20140957 Ver 2_ACP_hearing officers rept_01042018_draft_20180104

[Type here]
January XX, 2018
MEMORANDUM
To: Linda Culpepper
Interim Director, Division of Water Resources
From: Brian Wrenn, Ecosystems Branch Supervisor
Division of Water Resources, Water Sciences Section
Subject: Hearing Officer's Report and Recommendations
Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC
Individual 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Authorization Certificates
Northampton, Halifax, Nash, Wilson, Johnston, Sampson, Cumberland, and Robeson
Counties
I served as the Hearing Officer for the subject Public Hearings held at the Fayetteville Technical
Community College in Fayetteville, NC on July 18, 2017 and at the Nash Community College in
Rocky Mount, NC on July 20, 2017. The public hearings were held underthe authority of Title 15A
NCAC 02H .0504. The purpose of these public hearings was to receive comment on the Division
of Water Resources' 401 Water Quality Certification (401 WQC) and buffer authorization
certificate application_LAppendi/A) submitted by Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC (ACP). A 401 Water
Quality Certification is needed to construct a natural gas pipeline through Northampton, Halifax,
Nash, Wilson, Johnston, Sampson, Cumberland, and Robeson Counties.
In addition to listening to oral comments at the public hearings, I have reviewed all written
comments received prior, during and after the public comment period. In preparation of this
report, I have considered all of the public comments, the public record, discussions with Division
of Water Resources_LP-_WRJ staff related to the rules, and their review of the applications for the
project.
The report has been prepared using the following outline:
1. Site History/ Background
11. July 18, 2017 Public Hearing Summary
Ill. July 20, 2017 Public Hearing Summary
IV. Comments
V. Recommendations
V1. Summary
VI 1. A p p e n d i r- e s
History / Background
On May 9, 2017, Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC (ACP) submitted an application for a 401 WQC
and buffer authorization certificates. ACP had previously applied to DWR on October 23,
2015. DWR requested additional information on November 18, 2015. The requested
information was not provided, therefore DWR returned the application on August 31, 2016.

ACP is proposing to construct and operate an approximately 60S -mile -long interstate natural
gas transmission pipeline system !innLclludding lateralls, through West Virginia, Virginia and North
Carolina. In North Carolina, ACID is proposing to construct one compressor station and install
approximately 186 miles of transmission pipeline and appurtenances, including 3 metering
and regulating stations, 11 valve sites and 4 pig launchersZreceivers, through Northampton,
Halifax, Nash, Wilson, Johnston, Sampson, Cumberland and Robeson Counties.
35,000 linear feet and permanently impacting over 700 linear feet of stream. ACP is also
Proposing crossing wetlands, temporarily impacting over 45S acres and pe
impacting less than one acre of wetlands. ACP will impact protected riparian buffers within
the Neuse and Tar -Pamlico River basins, impacting over 648,000 square feet of zone 1 and
over 455,000 square feet of zone 2 protected riparian buffer.' -
review process:
A NCAC 02H .0504, DWR held a public comment period from
June 16, 2017 until August 19, 2017 to accept public input onthe application. The public
comment period included two public hearings described below.
In accordance with Title 1SA NCAC 02H OS03, notice ofthe public hearings and availability of
the 401 and riparian buffer authorization certificates
application was published in The Fayetteville Observer, the News & Observer, the Rocky
Mount Telegram, the Roanoke -Chowan News -Herald, the Robesonian and the Wilson Times
onJune 17.2O17.inthe Dai|VHerald and the Sampson Independent onJune 18.2O17.and
June 27, 201�
��ptember 14, 2017
September 22 2017
Reg. for Add Info (4)
D cember 8 2017
Add Info Received
(4)
December 14, 2017
Reg. Correction to
(4)
December 20 2017
Add Info Received
(4)
A NCAC 02H .0504, DWR held a public comment period from
June 16, 2017 until August 19, 2017 to accept public input onthe application. The public
comment period included two public hearings described below.
In accordance with Title 1SA NCAC 02H OS03, notice ofthe public hearings and availability of
the 401 and riparian buffer authorization certificates
application was published in The Fayetteville Observer, the News & Observer, the Rocky
Mount Telegram, the Roanoke -Chowan News -Herald, the Robesonian and the Wilson Times
onJune 17.2O17.inthe Dai|VHerald and the Sampson Independent onJune 18.2O17.and

posted online and sent by mail to the Water Quality Certification Mailing List on June 16, 2017
was
posted online on June 19, sent to the mailing list on June 20, and issued in the newspapers
on June 21 and 22_LA
Rpendi/ 0. The public comment period ended on August 19, 2017;
however, since August 191h was a Saturday, DWR accepted comments through Monday,
August 21.
11. July 18, 2017 Public Hearing
A public hearing was held July 18, 2017, at 6 p.m. at the Fayetteville Technical Community
College in Fayetteville, NC. The public hearing was held underthe authority of Title 15A NCAC
02H .0504. This was a public hearing to receive public comment for the DWR 401 WQC
application (Appendi/ A) submitted by ACP in order to construct a natural gas pipeline
through Northampton, Halifax, Nash, Wilson, Johnston, Sampson, Cumberland, and Robeson
One hundred thirty-nine people atte
members from the Department. A tc
sheets at the registration table (Apper,
remarks and Jennifer Burde-I[tg,_DWR,_
the ]uk/18 oub|io heahneI indudine 8 staff
comment. E2rjyjq!jLindividuals registered i
and two additional individuals made comm
given three minutes for initial presentations
rsisindud
31 individuals signed the attendance sign -in
nd E). The hearing officer provided opening
6-pem*g=--the hearing_2,/as opened for public
dvance of the hearing to provide comments,
for total of 46 speakers. Speakers were
a/time was allowed for speakers after
which was used bvthree soeakers.The list of
The public hearing transcript, including oral comments, is attached to this report (Appendi/
Ld44). DWR also received approximately 9,600 written comments during the public comment
period from local and state government agencies, citizens and citizen groups (A
Rpendi/ JI).
Approximately 8,220 comments were opposed to the project and approximately 1,370 were
in favor. Some of the comments were written transcripts of the comments provided during
the public hearings. A summary of the comments for both hearings and the comment period,
along with detailed responses that have direct impact OOthe certification decision making
process are included in Section V below.
3

