20140957 Ver 2_ACP 401 Water Quality Certification Permit Comments_20170814

Strickland, Bev
From:George Matthis <[e-mail]>
Sent:Monday, August 14, 2017 8:08 PM
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Subject:ACP 401 Water Quality Certification Permit Comments
Attachments:ACP 401 Permit Comments Aug14 2017.pdf
NC DEQ 401 permit reviewers:

Please find attached the River Guardian Foundation's comments pertaining to the pending subject permit. We look
forward to the outcome of this review and hope it will reflect the views and comments that best protect North
Carolina's health and environment.

Best,

George Matthis, President River Guardian Foundation http://www.riverguardfdn.org
https://www.facebook.com/RiverGuardianFoundation/
https://twitter.com/RiverGuardianFd
1

August 14, 2017
401 Permitting
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC
27699
RE: Water Quality Certification Application for
Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC
WR #2014 0957 Version 2
Dear Ms. Karen Higgins:
River
Guardian
Foundation
I am writing to comment on the Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP) 401 Permit Application and Buffer
Authorization currently under review by your department. The River Guardian Foundation is a non-
profit organization that advocates for and educates the public on matters related to water quality,
conducts and distributes research, studies and analysis relating to environmental issues, and monitors
water bodies for potential contamination threats.
The RGF has significant concerns that will be outlined in detail below. Much research related to
impacts from construction and operation of the ACP has been conducted by other NGO's that we
collaborate with and as such, much of that information will be presented in this letter. We fully
support the research conducted by our fellow NGO's and believe construction and operation of the
ACP will result in significant impacts that would violate Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act and
Title 15A NCAC 02H .0500, 0213 .0233 and 02B .0259 and should not be permitted.
\A/atlanrlc
Construction of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline would dig up, cut through, or clear cut more acres of
wetlands than the state of North Carolina permits for the entire state in a year. The draft permit
requires no monitoring or reporting to ensure that wetlands actually remain wetlands. There is no
mitigation plan for offsetting the so-called "temporary' loss of forested wetlands.
Nearly 600 acres of forested wetlands would be cleared for construction, which could take up to 30
years to regrow, creating long-term adverse impacts to the ecologic functions of those wetlands. Those
impacts should not be considered temporary due to the extended time required for regeneration of
mature forested wetlands. Wetlands provide natural water filtration and protect and replenish surface
waters. It would require more money and resources to recreate the same benefit from local water
treatment facilities to accomplish what the existing wetlands are doing for free. By making an 8 foot
deep trench for the pipeline through wetlands a preferential flow path for contaminants to reach
downstream waters would also be created.
Loss of forested wetlands and clearing upland forests creates habitat fragmentation of forest that
would threaten the habitat of many endangered and threatened birds, reptiles, amphibians and bats.
PO Box 97003 Raleigh, NC 27624 [phone]
[e-mail] www.riverguardfdn.org

