Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20240801_v2_Transco-SSEP_–_Rockingham-Guilford-Forsyth-Davidson_–_Hearing_Officers_Report_Dec182025. MEMORANDUM To: Richard Rogers Director, Division of Water Resources From: Chad Turlington, Assistant Regional Supervisor, Fayetteville Regional Office Date: December 18, 2025 Subject: Hearing Officer’s Report and Recommendations Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line SSEP Individual 401 Water Quality Certification Rockingham, Guilford, Forsyth, Davidson Counties I served as the Hearing Officer for two Public Hearings held for the Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Southeastern Supply Enhancement Project (SSEP). One hearing was held at the Rockingham Community College Advanced Technologies Building Auditorium, in Wentworth, North Carolina (NC) on September 2, 2025, and one was held at the Kernersville Municipal Council Chambers in Kernersville, North Carolina on September 4, 2025. The public hearings were held under the authority of Title 15A of the North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC), section 02H, subsection .0503. The purpose of the public hearings was to receive comments on the Division of Water Resources’ (DWR) Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification (401 WQC), Jordan Lake Buffer Authorization, and Randleman Lake Buffer Authorization applications submitted by Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line company (Transco). A 401 WQC, Jordan Lake Buffer Authorization, and Randleman Lake Buffer Authorization are needed to construct a proposed natural gas pipeline through Rockingham, Guilford, Forsyth, and Davidson County. In addition to listening to oral comments at the public hearing s, the Division of Water Resources staff have reviewed all written comments received. In preparation of this report, I have considered all the public comments, the public record, the relevant rule sets, the application for the project and consulted with DWR staff conducting the review of this project . The report has been prepared using the following outline: I. History / Background II. Public Hearing Summary III. Comments and Responses IV. Recommendations V. Summary I. History / Background On June 6, 2025, Transco submitted an application for a 401 WQC, Jordan Lake Buffer Authorization, and Randleman Lake Buffer Authorization. Transco is proposing to expand their existing natural gas transmission pipeline system through Rockingham, Guilford, Forsyth, Davidson Counties by collocating the project within or adjacent to the existing Transco Mainline System. The project consists of approximately 4.4 miles of 42-inch pipeline in Rockingham County designated as the Eden Loop, regulator installation at Milepost 1382.53 in Rockingham County designated as the Eden Regulator Station, Docusign Envelope ID: CD9B831E-2957-4503-8626-BB20FED4FC4B 2 approximately 0.1 miles of 30-inch pipeline and ancillary valves in Rockingham County designated as the Dan River Inlet piping, and approximately 24.1 miles of 42-inch diameter pipe line in Guilford, Forsyth, and Davidson County designated as the Salem Loop. Transco’s application proposes to temporarily impact 9,121 linear feet of streams, 11.18 acres of wetlands, and 1.29 acres of forested wetlands are proposed to be permanently converted to herbaceous wetlands for permanent maintenance corridors. In the Jordan Lake Watershed 46,200 square feet of permanent impacts are proposed in Zone 1 of the riparian buffer, and 31,706 square feet of permanent impacts are proposed in Zone 2 of the riparian buffer. In the Randleman Lake Watershed 11,262 square feet of permanent impacts and 5,632 square feet of temporary impacts are proposed in Zone 1 of the riparian buffer and 7,027 square feet of permanent impacts and 9,540 square feet of temporary impacts are proposed in Zone 2 of the riparian buffer. Zone 1 is measured from top of bank outward 30 feet into the riparian buffer. Zone 2 is measured as an additional 20 feet outward of Zone 1. The proposed impacts do not result in a permanent loss of wetlands or streams. The Division requested and received additional information during the project review process on the following dates: Date Action July 11, 2025 Req. for Add Info (1) July 31, 2025 Add. Info Received (1) November 5, 2025 Req. for Add Info (2) November 17, 2025 Add. Info Received (2) The revised impact table provided by the applicant on November 18, 2025, reflects the final proposed impacts for review: Type of Impact Proposed Permanent Impact Amount Proposed Temporary Impact Amount Mitigation Amount Required Voluntary Mitigation (credits) Perennial Streams 0 linear feet 4,678 linear feet 0 credits 410.54 linear feet Intermittent Streams 0 linear feet 1,528 linear feet 0 credits Ephemeral Streams 0 linear feet 2,915 linear feet 0 credits Wetlands 1.2944 acres of conversion 11.1848 acres 0 credits 3.30 acres Jordan Riparian Buffer – Zone 1 46,200 square feet 102,843 square feet 0 square feet Docusign Envelope ID: CD9B831E-2957-4503-8626-BB20FED4FC4B 3 Jordan Riparian Buffer – Zone 2 31,706 square feet 35,736 square feet 0 square feet Randleman Riparian Buffer – Zone 1 11,262 square feet 5,632 square feet 50,682 square feet 0 square feet Randleman Riparian Buffer – Zone 2 7,027 square feet 9,540 square feet 0 square feet 0 square feet The Division’s mitigation framework