111. July 20, 2017 Public Hearing
A second public hearing was held July 20, 2017, at 6 p.m. at the Nash Community College in
Rocky Mount, NC. The public hearing was held under the authority of Title 15A NCAC 02H
.0504. This was a public hearing to receive public comment forthe DWR 401 WQC application
(Appendis: A) submitted by ACP in order to construct a natural gas pipeline through
Northampton, Halifax, Nash, Wilson, Johnston, Sampson, Cumberland, and Robeson
Counties.
One hundred seventy-six people attended the July 20 public hearing, including 8 staff
members from the Department. A total of 168 individuals signed the attendance sign in
sheets at the registration table (Appendices E -Land (J. The Hearing Officer provided opening
remarks and Jennifer Burdette """' -resented ba �7round information on the 401 WQC
5j���inclivicluals registered in advance of the hearing to make comments. Speakers were
given three minutes for presentations and the hearing was held open an additional thirty
minutes to allow all speakers that registered to speak. The list of speakers is included
(Appendis:
The public hearing transcript, including oral co
it). DWR also received approximately 9,600 w
period from local and state government agen(
Approximately 8,220 comments were opposed
in favor. Some of the comments were written
the public hearings. A summary of the commen
along with detailed responses that have a direi
process, are included in Section V below.
IV. General Comments
-nments, is attached to this report (Appendis:
'itten comments during the public comment
ies, citizens and citizen groups (Appendis: �J).
to the project and approximately 1,370 were
transcripts of the comments provided during
Ls for both hearings and the comment period,
:t impact on the certification decision making
The following is a summary of the comments received during the July 18, 2017 and July 20,
2017 public hearings and emails and other written comments received by DWR during the
public comment period. Comments received outside of the public comment period were
made part of the public record. An overwhelming majority of the comments were in
opposition to the pipeline for a variety of reasons.
Many comments received expressed concerns about the continued use of fossil fuels,
specifically fracked natural gas, and their negative impact on climate change. Manythink
NC and the US should be moving toward the use of renewable energy sources.
Proponents of the project believe that natural gas is a "clean" fuel option to replace coal
and other fossil fuels.
all

Many comments received were skeptical of ACP's promotion of the project as a job
creation opportunity and economic stimulator for local communities. Several pointed
out that ACP's own job creation estimates are very low and that the economic benefits
to local communities are vague. Proponents of the project reiterated that the pipeline
would bring jobs and economic development to NC.
Many comments received expressed concerns about the cumulative impacts analysis
provided by ACP. Many believe that the analysis did not contain sufficient detail to
properly evaluate the cumulative impacts. Some comments indicated that the
temporary impacts from the project should be considered in the cumulative impact
analysis and that the sheer volume of temporary impacts should be calculated to equal
some level of permanent impacts.
Many comments received questioned the purpose and need of the project. Many
pointed to evidence that the growth of natural gas markets was estimated to be
negligible and questioned the need to build such a large and expensive pipeline. Many
noted that the market demand was generated through companies owned or affiliated
with Duke and Dominion power companies and that the need was self-serving rather
than one identified through public interest. Furthermore, several commenters stated
that the purpose of economic benefit was misleading as ACP's own estimates predict
little permanent job growth as a result of the project.
Many comments received expressed concerns about environmental justice issues
associated with pipeline's construction and operation. Many believe that the pipeline will
have a disproportionate impact on low-income and minority communities. Many
commenters feel that ACP has not made significant efforts to coordinate with these
communities or to consider other routes that would reduce the impacts on these
communities. Specifically, several commenters mentioned ACP's lack of coordination
with state -recognized tribes such as the Lumbee and Haliwa-Saponi. Furthermore, they
do not believe ACP has adequately addressed potential impacts to cultural resources
along the pipeline route.
• Several commenters expressed opposition to ACP's use of eminent domain to obtain
right-of-way for the pipeline.
• Several commenters raised concerns about Duke Power's past record of non-compliance
with environmental regulations and permits.
• Several commenters raised concerns about living within the "blast zone" of the pipeline
and questioned ACP's liability response should an explosion occur. Others believe that
the pipeline is a safe and efficient way to transport natural gas.
• Many comments received expressed concerns over ACP's potential impacts to water
quality from erosion and sedimentation. Many commenters feel that ACP's erosion and
sedimentation control plan is inadequate and lacks sufficient detail. Others believe that
trenching through streams and wetlands will have a negative effect on stream stability
and threaten wildlife. Concerns over blasting effects were also raised.
• Many comments received expressed concerns over impacts to wildlife, specifically
threatened and endangered species. Many felt that the construction activities could
destroy critical habitat and primary nursery areas for a variety of terrestrial and aquatic
species. Others felt that the extensive coordination process with the US Fish and Wildlife
61

Service and NC Wildlife Resources Commission has adequately addressed any potential
impacts.
• Many commenters believe that the 401 application was incomplete. They pointed to
the lack of erosion and sedimentation control plans and site-specific water body crossing
details as evidence that necessary information was missing from the application. In
contrast, some commenters believe that the ACP project has gone through an extensive
regulatory review process.
• The overwhelming majority of comments received raised concerns overthe degradation
of ground and surface waters as a result of the construction and operation of the
pipeline. Many commenters mentioned the large number of streams and wetlands that
would be crossed by the pipeline and raised red flags regarding the large amount of
temporary and permanent impacts. They connected these impacts with the degradation
of downstream uses including drinking water supply, aquatic life, primary and secondary
contact recreation, and fisheries. Furthermore, commenters spoke in detail of the loss
of wetlands through temporary impacts. Many felt the temporal and permanent
vegetation changes from temporary wetland impacts should be considered permanent
wetland impacts. Finally, many comments were made regarding potential impacts to
drinking water wells. A significant level of concern was present among the commenters
about impacts to wells from construction activities (mainly blasting activities) and
operation of the pipeline.
V. Certification SDecific Cornme
TRF
Based on the review of public comments, the application, 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 C-&r-t*fi-r_'-&--t49n-WQC pursuant to 15A
NCAC 02H .0506(b) and the issuance of Neuse and Tar -Pamlico River Basin Buffer
Authorization Certificates pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0233 and 15A NCAC 02B .0259,
respectively.
15A NCAC 02H .0506(b)
(1) Has no practical alternative under the criteria outlined in Paragraph (f) of this Rule.
Paragraph (f) states: "A lack of practical alternatives may be shown by demonstrating
that, considering the potential for a reduction in size, configuration or density of the
proposed activity and all alternative designs the basic project purpose cannot be
practically accomplished in a manner which would avoid or result in less adverse
impact to surface waters or wetlands."
The project proposes to construct a pipeline to transport natural gas from West Virginia and
Pennsylvania through Virginia and North Carolina. The North Carolina portion of the
proposed route will be constructed through Northampton, Halifax, Nash, Wilson, Johnston,
Sampson, Cumberland, and Robeson Counties. As part of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis, ACP investigated
several alternatives to meet the purpose and need of the project including no build, alternative
11