The deforestation from creating 75 -foot wide rights of way through wetlands will cause a loss of shade,
more evaporation and unsuitable temperatures for animals that live in the wetlands such as fish,
amphibians and aquatic insects.
Streams, Buffers, Crossings and Biological Impacts
The Atlantic Coast Pipeline project will cross nearly 7 miles of streams and destroy nearly 28 acres of
forests and riverside (riparian) vegetation, which serve as buffers to prevent polluted runoff into those
streams. These impacts are dismissed in the application as "temporary," despite the lack of meaningful
analysis of their combined effects downstream and the lack of any sites identified for riparian buffer
mitigation.
In its 401 certification application, ACP, LLC acknowledges the project includes or is adjacent to riparian
buffers identified by the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rule, but fails to include a "diffuse flow plan" to
reduce erosion and sedimentation, saying it would be developed under their Sedimentation and
Erosion Plan. As of July 11, DEQ reports they have not received a complete Sedimentation and Erosion
Plan, so the ability to protect downstream water quality can't be evaluated in the absence of a plan to
ensure diffuse flow over disturbed buffer areas.
The ACP application says that refueling and lubrication of equipment will generally occur at least 100
feet from water bodies, with exceptions for stationary equipment such as pumps. There must be far
more detail on rigorous protections for procedures less than 100 feet from water bodies, and detailed
procedures to prevent contamination of land and groundwater, too.
The Horizontal Directional Drilling method is proposed for use under the Roanoke River, Fishing Creek,
Swift Creek, Tar River, Contentnea Creek, Little River, Cape Fear River and a large number of wetlands.
There is not adequate consideration of the range of factors that can cause uncontrolled release of
drilling fluids (referred to as "inadvertent return") similar to what happened dramatically on the Rover
Pipeline project this year, causing FERC to partly halt work.
In the Updated Waterbody Crossing Table, the Neuse River and Rocky Swamp are now listed as being
crossed using a "cofferdam," which is a significant improvement over the "open cut" crossing method,
which was more likely to cause massive downstream sedimentation. However, this crossing location is
at a very wide place in the floodplain, thus increasing damaging impacts of any crossing method to
aquatic species and habitat, streambank destabilization, and extensive destruction to bottomland
hardwood forests. The location of this crossing should be moved to a narrower point in the floodplain.
Blasting is likely to cause loud noise and other impacts to local residents, drinking water wells, springs,
wetlands and local hydrology, but no measures are specified to minimize or prevent those impacts. In
Northampton and Halifax counties, the application identifies 13 open cut crossings with potential
blasting, but fails to describe how blasting will be conducted at open cut stream crossings. Any blasting
that can't be avoided must be conducted using dam and pump, or flume. If blasting is required at an
open cut crossing, the crossing method should be changed to a method with fewer impacts.
2

The pipeline would impact rivers known to carry a wide variety of endangered, threatened or species
of concern, further impacting limited habitats of these species (such as the Carolina Madtom catfish,
many species of mussels, and numerous plants.)
Streams and wetlands impacted by the ACP may lose the ability to "support" or reach their best uses or
highest potential to allow for fishing, swimming and health of aquatic species due to sedimentation,
loss of forested buffers and other impacts. Streams and wetlands crossed by the ACP also flow into
major river basins which are sources for the Pamlico -Albemarle Estuary, the second largest estuary in
the United States. The estuary supports not only NC's fisheries but many mid-Atlantic coastal fisheries.
Impacts to any of these headwaters could negatively impact our fisheries and the economy of the
state. The pipeline would also have a negative impact on areas designated by the state as Primary
Nursery Areas that are important for the early growth and development of a wide range of fish and
crustacean species in the Cape Fear, Roanoke, and Neuse River.
Given the number of "listed" and "petitioned" endangered freshwater mussels in waterbodies crossed
by the ACP, a far more detailed assessment of impacts on these species must be required. Two
federally endangered mussel species are in streams crossed by the ACP in NC: Tar River spinymussel
and dwarf wedgemussel. The Tar River spinymussel is only found in four streams in North Carolina:
Fishing Creek, Little Fishing Creek, Swift Creek, and Little River. The ACP crosses three of these streams.
During the directional drilling method of crossing, accidents often occur that would release drilling
fluids into streams and wetlands, degrading water quality. These are often hard to locate and
impossible to reverse. No project with the potential for violations of water quality standards on a
short- or long-term basis can be approved by the Div. of Water Resources.
Several structures, such as compressors, metering stations, and valves, are proposed to be built within
the 100 -year floodplain. While southeastern NC is still recovering from Hurricane Matthew, it is
imperative to construct any such structures outside of the floodplain, where they will not impede the
natural path of floodwaters or subject the pipeline to damage that may cause dangerous leaks of gas or
gas liquids.
Erosion. Sedimentation. and Turbi
Construction of the proposed project in NC would disturb over 930 acres of wind-erodable soils, 39 of
water -erodible soils, over 900 acres of hydric soils as well as 1, 740 acres of prime farmland. The ACP
would clear a 150 foot wide corridor along the length of the pipeline route during construction with a
few exceptions in wetlands. Additionally, the project would convert a significant amount of forested
land to herbaceous cover in the 75 -foot wide permanent right-of-way, including highly erodible soils.
Impacts would include "local modifications of aquatic habitat involving sedimentation, increased
turbidity, and decreased dissolved oxygen."
3