rule requires mitigation for the loss of resources or use above a certain impact threshold. The project does not trigger compensatory mitigation for the proposed stream and wetland impacts since all proposed stream and wetland impacts are classified as temporary impacts or resource type conversion. The temporary stream, temporary wetland, and permanent wetland resource type conversion impacts do not require compensatory mitigation pursuant to 15A NCAC 02H .0506. Even though not required, Transco proposes to mitigate 3.30 acres of wetland conversion impacts, 0.94 acres of wetland temporal loss, and 410.51 linear feet of temporary stream loss through private mitigation banks in North Carolina and North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services In Lieu Fee Program. Buffer mitigation credits are required for 50,682 square feet for Randleman Lake Zone 1 impacts, 102,843 square feet of credits are required for Jordan Lake Zone 1 impacts, and 35,736 square feet of credits are required for Jordan Lake Zone 2 impacts. To satisfy the buffer mitigation requirements, Transco has provided statement of availability letters from Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC dated June 2, 2025, and December 16, 2025, and Wildlands Holdings IV, LLC dated May 29, 2025. Under the authority of Title 15A NCAC 02H .0503, DWR accepted public comments on the application from July 28, 2025, until October 6, 2025. The public comment period included the public hearings described below. In accordance with Title 15A NCAC 02H .0503, notice of the public hearing and availability of the application for the 401 WQC, Jordan Lake Buffer Authorization, and Randleman Lake Buffer Authorization was posted on the DWR’s website and sent by email to the WQC email Listserv on July 28, 2025. II. Public Hearing Two public hearings were held on September 2, 2025, and September 4, 2025. The public hearings were held under authority of Title 15A NCAC 02H .0503. These public hearings were held in order for DWR to receive public comment and additional information relevant to DWR’s review of the 401 WQC, Jordan Lake Buffer Authorization, and Randleman Lake Buffer Authorization application submitted by Transco. Thirty-seven people attended the public hearing on September 2, 2025, and fifty -nine people attended the public hearing on September 4, 2025. As the hearing officer, I provided opening remarks. Sue Homewood and Samantha Wooten, DWR staff members, presented background information on the applications for a 401 WQC, a Jordan Lake Buffer Authorization, and a Randleman Lake Buffer Authorization and DWR’s review Docusign Envelope ID: CD9B831E-2957-4503-8626-BB20FED4FC4B 4 process. Eighteen attendees provided oral comments at the September 2nd hearing, and thirty-five attendees provided oral comments at the September 4th hearing. Speakers were given three minutes for presentations. The list of attendees and speakers is included in the attendance lists. The audio recording of the public hearing, including all oral comments provided at the hearing, is available online. DWR also received 949 written comments during the public comment period. Some comments were submitted on behalf of multiple entities. A summary of the oral and written comments, along with detailed responses that have a direct impact on the certification decision, are included below in Section III. III. Comments and Responses The following is a summary of the comments received during the public hearing and the public comment period. Because the comments received were numerous and similar in nature, it was possible to identify generalized areas of concern which are addressed in this report. The discussion below is intended to summarize and address substantive comments received. Comments received are included in DWR’s file which is accessible electronically. Comment: Multiple comments were in favor of the proposed project. Specific comments stated: • There is a growing need for domestically sourced, affordable, and reliable energy; • The pipeline construction will create well-paying jobs and support long- term economic growth for local communities; • Transco is committed to building the project safely and responsibly ; and • Transco is committed to mitigating for unavoidable impacts ; Response: The Director evaluates a 401 WQC application based on six criteria including a no practical alternatives analysis, minimization of adverse impacts to surface waters, an analysis of the degradation of ground waters or surface waters, a cumulative impacts an alysis, protection of downstream water quality through stormwater control measures, and replacement of existing uses through mitigation. Some of these comments raise considerations outside the criteria upon which the Director must evaluate the application under 15A NCAC 02H .0506. Comment: Many of the comments received related to the health and safety of adjacent communities. Comments relayed specific concerns that: • The project will impact the health and safety of the environment with no provided uplift to the surrounding community; • The project will impact recreational activities in surrounding communities; • The co-location of natural gas pipelines is dangerous and harmful to the surrounding communities; • The project targets vulnerable communities; and • Private water supply well testing should be required. Docusign Envelope ID: