20140957 Ver 2_ACP_hearing officers rept_10112017_KHpartial+JABcomments_draft_20171011

[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 �RipaFian Buffer
Authorization�[WBU]�[HK2] Certificates
Northampton, Halifax, Nash, Wilson, Johnston, Sampson, Cumberland, and Robeson
Counties
I served as the Hearing Officer for the Subje-A-� �bect 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 under the 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) application
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 Water
Resources 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. Attachments[iiK3i
History/ Background
On May 9, 2017, Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC (ACP) submitted an application for a 401 water
quality certification and buffer authorization certificates. ACP had previously applied to DWR
on October 23, 2015. DWR requested additional information on November 18, 2015. The

MATMEW 90M
ACP is proposing to construct and operate an approximately 605[BJa4]-MiIe-Iong interstate
natural gas transmission pipeline system through West Virginia, Virginia and North Carolina.
In North Carolina, ACP 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
over 455,000 square feet of zone 2 protecte riparian buffer.
review Drocess:
Under the authority of |e15ANCACO2H.0504,the
held a public comment
period from until toaccept public
input on the . The public comment period included two public
hearings held in the eeunties where the prepesed prejeets are leeateddescribed below.
PA
June 27, 201Z
�October 2, 2017
Add Info Received
October 26, 2017;
November 4, 2017
November 15, 2017
a
November 28, 2017
Reg. for Add Info (4)
December 8, 2017
Add Info Received
(4)
December 14, 2017
Reg. Correction to
(4)
December 20, 2017
Add Info Received
(4)
Under the authority of |e15ANCACO2H.0504,the
held a public comment
period from until toaccept public
input on the . The public comment period included two public
hearings held in the eeunties where the prepesed prejeets are leeateddescribed below.
PA

In accordance with Title 1SA NCAC 02H ioeofthe public hearings and availability
of the 401 water quality certification and iiselated wetlands genera��trrjirparian 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 on June 17, 2017, in the Daily Herald and the Sampson Independent on
June 18, 2017, and posted online and sent by mail to the Water Quality Certification Mailing
List on June 16, 2017. A correction to the public notice to correct a typo in the pipe diameter
was posted online on June 19, sent to the mailing list on June 20, and issued in the
newspapers on June 21 and L2was pested te the DENR website en Mareh. 1.2,
The public comment period ended on May 16, 201 August 19, 2017; however, since Au
�Iluly 18, 2017 Public Hearing �[WBL6]�[HK7]
�
publichearing was held July 18, 2017, at 6 p.m. at the Fayetteville Technical Community
College in Fayetteville, NC. The public hearing was held under the authority of Title 15A NCAC
02H .0504. This was a public hearing to receive public comment for the DWR 401 WQC
application (Attachment A) submitted by ACID in order to construct a natural gas pipeline
through Northampton, Halifax, Nash, Wilson, Johnston, Sampson, Cumberland, and Robeson
134-139 people attended the A
from DE-414the Department.- A
sheets at the registration tabl
�remark4BJa8] before opening thE
advance of the hearing to prov
comments for a total of 40�4(
presentations. Additional time i
speak was finished, which was
(Attachment F). Of the 40 indivk
w#�Lgly 18 public hearing, including 24-�8 staff members
-.otal of 440-131 individuals signed the attendance sign -in
. (Attachment D). The hearing officer provided opening
hearing for public comment. 32-44 individuals registered in
cle comments, and e4g4t­-Lwo additional individuals made
-speakers. Speakers were given three minutes for initial
,as allowed for speakers after everyone that registered to
used by three speakers. The list of speakers is included
The public hearing transcript, includingoral comments, isattached tothis report (Attachment
H). D\NRalso received approximately 879,600 written comments during the public comment
period from local and state government agencies, citizens and citizen groups (Attachment J).
Approximately 8,220 comments were opposed to the project and approximately 1,370 were
in favor. Several Some of the comments were written transcripts ofthe 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 on the certification decision
making process are included inSection Vbelow.
3