energy, energy conservation, and system alternatives. Of these alternatives, FERC and ACP
found that the build alternative best met the purpose and need of the project.
Next ACP, conducted an extensive alternatives analysis on potential route locations including
collocation of the ACP with existing pipelines as well as Eastern and Western route
alternatives. Ultimately, ACP chose the Eastern route as the best option based on an
evaluation of a variety of criteria such as project length and human and natural resources.
ACP continued to refine the Eastern alternative balancing a variety of human and natural
environmental resources such as public lands, roads, conservation easements, forested lands,
streams and wetlands, known historical and cultural resources, and homes and businesses.
Development of the proposed pipeline route included the analysis of seventeen major route
alternatives and 37 minor adjustments in the North Carolina portion of the project in an effort
to avoid and minimize impacts to these resources. This analysis included pre- and post -
application communication with DWR and NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) on
avoidance and minimization opportunities. ACP has continued to refine the avoidance and
minimization practices in response to additional information requestsfrom DWR and through
environmental commitments. A more detailed discussion of avoidance and minimization can
befound below.
Recommendation: None. The applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that there is no
practical alternative that can accomplish the project's basic purpose with less adverse impact
to surface waters or wetlands.
(2) Will minimize adverse impacts to the surface waters based on consideration of
existing topography, vegetation, fish and wildlife resources, and hydrological
conditions under the criteria outlined in Paragraph (g) of this Rule.
Paragraph (g) states: "Minimization of impacts may be demonstrated by showing that
the surface waters or wetlands are able to continue to support the existing uses after
project completion, or that the impacts are required due to:
(1) The spatial and dimensional requirements of the project; or
(2) The location of any existing structural or natural features that may dictate the
placement or configuration of the proposed project; or
(3) The purpose of the project and how the purpose relates to placement,
configuration or density.
The applicant has minimized impacts to surface waters and wetlands to the greatest extent
practical. The permanent impacts will be 766 linear feet of streams and 0.80 acres of
wetlands. The permanent impacts related to streams and wetlands will be a result of
upgrading and improving access roads constructed for installation and maintenance of the
pipeline, not from the pipeline itself. All crossings of major rivers will be conducted using
horizontal directional drilling (HDD) to avoid open trenching. The magnitude of the temporary
impacts is very high but within reason considering the size and scope of the project. The
applicant will use a narrower construction corridor when crossing wetlands and construction
techniques such as timber matting, temporary work bridges, and clean rock over piping to
minimize temporary impacts to streams and wetlands. Temporary impacts to streambanks
and wetland areas will be restored to the original contours and revegetated with native
7

plants. ACP will monitor any temporary impact areas in streams or wetlands to ensure there
is no permanent loss at these locations. The monitoring plan includes monitoring for a
minimum of two yearsfor streams and three yearsfor wetlands with stability, vegetation, and
hydrology requirements. 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 a number of best management practices to avoid and
minimize impacts to streams and wetlands.
Demarcation of wetland boundaries with flogging and signs prior to start of
construction
Use of temporary work bridges, matting and pads to reduce the risk of soil compaction
Trench backfilling using native material to prevent soil contamination and to
accelerate revegetation
Limiting operation of construction equipment in wetlands to only that necessaryfor
clearing, excavation, pipe installation, backfilling, and restoration
Installing trench breakers or plugs at the boundaries of wetlands to prevent draining
of wetlands
Pump -out activities in the work area will be routed through an energy
dissipation/sedimentfiltration device prior to discharging to waterbodies
Use of a project -specific invasive plant species management plan
Stump removal, grading, and excavation will be limited to the area immediately over
the trench line to maintain native seed and rootstock
Coating for concrete -coated pipe will be conducted at least 100 feet from surface
waters and springs
Prohibiting use of live concrete as a building material so that wet concrete does not
come in contact with surface waters
• Prohibiting storage of chemicals, fuels, hazardous materials, and lubricating oils
within 100feet of surface waters
• Voluntarily implementing the requirements of the Construction Stormwater General
Permit No. NCGO10000
Use of horizontal directional drilling for a// major river crossings
Implementation of a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure plan and a
Horizontal Directional Drill Drilling Fluid Monitoring, Operations, and Contingency
plan
ACP has completed formal consultation with US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on
threatened and endangered species along the corridor. In an October 16, 2017 biological
opinion, USFWS did not identify any threatened and endangered species or sensitive habitat
in NC along the proposed corridor. ACP has also coordinated extensively with the NCWRC.
This coordination began with the alternatives analysis and site-specific routing of the pipeline.
ACP worked with NCWRC to avoid threatened and endangered species and sensitive habitats
and to develop relocation protocolsforfish and mussels. ACP also conducted pre -construction
surveys for fish and mussels in the Neuse River at the proposed crossing location. These
A