CD9B831E-2957-4503-8626-BB20FED4FC4B 5 Response: The Director evaluates a 401 WQC application based on six criteria including a no practical alternatives analysis, minimization of adverse impacts to surface waters, an analysis of the degradation of ground waters or surface waters, a cumulative impacts an alysis, protection of downstream water quality through stormwater control measures, and replacement of existing uses through mitigation. These comments raise considerations outside the criteria upon which the Director must evaluate the applica tion under 15A NCAC 02H .0506. Comment: Many of the comments received were related to the justification and/or need for the project. Comments relayed specific concerns that: • The project is overbuilding gas infrastructure, that energy demand is being inflated/exaggerated; • The project is unnecessary; • The project is not the least cost option for customers ; • Other energy alternatives should be considered; and • The size of the T-15 and MVP Southgate pipelines are larger than needed. Response: While we understand the concerns expressed by the commenters, the comment is outside the evaluation criteria established in state law for the review of 401 WQCs including the North Carolina Administrative Code and the review provisions set forth for energy transmission projects such as this one set forth in NCGHS 143-214.1A. Comment: Many of the comments received were related to the impacts of construction activities on streams. Specific comments were that: • Open cut/dry ditch methodology does not protect streams and wetlands during construction; • Open cut/dry ditch methodology does not meet the requirement for avoidance and minimization; • Other alternative crossing methods should be evaluated; • The proposed activity will not comply with state water quality standards (designated uses, numeric criteria, narrative criteria, and state’s antidegradation policy); • The project does not and cannot comply with riparian buffer rules; • Construction activities will cause high turbidity, sediment, and erosion; • Current erosion control standards/methods are not sufficient in times when there are significant storm events which are more common nowadays; • Excessive sediment and other pollutants will be released pre/post- construction; • The project has potential to impact drinking water suppl y watersheds; • Sensitive water supply watersheds are at risk during construction activities; • The pipeline is a safety risk given recent regional flooding/storm events; and Docusign Envelope ID: CD9B831E-2957-4503-8626-BB20FED4FC4B 6 • Numerous aquatic species will be impacted in North Carolina; Response: The application has been thoroughly reviewed in accordance with 15A NCAC 02H .0506(b)(1) to ensure that the applicant has documented avoidance and minimization to ensure water quality standards are protected. The applicant has proposed various techniques of protecting water quality during construction such as Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) for the Dan River and Cascade Creek where federally listed mussels such as the Atlantic Pigtoe and James Spinymussel are present. For medium and small sized streams using the open cut/dry ditch method, the work area will be isolated from the flowing stream during pipeline installation and all areas will be dewatered during construction and restored as soon as possible upon completion. The open cut/dry-ditch methodology is proposed for 217 stream and wetland crossings. This methodology combines traditional trench construction techniques with Erosion and Sediment Control Best Management Practices (BMPs). Diversion structures (cofferdams, flume pipe, and dam -and-pump) will be used during pipeline construction activities to isolate any disturbed area from surface waters. The open-cut/dry-ditch method isolates all construction activities from the associated waterbody. Transco has agreed to use conventional boring to avoid potential impacts to federally listed species within Dry Creek, Cascade Creek, and the Dan River. Municipal water sources will be used along the project boundary to avoid withdrawing water from the Dan River and Cascade Creek. Additionally, Transco is implementing erosion control measures, HDD contingency and spill prevention measures, construction BMPs, and locating HDD entry/exit points away from Dan River and Cascade Creek to minimize impacts. Transco will be required to secure an approved Erosion Control Plan prior to construction; and has committed to a construction schedule that will minimize stream and wetland impacts (i.e. construction activities will take place during periods of low flow). The applicant evaluated each potential crossing method using site-specific information and provided a Crossing Method Determination Summary for each proposed surface water crossing to justify the proposed crossing methodology. Additionally, the applicant has committed to having a dedicated environmental inspector present during all instream construction activities. The temporary construction workspace has been narrowed to 100 feet from the 125-foot standard for the upland construction of the Eden and Salem Loop. The construction Right of Way (ROW) width has been reduced to 75 feet at wetland and stream crossings. Additional Temporary Workspaces (ATWS) are requested at site-specific locations. ATWS would exceed the 75- foot construction ROW