111. �Iuly 20, 2017 Public Hearing�[WBL9]�[HKIO]
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
(Attachment A) submitted by ACP in order to construct a natural gas pipeline through
Northampton, Halifax, Nash, Wilson, Johnston, Sampson, Cumberland, and Robeson
Counties.
137--176 people attended the April 1-6july 20 public hearing, including 4-7-8 staff members
from DE-N-14the Department. A total of 140-168 individuals signed the attendance sign in
sheets at the registration table (Attachment E). The Hearing Officer provided opening
comments before opening the hearing for public comment�[Walfl. 3-7-_6S individuals registered
in advance of the hearing to make comments and feur additienal individuals made eernments
f e F a t all — f A I ,
Speakers were given three minutes for initia 1 presentations and a -R
NFRIM=011=0 RIN
The list of speakers is included (Attachment
G).
The public hearing transcript, including oral comments, is ineluded attached to this report
(Attachment 1). in additien te the publie h---�,�DWR also received approximately 8-7-_9,600
written comments during the public comment period from local and state government
agencies, citizens and citizen groups (Attachment J). Approximately 8,220 comments were
opposed to the project and approximately 1,370 were in favor. SeveralSome 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 a direct impact on the certification decision making process, are included
in Section V below.
IV. General Corn
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 Specific Comments and Recommendations
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 Certification pursuant to 15A NCAC
02H .0506(b) and the issuance of Neuse and Tar -Pamlico River Basin buffer Buffer
autherizatk)-n-Authorization c-ertifieatiens-Certificates pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0233 and
15A NCAC 0213.0259, 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 would 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 on new location 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
includedpre- andpost-application communication with the Division 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
requests from the Division and through environmental commitments. A more detailed
discussion of avoidance and minimization can befound below.
Recommendation: None. The
practical alternative that can
to surface waters or wetlan&
(2) Will minimize adverse
existing topography,
conditions under the cr
Paragraph (g) states: "N
the surface waters or iA
project completion, or I
(1) The spatial and dim
(2) The location of an%
it has sufficiently demonstrated that there is no
the project's basic purpose with less adverse impact
mpacts to the surface waters based on consideration of
!getation, fish and wildlife resources, and hydrological
aria outlined in Paragraph (g) of this Rule.
nimization of impacts may be demonstrated by showing that
Hands are able to continue to support the existing uses after
at the impacts are required due to:
isional requirements of the project; or
misting 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 would use a narrower construction corridor when crossing �treams and�
[BJal2]wetlands and construction techniques such as timber matting, temporary work bridges,
and clean rock over piping to minimize temporary impacts to streams and wetlands.
7

Temporary impacts to streambanks and wetland areas will be restored to the original
contours and revegetated with native 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 monitoringfor a minimum of two yearsfor streams and three years
for 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 flagging and signs prior to start of
construction
Use of temporary work bridges, matting an
Trench backfilling using native material
accelerate revegetation
Limiting operation of construction equipm
clearing, excavation, pipe installation, bac)
Installina trench breakers oroluas at the b
of wetlands
Pump -out activities in the work
dissipation/sedimentfiltration device
Use of a project -specific invasive plani
Stump removal, grading, and excava
the trench line to maintain native seet
d pods to reduce the risk of soil compaction
to prevent soil contamination and to
ent in wetlands to only that necessaryfor
I restoration
ries of wetlands to prevent draining
?a will be routed through an energy
Pr to discharging to waterbodies
?cies management plan
will be limited to the area immediately over
id rootstock
0 Coating for concrete -coated pipe will be conducted at least 100 feet from surface
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 Stormwoter General
Permit No. NCGO10000
Use of horizontal directional drilling for all 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.
A

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
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 Certification should include requirements for 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 Certification to account for the additional permanent impacts and mitigation for G//
permanent wetland impacts should the permanent impacts exceed 1.0 acre. Furthermore,
the 401 Certification should be conditioned to comply with any work moratoriums suggested
by NCWRCfor the proposed project.
(3) Does not result in the
roundwaters or surface waters.
The main risk to surface and groundwaterfrom the ACP project would 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
A

