
a ti"y i - Buie Tar Heel
Maxton -_
� Pembr_olce M&R-
n —�_
av°Rd f _�r 180_
Pembroke
IL
- - Lumberton
�/ y Elrod • • • !— ' '`
RRay,nham J ter- r
na cy� —� �� - r Butters
McDonald��
Bladenboro„
�- Rowland "
Bladenboro
UpFe'r ,uthCaiohna
S
�i
i 1
Dee 4Jtsa~ �6
- - Fair o
�`aes Hamer r _ i 1311
Na Proctorvllle
Little Rockv Procr- s
- = ante hocw Orrum 2.12
Orrum
ihua Fet"4 F _
vepN�" _ ;�. },`. _ _ ---;•� .,Lanni
Boardman
E. ,i liu lii = Y
Dillon - - _
3
Dillon ;` 1' L - Evergreen °
' R Me r n
.,
State Park
301_' Marietta
/ -
1 .� s Lake Vliew 1 Ili
Latta - Hwy gw
7401ta y- '" ��Cerroi'Gordo keon Chadbourn
J, Floydale o3 Chadbourn
r °tee FairmBluff ' Cerro Gordo
air Bluff
_Q1 71r
Sellers` p„d\CY ad ' Hetn , 3
Sellers - � P
C
– ur
A
T 2 rq
X11. � 9 .11j�` ^`�� ,� ♦ ' 2
a ,
a — o o
E Cr h,
ro E Banners Rd ZrOh Rd /c r'r/,p O d 4rWirns Hwy �Nicliols +s� o
y
ora Clarendon
Mulunslins
2.5 5 R / 3'• ; �'w
Miles 76 r - ��
'This information is for environmental review purposes only)a
O Milepost - Certified Sites
tA
/S,/ Centerline N
- Construction Impact Footprint Atlantic Coast Pipeline
Developed Atlantic General Extent of Potential Growth Areas
Undeveloped Coast Robeson County, North Carolina
=
General Extent of Potential Growth Areas a Pipeline M a Based on the Action and No Action Forecast and available county information ERM
FILE: M:\Clients\D-F\DOM\SRPP\ ArcGIS\2017\12\07 Potential–Growth–Areas NC\ ACP Robeson PGA.mxd REVISED: 12/15/2017 SCALE: 1:263,000 when printed at 11x17 DRAWN BY:JML