width. The applicant provided additional site -specific justifications on November 17, 2025, to clarify the need for ATWS. DWR maintains authority to address compliance concerns through the conditions included in 401 WQCs and DWR’s statutory authority to protect water quality though surface water standards in 15A NCAC 02B .0200. Docusign Envelope ID: CD9B831E-2957-4503-8626-BB20FED4FC4B 7 Transco considered impacts to the Jordan Lake and Randleman Lake Buffers as a selection criteria when proposing crossing methods. Transco designed the project to collocate within Transco’s existing mainline system as much as practicable to avoid and minimize buffer impacts. The applicant is reducing impacts to the riparian buffers by reducing the construction ROW width to 75-feet. In addition, no Additional Temporary Workspaces are proposed within the riparian buffer areas. Transco will implement their Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan, the Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures, and a project-specific Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESC) that complies with NC regulations. NCDEQ Division of Energy and Mineral Resources (DEMLR) must approve the ESC. Compliance with the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan is enforced by DEMLR. DWR will protect water quality through the conditions included in the 401 WQC and DWR’s statutory authority to enforce the water quality standards codified in 15A NCAC 02B .0200. The applicant coordinated with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC) to review any federally and state listed species within the project area(s). NC WRC requested that Transco not conduct in-stream surveys at Dan River and Cascade Creek in order to reduce disturbance of aquatic species in these areas. NCWRC did request mussel surveys for Reedy Creek, Abbotts Creek, Mary Reich Creek, and Brushy Fork and concurred with the results of the 2025 Mussel Report supplied by Transco on September 16, 2025 concluded potential mussel habitat exists in Dry Creek, Cascade Creek, and the Dan River in the Eden Loop, and no mussel habitat is present in streams traversed in the Salem Loop. All stream and wetland crossings within Reedy Creek, Abbotts Creek, Mary Reich Creek, and Brushy Fork are Dry Ditch/Open Cut with Timber Mats, or Horizontal Directional Drilling. The Dan River and Cascade Creek crossings are using Horizontal Directional Drilling to avoid and minimize any potential impacts to the federally listed species within the project area. Comment: Many of the comments received were related to the cumulative impacts of construction activities on streams. Specific comments were that: • DWR should consider the cumulative impact of construction within multiple streams draining to the same waterbody; • DWR should consider cumulative impacts for both Transco SSEP and proposed MVP which will impact the same streams and wetlands on a similar schedule; • DWR should require monitoring of all streams and wetlands before, during and after construction to prove water quality standards are not exceeded; • Conflicting construction schedules were proposed in the application materials; • Transco cannot provide adequate mitigation for the proposed impacts; Docusign Envelope ID: CD9B831E-2957-4503-8626-BB20FED4FC4B 8 • Proposed impacts to the Dan River should be considered in light of previous impacts from the 2014 Duke Energy Dan River coal ash incident; and • The cumulative impact analysis provided by Transco is insufficient. Response: Transco submitted a cumulative impact a nalysis in accordance with the DWR Cumulative Impact Policy. Supplemental information regarding cumulative impact evaluation was submitted to the Division on November 17, 2025. The assessment is specific to the potential for the proposed project to stimulate additional growth within a watershed rather than address cumulative impacts during construction. The application has been thoroughly reviewed to ensure that water quality standards are protected. The applicant has proposed various techniques of protecting water quality during construction, such as trenchless crossing methods, isolation of the work area during installation, securing an approved Erosion Control Plan prior to construction and specific timing of construction activities at stream and wetland locations. Post-construction monitoring will be required by condition in the 401 WQC, Jordan Lake Buffer Authorization, and Randleman Lake Buffer Authorization. Transco will implement construction scheduling coordination with MVP, implement erosion and sediment controls, a restoration plan for all temporary impacts (described in Transco’s “Restoration Framework” document), and employ adaptive management strategies as needed to ensure restored areas are successful. Transco provided a “Restoration Framework” document along with additional information on the Cumulative Impacts Evaluation of the proposed project on November 17, 2025. Transco’s analysis concluded that six streams and two wetlands, in North Carolina, would be impacted by both the Transco SSE and MVP Southgate Projects. At each stream and wetland location, the two companies will affect different areas rather than overlap impact locations. The proposed crossings will occur at different times and places, with best management p ractices and restoration measures implemented. DWR requires