surveys found that the mussel population was much more abundant and diverse than
previously known. This survey and the continued coordination with NCWRC resulted in ACP's
revised proposal to use HDD at the Neuse River instead of open trenching.
Recommendation: The applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that impacts to surface
waters and wetlands are required due to spatial considerations, natural features and the
purpose of the project. The 401 C -e tjei�WQCshould include requirementsfor monitoring
of temporary impact areas in accordance with the proposed restoration and monitoring plan.
The certification should also include reopener language in the event that temporarily
disturbed wetland areas do not return to wetland conditions as defined by the 1987 US Army
Corps of Engineers Wetland Manual. The reopener language should require a modification to
the 401 C-e�" 'e&tje,+�vVQC to account for the additional permanent impacts and mitigation
for a// permanent wetland impacts should the permanent impacts exceed 1.0 acre.
Furthermore, the 401 C -e tje,+�WQC should be conditioned to comply with any work
moratoriums suggested by NCWRCf6r the proposed project.
(3) Does not result in the degradation of groundwaters or surface waters.
The main risk to surface and groundwater from the ACP project will be during construction
activities. 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. In addition, some commenters raised concerns regarding
impacts to drinking water wells from trenching and blasting activities associated with the
pipeline installation andfrom possible contamination due to pipeline leaks during operation.
The applicant has committed to working in the dryfor a// stream and wetland crossings unless
site-specific conditions warrant working in wet conditions and the applicant obtains prior
written approval from DWR. Proper erosion and sedimentation control measures will be
required for the entire project in accordance with the Division of Energy, Mineral and Land
Resources (DEMLR) sedimentation and erosion control Certificate of Plan Approval. All
temporaryfill placed in surface waters related to construction of the pipeline will be removed
once installation of the pipeline is completed at the crossing and the stream banks or wetlands
will be restored to the original contours and revegetated with a native seed mix to prevent
erosion. Only in areas where vegetative stabilization is not successful will hardened
stabilization (rip -rap, geogrid, etc.) techniques be used. No hardening will be placed below
the ordinary high water mark. Furthermore, the applicant has voluntarily agreed to meet the
requirements of the NPDES Construction Activities General Permit No. NCGO10000.
The applicant will store chemicalsfuels, hazardous materials, and lubricating oils and conduct
a// equipment and vehiclefueling and maintenance at least 100feetfrom surface waters and
200feetfrom private drinking water wells. In situations where equipment must continue to
operate during fueling activities such as dewatering pumps near surface waters, secondary
containment structures will be used to prevent any spillagefrom reaching the surface waters.
The applicant has conducted a desktop survey to identify a// known drinking water wells within
150 feet of the pipeline construction corridor. Almost 50 private drinking water wells were
located in NC. The applicant proposes to test each well prior to construction for a suite of
A

parameters including pH, total suspended solids, total dissolved solids, conductivity, alkalinity,
acidity, sulfates, oillgrease, phenolic, iron, manganese, aluminum, fecal coliform, copper,
lead, nickel, silver, thollium, zinc, chromium, arsenic, mercury, selenium, cyanide, calcium
magnesium, hardness, chlorides, antimony, cadmium, and beryllium as well as well yields.
These tests will provide a baseline of groundwater quality and quantity against which to
measure any construction -related impacts. In the event that blastin(y will occur within 15700
'es to conduct ore-blastinq monitorin- or
receive a complaint reaardin(�J fjrlmrlr� e to
well water aualitv or nilryntifil he applicant proposes to conduct post -construction well
testing of the some parameters to verify no adverse impacts have occurred. Furthermore, in
the event that adverse impacts do occur as a result of construction activity, ACP has
committed to providing temporary water supplies, ondlor a new water treatment system or
well.
Recommendation: The project is not e
conditions in the 401 Water Quality Certi,
its successor). The 401 C­� ' fi,- a t i e,--� - W G
with thefollowing permits:
• Certificate of Plan Approval No.
Regional Office
• NPDES Permit No. NCGO10000 iss
fine and
The 401 C­� &T4--,t=h
erosion control Ce
upon issuance of al
quain
and v
requi,
const
?sting
in 15700
I to violate water quality standards if the
i are fully complied with by the applicant (or
Id be conditioned to require full compliance
DEM
�ted incidental built-tioon area
issued by DEMLR, Fayetteville
should also be contingent on the issuance of a sedimentation and
�ate of Plan Approval issued by DEMLR, Raleigh Regional Office and
priate state storm water permits. FERCNEPAand401 WQC(n � ication
es that the applicant has agreed to conduct pre -construction water
king water wells within 150 feet of the pipeline construction corridor
zLlaqs�tin��. The 401 C -e tje,+�WQC should be conditioned to
to conduct prf
corridor and
received. Sho
gwmtity has beer
water supplies, a
groundwater spei
and post -construction testing o
Loll wells within 150 feet of the
litih!i S rj �i� f blasting activities regard!;; whether a
I- L
d post -construction testing indicate that e -well wate
Y Y �Gr ( I J �Gl i t / _or
)y the construction, ACP should be required to provide temporary
w water treatment system or well. An independent, qualified
d determine whether an impact has occurred or not.
(4) Does not result in cumulative impacts, based upon past or reasonably anticipated
future impacts, that cause or will cause a violation of downstream water quality
standards.
Cumulative impacts are those impacts that would result from the incremental effects of the
project added to other post, present and reasonably foreseeable future activities (15A NCAC
01C. 0103). This includes secondar ii I pacts or im � �acts r�omuture activities �that occur as a
result f the gr ;oose fiect. Th or oose(: for the most art will consist o
temi9or('iry water ('walitv imoacts from the installation of the oioeline, These will include
10

