20140957 Ver 2_Re ACP Comments_20170822

Strickland, Bev
From:Ryan Emanuel <[e-mail]>
Sent:Tuesday, August 22, 2017 2:42 PM
To:SVC_DENR.publiccomments
Cc:Burdette, Jennifer a; Nicholson, John A.
Subject:Re: ACP Comments - Errata
Attachments:Emanuel_ACP_Comment_Errata.pdf
My original comments mistakenly referenced information on an earlier draft of the applicant’s Pre-Construction
Notification form related to Cumulative Impacts and Cultural Resources. I wish to replace portions of
the original comment text with revised comment text (attached).

Given the large number of separate folders and files associated with the 404/401 application and the lack of
detailed metadata on version histories, I ask that you allow me to correct the error and incorporate my
revised comments into the record.

Kind regards,

Ryan Emanuel

-------------------------------------------
Ryan E. Emanuel, Ph.D.
Associate Professor and University Faculty Scholar
Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources
North Carolina State University
Campus Box 8008
Raleigh, NC 27695-8008 USA
tel: [phone]
email: [e-mail]
web: go.ncsu.edu/water

"All electronic mail messages in connection with State business which are sent to or received by
this account are subject to the NC Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties." -
NCSU Office of General Counsel

On Aug 19, 2017, at 4:59 PM, Ryan Emanuel <[e-mail]> wrote:

<Emanuel_ACP_Comment.pdf>

1

Comments of Ryan E. Emanuel, Ph.D. on the Atlantic Coast Pipeline: Errata
My original comments mistakenly referenced information on an earlier draft of the applicant's
Pre -Construction Notification form. These references occurred in two sections: Cumulative
Impacts and Cultural Resources. I wish to replace portions of the original comment text with
revised comment text. Both instances are noted below.
Given the large number of separate folders and files associated with the 404/401 application and
the lack of detailed metadata, I ask that you excuse the mistake and incorporate my revised
comments into the record.
Original Text (p.2):
Nevertheless, the developer's formal Pre -Construction Notification to the USACE states that
there would be no anticipated future impacts associated with the project that have water quality
implications. Specifically, the developer responds "No" to question F3A: "Will this project
(based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional development,
which could impact nearby downstream water quality?" The developer's supplemental materials
do not elaborate on any impacts related to regional economic stimulus alluded to in their federal
filings or in their advertising and public relations campaigns.
The apparent contradiction is striking. If there are no cumulative impacts associated with
development spurred by the pipeline, then why has the developer's advertising and public
relations campaign focused so intensively on potential economic development in rural and
underserved regions of North Carolina? If the pipeline is expected to spur economic
development, particularly with respect to industrialized agriculture, then these cumulative
impacts should be discussed in the Clean Water Act filings and evaluated by regulators.
Revised Text (replaces original text C p.2):
The developer's revised Pre -Construction Notification to the USACE states that there is a
potential for future impacts associated with the project that have water quality implications.
Specifically, the developer responds "Yes" to question F3A: "Will this project (based on past
and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional development, which could impact
nearby downstream water quality?" Nevertheless, the developer's supplemental materials fail to
elaborate on any impacts related to regional economic stimulus alluded to in their federal filings
or in their advertising and public relations campaigns. Moreover, the developer inappropriately
absolves itself of any cause -and -effect relationship between the pipeline and future development
by claiming that future users of gas are:
...separate business entities that will require separate review and approval of the
projects proposed or that may be proposed in the future for their customers and business
needs. The ACP will transport natural gas to the delivery point, or connection with
Atlantic customer. Once the natural gas has been delivered to Atlantic's customer it is no
longer under the purview of Atlantic or the FERC review of the ACP.

Denying any link between new energy infrastructure and water quality impacts related to future
development stands in contrast to the developer's ongoing advertising and public relations
campaign, which focuses intensively on economic development in rural and underserved regions
of North Carolina (2). If the pipeline is expected to spur economic development, particularly
with respect to industrialized agriculture, it is reasonable and expected that such cumulative
impacts will be discussed in the Clean Water Act filings and evaluated by regulators. The nine
percent of capacity expected to be made available for industry represents 135 million cubic feet
per day, or nearly 50,000 million cubic feet per year (approximately 50% of current industrial
gas consumption for North Carolina). Thus, even one third of this estimated industrial gas
supply (if split evenly between the three states) would have drastic impacts on industrialization
and concomitant water quality impacts in eastern North Carolina. The scale of development that
could realistically stem from this project is too great to ignore at this stage.
In the end, the developer can't have it both ways. If the developer -sponsored advertising and
public relations campaign wants to make an economic development case for the project, then the
likely impacts of that development should be within the purview of state and federal regulators.
If the developer doesn't want to take responsibility for future development spurred by the
project, then arguments about economic development in eastern North Carolina should be
excluded from further discussion.
Original text (p.2):
Section Fla of the Pre -Construction Notification asks "Will the project occur in or near an area
that the state, federal, or tribal governments have designated as having historic or cultural
preservation status?" The developer responded "No" to this question, and supplemental
information provides vague statements about coordination with SHPOs and federally -recognized
tribes to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
Revised Text (replaces original text (?P p.2):
Section Fla of the Pre -Construction Notification asks "Will the project occur in or near an area
that the state, federal, or tribal governments have designated as having historic or cultural
preservation status?" The developer responded "Yes" to this question; however, supplemental
information provides vague statements about coordination with SHPOs and federally -recognized
tribes to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. There is only one
mention of state -recognized tribes in the supplemental information (p. 97), and the supplement
only states that they were "contacted for the ACP."