mitigation for permanent perennial stream impacts over 300 linear feet and permanent wetland impacts over 0.10 acres. North Carolina Administrative Code does not require mitigation for temporary impacts, permanent no-loss impacts, wetland conversion, intermittent stream impacts, open water impacts, and specific uses within regulated riparian buffers. Transco is proposing to mitigate all wetlands conversion and all temporary and permanent impacts to the Jordan Lake and Randleman Lake Riparian Buffers through purchasing of credits from private mitigation banks. Comment: Some comments received were related to compliance if the application were to be approved. Specifically, that: Docusign Envelope ID: CD9B831E-2957-4503-8626-BB20FED4FC4B 9 • Transco has a history of environmental non-compliance with state and federal water quality laws; • Transco’s best management practices are inadequate and will not prevent water quality standard violations; and • DEQ lacks resources/staff to ensure the project stays in compliance. Response: The applicant has committed to having a dedicated environmental inspector present during all construction activities. The duties of all Environmental Inspectors were outlined in “Attachment 1.7 - Transco Plan and Procedures”. For example, Environmental inspectors will identify erosion and sediment control and soil stabilization needs in all areas and inspect once a day, ensure restoration of contours and topsoil, and identify areas that should be given special attention to ensure stabilization and restoration after the construction phase to name a few. Transco construction must comply with the Stormwater Design Manual, which follo ws the Minimum Design Criteria outlined in the NC Stormwater Rules and Regulations. While we understand the concerns expressed by the commenters, the Division maintains a strong enforcement program for all issued authorizations. Transco will be required to schedule and conduct a pre- construction meeting to understand condition compliance and shall report any non-compliance activities, including but not limited to sediment impacts to streams and wetlands, to DWR. If Transco becomes aware of any inability to comply with any of the conditions of the 401 Water Quality Certification, they must notify DWR within 24 hours. Transco’s “Restoration Framework” outlines Baseline Assessments, Restoration Work Plans, Performance Standards, and Monitoring Plan, and a Maintenance and Adaptive Management Plan that the project will adhere to. Comment: Concern that the proposed project plans to use municipal water sources to conduct hydrostatic pressure tests and whether there would be substances of concern in the water prior to discharge back into local streams. Response: New pipeline segments will be hydrostatically pressure -tested prior to use. Before any discharge of test water to surface waters, Transco must receive a discharge permit from NC National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NC NPDES) authorizing such discharge. Comment: Concern that application materials are not specific enough for each impact location. Response: The applicant has provided construction plans which describe in detail all steps and measures to be employed to protect downstream water quality during trenching activities. All open cut crossings will be dewatered during pipe placement and restored as quickly as possible upon completion. DWR staff are satisfied with the level of detail provided within the application materials as well as additional information that has been provided . Docusign Envelope ID: CD9B831E-2957-4503-8626-BB20FED4FC4B 10 Comment: A vast majority of the comments were related to concerns that new pipelines will contribute to worsening climate change. Commenters requested NC to seek/use more renewable energy sources. Response: While we understand the concerns expressed by the commenters, the comment is outside the evaluation criteria established in state law for the review of 401 WQCs including the North Carolina Administrative Code and the review provisions set forth for energy transmission projects such as this one set forth in NCGS 143-214.1A. Docusign Envelope ID: CD9B831E-2957-4503-8626-BB20FED4FC4B 11 IV. Recommendations Based on the review of public comments, the application and additional information, the North Carolina General Statutes and Administrative Code, and discussions with DWR staff, I offer the following comments and recommendations on the criteria for issuance of a 401 WQC, Jordan Lake Buffer Authorization, and Randleman Lake Buffer Authorization pursuant to 15A NCAC 02H .0506(b): (1) “Has avoided and minimized impacts to surface waters and wetlands to ensure any remaining surface waters or wetlands, and any surface waters or wetlands downstream, continue to support existing uses during and after project completion;” Transco has designed the proposed project such that it minimizes impacts to surface waters and wetlands to a practical extent. Crossings of the Dan River and Cascade Creek will be conducted using trenchless methods to avoid sensitive aquatic ecosystems. The proposed temporary impacts are consistent with other linear projects constructed throughout the state. The project design demonstrated minimization by proposing a 75- foot construction ROW when crossing wetlands and streams. Temporary impacts to stream, wetland, and riparian areas will be restored