sedimentation and temoorar disturbance of aCluatic and riparian habitat durin(y
construction, Permanent i pacts will occur in streams and wetlands from access road
and m forts erosion and sedimentation control and stormwater best mana('iement
countermeasur- practices, An
occurrin U in similar locations to the Dru oosea": ject will be sy ject to local state and federal
rmwater manac ement on:..
watershed orotection,
ndustrial and residential use,
Howe three distributio oints or M&R stations willbe constructed in NCI TheseM&R
stations will be located in Johnston Cumberland and Robeson Counties, Secon(mr
ese areas, The
tential secondary and cumulative imigacts
in these three counties,
In the ualitative on(: vsis the (: 3plican i.-. cri �qqleted an "ino i ct "second(:v Y) and cumulative
effects screenina matrix" where a series of oarameters includina scooe of the igroiect.
esources were evaluated on their abilitv to
contribute to indirect and cumulative eff-cts on water wali 1, Based on these ratim:1s, areas
of igotential arowth and develooment were identified, These arowth areas were then
between buildin(:i the rjilgeline and not buildina the oilgeline are determined, Areas that had
d,
As discussed above.- anV new develoomentL 9 ill be sub'ect to state and ederal
_L ro e, ts w
j ....... . . . . . . . . . I ...............
and erosion and sedimentation control,
However stormvilater mana('iement re(gilations are vark ble by loco tiqoLn,_E-x istin (Lsto te and
local stormwater oroarams were overlain on the areas of igotential arowth identified in
de��
The analvsis demonstrated that arowth would sionificant1v increase in Johnston and
e a
number otshovel-read devel ment sites, However Johnston and C-Umberland Counties are
ff �� Q
almost entirehl covered local stormvila and Johnston Count is
rs Mana('iement Strate(:1 I . Anu
water gualit, impacts due to ('1rowth in the area would be mitioated throw: h these
Most nf Robeson Coun does not have state or local stormwater oro(:irams, Those that are
in area However "- - o -action on(: sis demonstrated that Robeson CountV is not
11

Lackin(�i infrastructure 9--wlation decline and segarat from metro olitan areas has
stunted ('1rowth in this area, OnIV one shovel-reqdV industrial site is available in Robeson
ed and would be su',;-­­ ,,
local storm water oroaram, W-(�iteraualitvimoacts from secondarvarowth wouldbe minimal,
Recommendation: The project is not expected to result in cumulative impacts that violate
water quality standards, if the conditions in the 401 WQC are fully implemented by the
applicant (or its successor).
(5) Provides for protection of downstream water quality standards through the use of on-
site stormwater control measures.
Post -construction stormwater is another potential water quality concern. The vast majority
of the proposed pipeline project will not result in new impervious surfaces. However, some
new impervious surfaces are proposed as part of the project. The impervious surfaces include
multiple improved access roads, eleven valve stations, a compressor station, three metering
and regulating (M&R) stations, and multiple contractor yards. The access roads are existing
unpaved roads that will be improved to allow construction and maintenance equipment to
safely pass. Improvements will include minor widening andlor surface water crossing
upgrades (e.g., minor pipelculvert extensions). The valve sites are needed to segment the
pipeline for safety, operation, and maintenance purposes. The compressor station will be
located in Northampton County, and the M&R stations will be located in Johnston,
Cumberland, and Robeson Counties. The applicant has indicated that stormwater will be
managed by using existing drainage ditches and swalesfor access roads. No curb and gutter
stormwater conveyances are proposedfor the compressor or M&R stations, and stormwater
will be manaaed throuah existina drainaae ditches and swales.
Stormwater management for these impervious surfaces will be regulated through state
programs in Phase // communities or by local programs where applicable. Valve sites and
access roads in a small portion of Nash County and access roads, valve sites, and a contractor
yard in Cumberland County will be regulated through the state -implemented Phase //
Stormwater Program. ACP will have to meet the requirements of SWG040000 — General
Permit To Construct A Linear Utility Line and Associated Incidental Built -Upon Area (SWG04)
or an individual state stormwater permit. SWG04 and individual state stormwater permits
require compliance with the conditions of the respective permits and with the provisions of
15A NCAC 02H .1000, S.L. 2006-246, and S.L. 2008-211 which ensure the protection of
downstream water quality standards through on-site stormwater control measures. Any
impervious surfaces built in areas covered by local stormwater programs will have to meet
the requirements of the local stormwater program. The applicant also proposes to build
impervious surfaces in areas where no state or local programs are applicable. Based on the
descriptions of stormwater best management practices proposed by the applicant,
storm water is not expected to violate downstream water quality standards in these areas.
RecorAmendat'on: Session Low 2017-10 prohibits
_Lrhe_im 9lement('ition o on-site storm vv('i ter
j
WQC_ should be conditioned
local storm vvq Lor construction
of a linear utilitv fine and associated incidental built-unon area,
12

(6) Provides for replacement of existing uses through mitigation.
Both federal and state requirements allow for the purchase of in lieu fee credits to offset
unavoidable impacts to streams and wetlands. DWR requires mitigation [15A NCAC 02H
.0506(h)] at a 1:1 ratio for permanent perennial stream impacts above 300 linearfeet and a
1:1 ratio for permanent wetland impacts above one acre. Perennial stream and wetland
impacts for this project will not exceed the respective mitigation thresholds, therefore, no
stream or wetland mitigation is required by DWR. Mitigation is required however by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers for the wetland conversion. Riparian buffer mitigation is required
for the uses identified in the Table of Uses of the Neuse and Tor -Pamlico River Basins Nutrient
Sensitive Waters Management Strategies [15A NCAC 02B .0233(6) and 15A NCAC 02B
.0259(6), respectively] as Allowable with Mitigation. Buffer mitigation is discussed below in
the buffer authorization certificates section.
Recommendation: No mitigation is required
proposed project. The 401 -G-e�" 'e&Ne,-+41/
requiring mitigation should permanent ir
thresholds.
?am or wetland impacts as a result of the
)uld be conditioned to include language
changes occur that exceed mitigation
Neuse and Tar Pamlico Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy
The Neuse River Basin Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy and Ta r -Pamlico River
Basin Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy have the exact same requirements
[15A NCAC 02B .0233 and 15A NCAC 02B .0259, respectively]. Furthermore, the mitigation
requirements for impacts to protected buffers are exactly the same for the Neuse and Tar -
Pa m lico River Basins [15A NCAC 02B .0242 a nd 15A NCAC 02B .0260 respectively] a nd ma kes
reference to the buffer mitigation rules [15A NCAC 02B .02951. For the purposes of this
report, the buffer authorization certificates recommendations will be combined in one
discussion.
15A NCAC 02B .0233 and 15A NCAC 02B .0259
(5) DIFFUSE FLOW REQUIREMENT. Diffuse flow of runoff shall be maintained in the
riparian buffer by dispersing concentrated flow and reestablishing vegetation.
As discussed above in Section 5 of the 15A NCAC 02H.0506 discussion, the vast majority of
the proposed project will not result in new impervious surfaces that would create
concentrated stormwaterflow. However, there will be improved temporary and permanent
access roads, andfive valve sites constructed and maintained in the Neuse and Tor -Pamlico
River Basins as part of the project. The access roads are existing unpaved roads that will be
improved to allow construction and maintenance equipment to safely pass. Upgrades will
include minor widening andlor surface water crossing upgrades (e.g., minor pipelculvert
extensions). The valve sites will consist of gravel pods around above -ground valves with gravel
driveways.
Stormwater from these areas will be managed by sheetflow or by using existing roadside
ditches and swales. Sheetflow from the access roads meets the diffuse flow requirements
associated with the Neuse and Tor -Pamlico River Basins Nutrient Sensitive Waters
13