Those impacts would harm aquatic organisms that rely on the affected streams for their survival.
FERC's earlier conclusion that "constructing and operating the ACP would not significantly impact
fisheries and aquatic resources" is unjustified for several reasons: Regulators lack adequate
information to determine the impacts associated with the use of the wet open -cut crossing method at
rivers and streams crossed by the ACP. Second, there is no evidence that Best Management Practices
would successfully minimize sedimentation impacts, and past experience with similar projects in
erodible soils demonstrates that they are highly likely to be inadequate. Finally, this conclusion doesn't
account for the increased sedimentation that would result from conversion of mature forest to
herbaceous cover in permanent right-of-ways.
In NC, the ACP would cross 8 source water protection watersheds, 3 of which are in Zones of Critical
Concern NC DEQ has must not only require the ACP construction to minimize impacts, but to avoid
crossings near these areas, to protect downstream drinking water.
Water needed by the ACP for hydrostatic testing and dust control must be closely quantified, and
locations of withdrawals and discharge must be identified. NC DEQ Must require procedures for
minimizing impacts of withdrawal for these purposes, flow changes and sediment on source and
downstream waters. In addition to Environmental Inspectors hired by ACP, there would be third party
inspectors, accountable only to FERC, to review compliance and prevent accidents or failures. Those
inspectors must report directly to the Commission, and inspection results must be available to the
public. Inspectors must have the authority to stop work if violations are detected during construction.
Impacts on Groundwater
The ACP 401 application and construction detail fail to acknowledge the likely impacts of construction
and pipeline operation on local groundwater or to ensure measures will be taken to prevent them. The
project could decrease groundwater recharge, thus decreasing the groundwater discharge to streams
and wetlands, as well, thus decreasing stream baseflow and ability to maintain the water level in
wetlands during dry periods.
Trench construction and backfill changes the ability of water to flow (conductivity) through impacted
soils, which can cause preferential flow of groundwater or blocked flow. Higher conductivity can cause
an aquifer to drain more quickly and ease the pathway for contaminants to reach wetlands and
streams. Lower conductivity backfill would restrict groundwater flow that intersects the trench.
possibly diverting it from its natural discharge point.
For most of its length in NC, the ACP would be located above the Northern Coastal Plain Aquifer
system, especially vulnerable to contamination, with uppermost sand aquifers at shallow depths being
susceptible to human activities. Given the large number of households within % mile of the ACP
corridor dependent on well water, construction could impact many household water supplies. Also,
areas of shallow bedrock must be surveyed for heavy metals, radioactive materials and acid -producing
rocks with potential to contaminate nearby water sources.
4

There are a large number of private wells within 150 ft. of the pipeline workspace in Nash, Johnston
and Cumberland Counties At the time of the DEIS release, ACP and its contractors had not completed a
survey of wells within 150 ft. due to lack of survey access. A 150 ft. buffer between water wells and the
construction workspace is not adequate. Approximate locations for wells within 500 feet of
construction workplace could be facilitated by GIS location of all residences outside city limits or
locations of public water utilities' groundwater sources
Surface disturbances, clearing and trenching can impact both surface water drainage and groundwater
recharge patterns, with the largest impacts to shallow surficial aquifers. No protocols are in place to
prevent impacts such as compaction from affecting recharge of shallow aquifers or infiltration of toxic
or hazardous materials, including fuels, oils, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, and explosives.
ACP says it will test wells and springs within 150 feet of the construction workspace (within 500 feet of
the construction workspace onlyin karst terrain). In addition to well yields, water quality parameters to
be tested include pH, total suspended solids, total dissolved solids, oil and grease and a range of
inorganic contaminants. The well testing, both before and after construction, must include all water
supply wells within 500 feet of the construction workspace (rather than 150) and include ALL
substances which could impact groundwater, including explosives, lubricants, and components of
natural gas liquids. All well tests must be performed by certified labs to detection levels below NC
groundwater (2L) standards. Results must be reported to well owners and DEQ within 20 days, with
instructions for initiating a contamination claim.
Possible contaminated sites that could be disturbed during construction include one Superfund site
and 3 brownfield sites located in NC close to the main pipeline, as well as 9 leaking underground
storage tank sites. These sites must be well marked and well testing within 1,00 feet must include all
known contaminants of concern.
All pollution prevention plans prepared by ACP to avoid or minimize impacts during construction and
operation must be readily available to the public in plain language, and reviewed as part of the permit.
The enforcement of construction violations at all stages must be transparent. Refueling or handling of
fuels and other toxic or hazardous materials must be prevented within 500 feet of wetlands, private
water supplies or municipal water supply wells.
Cumulative Impacts
The application doesn't acknowledge any cumulative impacts due to additional development near the
project that could impact downstream water quality. If economic development projected by ACP
happens, construction of additional pipeline connections, service roads, industrial sites and other
buildings would follow the construction of the ACP, causing major cumulative environmental impacts.
5