to the original contours and revegetated with native plants in accordance with the temporary stream, wetland, and riparian restoration plan. Upon successful completion of the restoration and monitoring activities, the stream and wetland impact areas will continue to support existing uses of hydrology, vegetation, and aquatic and wildlife habitat. The applicant has committed to several best management practices to avoid and minimize impacts to streams and wetlands. These include: • Demarcation of wetland boundaries with flagging and signs prior to start of construction; • Use of timber mats and pads to reduce the risk of soil compaction; • Backfilling of trenches using native material to prevent soil contamination and to accelerate revegetation; • Reducing the width of the Right of Way (ROW) to 75 feet; • Conducting preliminary assessments of streams and wetlands that are proposed to be temporarily impacted in the application; • Use of municipal water sources instead of withdrawing from Dan River and Cascade Creek; • Installation of trench breakers or plugs at the boundaries of wetlands to prevent draining of wetlands; • Use of an energy dissipation/sediment filtration device prior to discharging to waterbodies during pump-out activities in work areas; • No ATWS were proposed in Riparian Buffer Areas, except for T3-L083-NC; • Restoration of all impacted ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial streams within a 100-ft corridor to pre-construction contours; • Adherence to Transco’s Restoration Framework Performance Standards and Monitoring Plan; • Use of trenchless methods such as conventional boring or horizontal directional drill (HDD) for Dan River, Cascade Creek, unnamed tributary to Abbotts Creek, Docusign Envelope ID: CD9B831E-2957-4503-8626-BB20FED4FC4B 12 unnamed tributary to West Fork of Deep River, unnamed tributary to Beaver Creek, and unnamed tributary to Cascade Creek; • Use of erosion control measures and schedules required by the NC Erosion & Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual; and • Coordination with resource agencies such as the USFWS and the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC) to identify sensitive species, survey locations, and time of year restrictions. Recommendation: The applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that impacts to surface waters , wetlands, and riparian buffers are required due to spatial considerations, natural features and the purpose of the project. The 401 WQC, Jordan Lake Buffer Authorization, and Randleman Buffer Authorization should require: 1) All wetlands, streams, surface waters, and riparian buffers located within 50 feet of the construction areas shall be clearly marked prior to any land disturbing activities and must be maintained on the properties until the project phase is completed; and 2) Monitoring of temporary impact areas in accordance with the proposed restoration and monitoring plan; and 3) Continued coordination with resource agencies and adherence to survey requests and time of year restrictions; and 4) Pre-construction meeting with construction contractors, Transco staff, DWR staff, DEMLR staff, and any other required agencies to review conditions prior to any impact occurring; and 5) Transco will hold their Environmental Inspectors to the “Responsibilities of Environmental Inspectors” listed in Attachment 1.7 - Transco Plan and Procedures; and 6) Any unauthorized impact must be reported to DWR within 24 hours (or the next business day if it is a weekend or holiday) from the time the Permittee becomes aware of the circumstances; and 7) Transco must report any petroleum spill of 25 gallons or more ; any spill regardless of amount that causes a sheen on surface waters; any petroleum spill regardless of amount occurring within 100 feet of surface waters; and any petroleum spill less than 25 gallons that cannot be cleaned u p within 24 hours to DWR Central Office. (2) “Would not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards ;” The main risk to surface water from the project will be during construction. These risks include sedimentation and turbidity in surface waters , breaches of drilling fluids during HDD, and spills of petroleum products and hydraulic fluids from fueling and equipment maintenance. The applicant has committed to working in the dry for all stream crossings. Proper erosion and sedimentation control measures will be required for the entire project in accordance with an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Approval from DEMLR. All temporary fill placed in surface waters related to construction of the pipeline will be removed once installation of the pipeline is completed at the crossing. The stream banks, wetlands, and Docusign Envelope ID: CD9B831E-2957-4503-8626-BB20FED4FC4B 13 riparian areas will be restored to the original contours and revegetated with a native seed mix to prevent erosion. Monitoring of the temporarily impacted areas will be required. Operation of the pipeline is not expected to have adverse effects on surface waters and groundwater. The applicant has committed to deploying reinforced or enhanced erosion and sediment controls, temporary sediment basins, and rapid stabilization techniques to address concerns regarding potential sedimentation and turbidity during construction of the pipeline. Recommendation: The project is not expected