Management Strategies [15A NCAC 02B.0233(5) and 15A NCAC 02B.0259(5), respectively].
ACP has committed to managing the existing roadside ditches and swales to minimize
sediment, nutrients, and other pollution prior to entering surface waters. The Table of Uses
for the Neuse and Tor -Pamlico River Basins Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategies
[15A NCAC 02B.0233(6) and 15A NCAC 02B.0259(6), respectively] identifies use of existing
drainage ditches, roadside ditches, and stormwater outfalls provided they are managed to
minimize the sediment, nutrients, and other pollution that convey to waterbodies as
"EXEMPT"uses. "EXEMPT" uses are defined in 15A NCAC 02B.0233(7)(0) and 15A NCAC 02B
.0259(7)(a), respectively.
The applicant proposes to locate the Smithfield M&R station in Johnston County which is
subject to the Neuse River Buffer Rules. This station is also subject to state stormwater
permitting requirements as part of the Phase // stormwaterrules. Storm water management
and diffuseflow requirements will addressed through the Phase // process.
Recommendation: The buffer authorization certificates should include conditions requiring
that diffuse flow conditions be maintained for a// stormwater from impervious surfaces
flowing to or within the protected buffers in accordance with the diffuse flow requirements
stated above or other applicable buffer clarification memos.
(6) TABLE OF USES.
Non -electric utility lines:
Impacts other than perpendicular crossings in Zone 2 — Allowable
Impacts other than perpendicular crossings in Zone 1 —Allowable with Mitigation
Non -electric utilitv lines:
• Perpendicular crossings that disturb greater than 40 linear feet but equal to or less
than 150 linear feet of riparian buffer with a maintenance corridor greater than 10
feet in width - Allowable with Mitigation
• Perpendicular crossings that disturb greater than 150 linear feet of riparian buffer —
Allowable with Mitigation
The proposed project is categorized as a non -electric utility line. The proposed project includes
perpendicular and non -perpendicular crossings of streams and other surface waters subject
to this rule. Due to the width of the maintenance corridor, 50 feet, G// buffer impacts are
"ALLOWABLE WITH MITIGATION" uses. "ALLOWABLE WITH MITIGATION" uses are defined in
15A NCAC 02B.0233(7)(c) and 15A NCACO2B.0259(7)(c), respectively.
Recommendation: None. The proposed project is allowable with mitigation under the Table
of Uses.
(8) DETERMINATION OF -NO PRACTICAL ALTERNATIVES.- Persons who wish to
undertake uses designated as allowable or allowable with mitigation shall submit a
request for a "no practical alternatives" determination to the Division or to the
delegated authority. The applicant shall certify that the criteria identified in Sub -item
(8)(a) of this Rule are met. The Division or the delegated local authority shall grant an
Authorization Certificate upon a "no practical alternatives" determination. The
procedure for making an Authorization Certificate shall be as follows:
14

(a) For any request for an Authorization Certificate, the Division or the delegated local
authority shall review the entire project and make a finding of fact as to whether
the following requirements have been met in support of a "no practical
alternatives" determination:
(i) The basic project purpose cannot be practically accomplished in a manner that
would better minimize the disturbance, preserve aquatic life and habitat, and
protect water quality.
(ii) The use cannot practically be reduced in size or density, reconfigured or
redesigned to better minimize disturbance, preserve aquatic life and habitat,
and protect water quality.
(iii) Best management practices shall be used if necessary to minimize disturbance,
preserve aquatic life and habitat, and protect water quality.
The project proposes to construct a pipeline I
Pennsylvania through Virginia and North
proposed route will be constructed through
Sampson, Cumberland, and Robeson Countie�
521,430 squarefeet and 594,070 squarefeet
Basin and the Tor -Pamlico River Basin, respe,
transport natural gas from West Virginia and
Yrolina. The North Carolina portion of the
orthampton, Halifax, Nash, Wilson, Johnston,
e p
investigated several alternatives to meet the purpose a�
build, alternative energy, energy conservation, and systen
the build alternative best met the purpose and need of th
Next ACP, conducte
collocation of the
alternatives. Ultim,
evaluation of a var
ACP continued to r
environmen
edproject willpermanently impact
riparian buffers in the Neuse River
irt of the FERC NEPA analysis, ACP
d need of the project including no
alternatives. Of these alternatives,
2n extensive alternatives analysis on potential route locations including
CP with existing pipelines as well as Eastern and Western route
?1y, ACP chose the Eastern route as the best option based on an
streams, wetlands, protec
homes and businesses. De
seventeen major route alt
of the project in an effort
included pre- and post-apj
minimization oDDortunitie
practices in resp
environmental con
criteria such as project length and human and natural resources.
�e Eastern alternative balancing a variety of human and natural
ich as public lands, roads, conservation easements, forested lands,
ted riparian buffers, known historical and cultural resources, and
-velopment of the proposed pipeline route included the analysis of
?rnatives and 37 minor adjustments in the North Carolina portion
to avoid and minimize impacts to these resources. This analysis
)lication communication with DWR and NCWRC on avoidance and
s. ACP has continued to refine the avoidance and minimization
:) additional information requests from DWR and through
As.
The applicant has demonstrated that the basic project purpose cannot be practically
accomplished in a manner that would better minimize the disturbance, preserve aquatic life
and habitat, and protect water quality. The applicant has demonstrated that the use cannot
practically be reduced in size or density, reconfigured or redesigned to better minimize
disturbance, preserve aquatic life and habitat, and protect water quality. The applicant has
proposed a number of best management practices in an effort to minimize disturbance,
preserve aquatic life and habitat, and protect water quality including but not limited to the
following:
15