The Need for the ACP Project has NOT Been Justified
The ACP is described as a pipeline to "serve the growing energy needs of multiple public utilities and
local distribution companies in Virginia and North Carolina." ACP's statements misleadingly include
only estimates of growth in gas fired power demand, while failing to show that overall electric demand
for the region during this period has been essentially flat. Studies have shown that the pipeline is not
necessary to meet future demands, as projected demand is expected to stay static through 2030. As
the renewables market increases, the pipeline becomes even less relevant in future energy generation
mixes.
Benefits of the ACP listed by the applicant include "reduced energy costs" for the region. However,
Duke Energy and Dominion Resources, the corporations whose affiliates want to build the pipeline to
supply their power plants, will both seek major and repeated rate hikes to recover the cost of the
pipeline from ratepayers PLUS a high guaranteed rate of return, and the cost of construction for
unneeded additional gas-fired power plants.
Alternatives Analvsis and Climate Impacts
Transitioning from coal to power generation at plants fueled by natural gas from fracking forces the
region to rely on a fossil fuel, methane, whose non -combustion emissions are now known to be
substantial from both pipeline operations and the power plants they supply. Methane is over 80 times
more powerful, over a 20 year range, as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. NC and VA both have
substantial wind and solar resources, as well as the potential for cost effective reduction in demand by
30 to 40 % through efficiency upgrades to residences, businesses and industry. ACP's claim that
population growth in VA and NC from 2000 to 2030 is a reason to expect continued growth in demand
is not credible. We are already halfway through that period, and, despite significant population growth,
overall electrical demand has been essentially flat!
ACP makes the completely unsubstantiated statement that "energy conservation measures alone (or in
conjunction with other alternatives) will be unlikely to offset more than a fraction of anticipated
demand for the foreseeable future." In fact, the renewables market is growing rapidly in eastern NC
and increased energy efficiency measures in homes, businesses and industries have flattened
electricity demand in the past decade, despite population increases.
Environmental Justice
ACP describes letters sent to state recognized tribes asking for information related to recognized
historical or cultural sites. This is not adequate tribal consultation for either state recognized tribes and
completely excludes a non -recognized entity (Tuscarora Nation) that has experienced discrimination
even relative to other tribal groups. There has been a complete marginalization of tribal concerns and
sites of long-standing tribal use.
0

The ACP would bring disproportionate impacts to rural, low-income and communities of color as the
route proposed runs through some of the most rural and economically depressed counties of the state,
most with higher populations of color than the state as a whole. Dominion states that the construction
of the pipeline will lower customers' energy costs, but this is a false hope. Duke and Dominion
customers will pay for the construction costs plus profit for the ACP, even if the pipeline is used at a
fraction of its full capacity. This creates a further unjustified burden for low-income residents.
Summary
In the past 30 years, FERC has granted "certificates" to all but two U.S. pipeline projects, with no
credible assessment of actual project need. The Commission can't be relied upon to protect the health
and environment of North Carolina. The Division of Water Resources' permit review must
conscientiously require measures to protect the waters and existing uses of water resources. Believing
it will be impossible to construct the ACP without adverse impacts to streams, rivers, wetlands,
groundwater, aquatic life, human health and Environmental Justice, the RGF asks the Division of Water
Resources not to grant a 401 Permit and Buffer Authorization for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline.
Sincerely,
George C. Matthis, Jr., President
River Guardian Foundation, Inc.
7