to violate water quality standards if the certification is issued and if the conditions in the 401 WQC are fully complied with by the applicant (or its successor). The 401 WQC should also be contingent on the issuance of a n Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Approval issued by DEMLR. The 401 should also require compliance with proposed construction sequences, including voluntary measures provided by the applicant to prevent additional impacts, and measures to ensure water quality protection during construction. (3) ”Would result in secondary or cumulative impacts that cause or contribute to, or will cause or contribute to, a violation of water quality standards ;” The proposed project will consist of permanent and temporary impacts from the installation of the pipeline. There is the potential for sedimentation and temporary disturbance of aquatic and riparian habitat during construction. The impacts will be reduced through avoidance and minimization efforts, erosion and sedimentation control and stormwater best management practices (BMPs), and spill prevention. In accordance with DWR’s 401 WQC Cumulative Impact Policy, the applicant completed a qualitative analysis and concluded that there was no potential for secondary growth as a result of the proposed project other than from short term temporary (construction) impacts. The applicant stated they will coordinate with Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) Southgate project team on construction activities to reduce simultaneous activities . A pre- construction meeting with personnel from Transco and MVP, environmental compliance managers, contractor representatives, and NCDEQ will be organized to ensure coordination on project activities. In addition to the pre -construction meeting, Transco and MVP will have weekly conference calls throughout construction activities. All attendees of the pre-construction meeting will be invited to the weekly conference calls. Recommendation: In accordance with DWR’s 401 WQC Cumulative Impact Policy the project is not expected to result in cumulative impacts that violate water quality standards, if the conditions in the 401 WQC, Jordan Lake Buffer Authorization, and Randleman Lake Buffer Authorization are fully implemented by the applicant (or its successor). (4) “Provides for replacement of existing uses through mitigation;” DWR requires mitigation [15A NCAC 02H .0506(c)(5)] at a minimum of a 1:1 ratio for loss of existing functions within perennial streams where impacts total above 300 linear feet and at a minimum of a 1:1 ratio for loss of existing functions within wetland impacts Docusign Envelope ID: CD9B831E-2957-4503-8626-BB20FED4FC4B 14 where impacts are equal to or greater than 0.10 acre. The project does not propose any permanent stream impacts. All permanent impacts to wetlands will be for conversion from forested wetlands to herbaceous wetlands which will not constitute a loss of function and therefore will not require mitigation by DWR. The applicant has committed to mitigate for all proposed permanent wetland conversions, temporal loss of wetlands and streams, Zones 1 and 2 of the Jordan Riparian Buffer, and Zone 1 of the Randleman Lake Riparian Buffer through private mitigation banks and North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services In-Lieu Fee Program. Recommendation: No mitigation is required for stream or wetland impacts as a result of the proposed project. The 401 WQC should be conditioned to include language requiring mitigation should the project change or otherwise result in additional permanent impacts that exceed mitigation thresholds. Mitigation is required for Zone 1 and 2 Impacts of the Jordan Lake Riparian Buffer and Zone 1 Impacts of the Randleman Lake Riparian Buffer. The Buffer Authorizations should be conditioned to require mitigation for the proposed impacts and any additional buffer impacts if the project changes or otherwise result in additional impacts. V. Summary Public comments received during the public hearings and public notice comment period focused on several major areas, including the degradation of water quality and riparian buffer areas, project justification, concerns for human health, sedimentation and erosion control, the permitting process, and ground and surface water supply protection. Due to the number of public comments, many of which expressed concerns on the same issues, each comment is not addressed individually. Rather, the comments were categorized into major subject areas where responses and recommendations could be presented in a coherent manner. Only comments that have direct relevance to the 401 WQC and Buffer Authorization decisions have been addressed in the recommendations (Section III). As stated above, a thorough review of public comments received, and the project record has been conducted and evaluated in context of pertinent statutes and regulations governing the review of 401 WQC application and Buffer Authorization applications. Based on this information, it is my recommendation that the 401 WQC and Buffer Authorizations be issued and subject to the conditions included in the recommendations in Section IV. It is further recommended that DWR include any additional conditions necessary to ensure that the project will meet state water quality standards. Docusign Envelope ID: CD9B831E-2957-4503-8626-BB20FED4FC4B