Use of temporary work bridges, matting and pods to reduce the risk of soil compaction
Trench backfilling using native material to prevent soil contamination and to
accelerate revegetation
Pump -out activities in the work area will be routed through an energy
dissipation/sedimentfiltration device prior to discharging to waterbodies
Coating for concrete -coated pipe will be conducted at least 100 feet from surface
waters and springs
Use of horizontal directional drilling for a// major river crossings
Implementation of a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure plan and a
Horizontal Directional Drill Drilling Fluid Monitoring, Operations, and Contingency
plan
Use of a project -specific invasive plant species management plan
Limiting operation of construction equipment in wetlands to only that necessaryfor
clearing, excavation, pipe installation, backfilling, and restoration
Stump removal, grading, and excavation will be limited to the area immediately over
the trench line to maintain native seed and rootstock
Voluntarily implementing the requirements of the Construction Stormwater General
Permit No. NCGO10000
Recommendation: The applicant has suj
alternative that can accomplish the proji
protected buffers. The buffer authorizatio
the best management practices proposed j
preserve aquatic life and habitat, and )
authorization certificates should require t
signs prior to the initia
in buffers to only that
restoration
(10) Mitigation. Persor
mitigation shall m
proposed use.
(a) Obtain a clete
pursuant to Itei
(b) Obtain approva
of construction
ciently demonstrated that there is no practical
Vs basic purpose with less adverse impacts to
certificates should be conditioned to incorporate
f the applicant intended to minimize disturbance,
'otect water quality. Furthermore, the buffer
-marcation of protected buffer with flogging or
,nd limiting operation of construction equipment
ig, excavation, pipe installation, backfilling, and
o wish to undertake uses designated as allowable with
ie following requirements in order to proceed with their
ation of "no practical alternatives" to the proposed use
of this Rule.
a mitigation proposal pursuant to 15A NCAC 0213.0242 [.260].
15A NCAC 0213.0242 and .0260 have been repealed and replaced with 15A NCAC 0213.0295.
As discussed above, the applicant has demonstrated that there is no practical alternative that
can accomplish the project's basic purpose with less adverse impacts to protected buffers.
Due to the fact that the maintenance corridorfor the proposed pipeline will have a width of
greater than 10 feet, a// of the buffer impacts are considered "ALLOWABLE WITH
MITIGATION" uses and subject to the buffer mitigation requirements [15A NCAC 02B.0295].
However, impacts to wetlands within the buffers are not subject to the buffer mitigation
requirements and are regulated under 15A NCAC 02H.0506(h) as discussed above in section
16

(6) of the 401 WQ - application review process. The applicant has proposed to obtain G// buffer
_1 V _Q(_
mitigation credits through the in -lieu fee program with the Division of Mitigation Services
(DMS). A letter addressed to the applicant from DMS dated May 4, 2017 and renewed on
October 6, 2017, states that DMS is willing to accept paymentfor the buffer mitigation credits
for the proposed project. DMS will administer the mitigation credits in accordance with the
In -Lieu Fee program instrument dated July 28, 2010 and 15A NCAC 02B. 0295.
Recommendation: The buffer authorization certificates should include conditions requiring
buffer mitiqation in accordance with the table below:
Environmental Justice
One of the most common topics of the commenters was environmental justice. As discussed
above in the General Comments Section, many comments received expressed concerns
about environmental justice issues associated with pipeline's construction and operation.
FERC's Final Environmental Impact Statement determined, "as a result of the project, no
disproportionately high and adverse impacts on environmental justice populations as a result
of air quality impacts, including impacts associated with the proposed Compressor Station 2,
would be expected as a result of ACP and SHP. Also, no disproportionately high and adverse
impacts on environmental justice populations as a result of other resources impacts would
be expected." Many commenters disagreed with this determination and requested that the
401 C-&r-t4&_-,&A49n-WQC be denied based on the potential environmental justice impacts.
As discussed above, the Director evaluates a 401 C-&r-4fi'-r_,-&A49n-WQC application based on five
criteria including a no practical alternatives analysis, minimization of adverse impacts to
surface waters, an analysis of the degradation of groundwaters or surface waters, a
cumulative impacts analysis, and replacement of existing uses through mitigation.
Environmental justice is not included in the criteria upon which the Director must evaluate
theapplication. Although environmental justice is not an evaluation criteria, the Department
has been intimately engaged with the stakeholders of North Carolina through the permitting
process.
On March 23, 2017, the Department hosted a stakeholder meeting in Raleigh, NC to provide
information and receive feedback on the proposed pipeline project. Eight environmental
organizations, four government agencies, and a representative of the Commission of Indian
Affairs were in attendance.
On July 18 and 20, 2017, the Department hosted 401 C-&r-t4&_-,&Ajon-WQC Application Public
Hearings. This was to allow the citizens of North Carolina to comment on the certification.
Notification of the public hearings was provided in accordance with 15A NCAC 02H .0506(d)
and (e). In addition, the Division of Water Resources provided notices of the hearings by
mailing flyers in both English and Spanish to community organizations, such as churches,
government and non-government organizations, libraries, etc.
17
River Basin
Zone 1 (square feet)
Zone 2 (square feet)
Total (square feet)
Neuse
460,005
209,093
669,098
Tor -Pamlico
418,596
175,134
593,730
Total
1,262,828
Environmental Justice
One of the most common topics of the commenters was environmental justice. As discussed
above in the General Comments Section, many comments received expressed concerns
about environmental justice issues associated with pipeline's construction and operation.
FERC's Final Environmental Impact Statement determined, "as a result of the project, no
disproportionately high and adverse impacts on environmental justice populations as a result
of air quality impacts, including impacts associated with the proposed Compressor Station 2,
would be expected as a result of ACP and SHP. Also, no disproportionately high and adverse
impacts on environmental justice populations as a result of other resources impacts would
be expected." Many commenters disagreed with this determination and requested that the
401 C-&r-t4&_-,&A49n-WQC be denied based on the potential environmental justice impacts.
As discussed above, the Director evaluates a 401 C-&r-4fi'-r_,-&A49n-WQC application based on five
criteria including a no practical alternatives analysis, minimization of adverse impacts to
surface waters, an analysis of the degradation of groundwaters or surface waters, a
cumulative impacts analysis, and replacement of existing uses through mitigation.
Environmental justice is not included in the criteria upon which the Director must evaluate
theapplication. Although environmental justice is not an evaluation criteria, the Department
has been intimately engaged with the stakeholders of North Carolina through the permitting
process.
On March 23, 2017, the Department hosted a stakeholder meeting in Raleigh, NC to provide
information and receive feedback on the proposed pipeline project. Eight environmental
organizations, four government agencies, and a representative of the Commission of Indian
Affairs were in attendance.
On July 18 and 20, 2017, the Department hosted 401 C-&r-t4&_-,&Ajon-WQC Application Public
Hearings. This was to allow the citizens of North Carolina to comment on the certification.
Notification of the public hearings was provided in accordance with 15A NCAC 02H .0506(d)
and (e). In addition, the Division of Water Resources provided notices of the hearings by
mailing flyers in both English and Spanish to community organizations, such as churches,
government and non-government organizations, libraries, etc.
17

On August EL 2017, the Department participated in an Environmental Justice Forum hosted
by the Ha|ivva-Saponi Indian Tribe and the North Carolina Commission of Indian Affairs. The
forum allowed an opportunity for tribal leaders, commission members, state and federal
regulators, and other stakeholders to discuss information on the proposed Atlantic Coast
Between August 15 and 17, 2017, the Department hosted three listening sessions along the
proposed pipeline route to obtain additional public feedback onthe project. In addition to
the Department, the NC Department ofCommerce, NC Department ofNatural and Cultural
Resources,and the US Army CorpofEngineers
On October 20 and 21, 2017, the Department participated in the North Carolina
Environmental Justice Network's Summit. This allowed for the Department to provide a
summary of the permitting status of the project.
In addition to the various stakeholder engagements listed above, the Department has been
transparent with citizens who requested to sign up forthe email news feed on the project, as
well as meetings with the Commission of Indian Affairs. The Department has been thorough
in its review of the applications submitted for the proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline.
V1. Summary
Public comments concerning the two public hearings focused on several major issue areas,
including the degradation of water quality, cumulative impacts, environmental justice,
sedimentation and erosion control, the permitting process, impacts on wildlife including
threatened and endangered species, and ground and surface water supply protection in the
Cape Fear River Basin. Due to the number of public comments, many of which expressed
concerns on the same issues, each comment is not addressed individually. Only comments
that have direct relevance to the certification decision have been addressed in the
recommendations (Section V).
As stated above, a thorough review of all public comments received and the project record
has been conducted, and additional insight has been obtained through discussions with DWR
staff. Based on all of this information, it is my recommendation that the 401 Water Quality
Certification and Buffer Authorization Certificates be issued and subject to the conditions
included in the recommendations in Section V. It is further recommended that DWR include
any additional conditions necessary to ensure that the project will meet state water quality
V11. AaL.)pndicps (available on Laserfiche)
A. May 8, 2017 401Water Quality Certification Application
a. LaserfioheFolder Name: 401 Application
b. Laserfiche link:
B. Notice mfPublic Hearings —June 16-18,2017
a. Laserfiche Filename: Listserve Public Notice 06 16 2017
18

b. Laserfiche link:
http://edocs.deg.nc.gov/WaterResources/o/doc/S47S28/Pagel.asp?�
C. Correction to Notice of Public Hearings —June 19-22, 2017
a. Laserfiche Filename: Listserve Public Notice Correction 06 19 2017
b. Laserfiche link:
http://edocs.deg.nc.gov/WaterResources/o/doc/S47S88/Pagel.asp?�
D. July 18, 2017 Non -speaker sign -in sheets
a. Laserfiche Filename: ACP July18 FayettevilleHearin g- Non -SpeakerSignInSh eets
b. Laserfiche link:
http://edocs.deg.nc.gov/WaterResources/0 doc/SS2613/Pagel.aspx
E. July 18, 2017
b Laserfiche link:
&F.July 20, 2017 Non -speaker sign -in sheets
a. Laserfiche Filename: ACP July2GLRoc,
b. Laserfiche link:
httD://edocs.dea.nc.Lyov/WaterResou
9-4. July 20, 2017 Speaker list
Non -SpeakerSignInSh eets
ff�=!
a. LaserficheFilename:ACP July2Q_RockyMt Hearin g_SpeakerSignInSh eets
b. Laserfiche link:
hupj-jedocs�.de nc.gov WatqrResources/O/doc/SS3247/Pagel.aspx
I
4-.H.July 18, 2017 Public Hearing transcript, including oral comments
a. Laserfiche Filename: ACP July18 Fayetteville Hearing- Transcripts
b. Laserfiche link:
http_:Z/edocs.de_q.._nc.gov/WaterResources/O/doc/SS7323/Pagel.aspx
J-.1. July 20, 2017 Public Hearing transcript, including oral comments
a. Laserfiche Filename: ACP July2GLRockyMt Hearing- Transcripts
b. Laserfiche link:
http://edocs.deg.nc.gov/WaterResources/o/doc/SS7322/Pagel.asp?�
K,.J. Written comments received during the comment period, including at the public
hearings
a. Laserfiche Folder Name: Public Notice Comments
b Laserfiche link:
http://edocs.deg.nc.gov/WaterResources/o/fol/548242/Rowl.asp��
19