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. In FERCs Environmental Impact Statement for the ACP prpJec6BJa13b the
applicant proposes to test each well prior to construction for a suite of parameters including
pH, total suspended solids, total dissolved solids, conductivity, alkalinity, acidity, sulfates,
oillgrease, phenolic, iron, manganese, aluminum, fecal coliform, copper, lead, nickel, silver,
thallium, 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. The applicant also proposes to conduct post -construction well testing of the
some parameters to verify no adverse impacts have �Occurred[MaI4]. Furthermore, in the event
that adverse impacts do occur as a result of construction activity, ACP has committed to
providing temporary water supplies, andlor a new water treatment system or well.
Recommendation: The project is not expected to violate water quality standards if the
conditions in the 401 Water Quality Certification are fully implemented by the applicant (or
its successor). The 401 Certification should be conditioned to requirefull compliance with the
following permits:
• Certificate of Plan Approval No. Cumbe-2018-036, issued by DEMLR, Fayetteville
Regional Office
• NPDES Permit No. NCGO10000 issued bv DEMLR
The 401 Certification should also be contingenton the issuance of a sedimentation and erosion
control Certificate of Plan Approval issued by DEMLR, Raleigh Regional Office and upon
issuance of appropriate state stormwater permits. FERC documentation indicates that the
applicant has agreed to conduct pre- and post -construction water quality testing for private
drinking water wells within 150 feet of the pipeline construction corridor. The 401
Certification should be conditioned to require ACP to conduct pre- and post -construction
testing a// wells within 150feet of the construction corridor. Should post -construction testing
indicate that a well has been impacted by the construction, ACP should be required to provide
temporary water supplies, andlor a new water treatment system or well. An independent,
qualified groundwater specialist should 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). Impacts within the project boundaries include mine reclamation and "beneficial
10

use" in theform of structuralfill. Present andfuture development within the Cape Fear River
Sub -basin 03-06-07 is independent of this project.
Recommendation: The project is not expected to result in cumulative impacts that violate
water quality standards, if the conditions in the 401 Water Quality Certification and Isolated
Wetlands General Permit are fully implemented by the applicant (or its successor). The401
Certification and Isolated Wetlands General Permit should be conditioned to require full
compliance with the monitoring requirements in the Structural Fill Permits.�[W[31_15]
(5) �Provides for protection of downstream water quality standards through the use of on-
site stormwater control measures. �[MaM]
The vast majority of the proposed pipeline proj
However, some new impervious surfaces are pr
surfaces include multiple improved access road
three metering and regulating (M&R) statiom
roads are existing unpaved roads that wot,
maintenance equipment to safely pass. Improt
-t will not result in new impervious surfaces.
)osed as part of the project. The impervious
eleven valve stations, a compressor station,
and multiple contractor yards. The access
f be improved to allow construction and
,nents would include minor widening andlor
surface water crossing upgrades (e.g., minor p1pelculvert extension . The valve sites are
needed to segment the pipeline for safety,
compressor station will be located in Northar
located in Johnston, Cumberland, and Robeson
in Cumberland County. The applicant has indicc
existing drainage ditches and swales for acc
conveyances are proposed for the compressc
managed through existing drainage ditches on,
operation, and maintenance purposes. The
ipton County, and the M&R stations will be
Counties. The contractor yard will be located
ted that storm water will be managed by using
?ss roads. No curb and gutter stormwater
r or M&R stations, and stormwater will be
I s wales.
Stormwater management for these impervious surfaces would be regulated through state
programs in Phase // communities or by local programs where applicable. Valve sites and
access roads in small portion of Nash County and access roads, valve sites, and a contractor
yard in Cumberland County would be regulated through the state -implemented Phase //
Stormwater Program. They would 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 2H .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 storm water programs would have to meet
the requirements of the local stormwater program. The applicant 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.
11

Recommendation: The proposed project is not expected to impact downstream water quality
as long as the conditions of SWG04 or an individual state stormwater permit are met. The
401 Certification should be contingent on the issuance of the appropriate state stormwater
permit(s) for construction of a linear utility line and associated incidental built -upon area.
(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 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. Protected buffer mitigation is requiredfor
the uses identified in the Table of Uses of the Neuse and Tar -Pamlico River Basins Nutrient
Sensitive Waters Management Strategies [15A NCAC 02B .0233(6) and 15A NCAC 02B
.0259(6), respectively]. Buffer mitigation is discussed below in the buffer authorization
eer-t.9c;Getien certi,ficates section.
Recommendation: No mitigation is requiredfor strf
proposed project. The 401 Certification should be c
mitigation should permanent impact changes occur
Neuse and Tar Pamlico Nutrient Sensitive Wa
The Neuse River Basin Nutrient Sensitive Watei
Basin Nutrient Sensitive Waters Managemeni
[15A NCAC 02B.0233 and 15A NCAC 02B .02�
requirements for impacts to protected buffer:
Pamlico River Basins [15A NCAC 02B.0242 anc
reference to the buffer mitigation rules [15,A
report, the buffer authorization certificates
discussion.
ir wetland impacts as a result of the
ioned to include language requiring
exceed mitigation thresholds.
agement Strategy
�ment Strategy and Tar -Pamlico River
3trategy have the exact same requirements
. respectively]. Furthermore, the mitigation
3re exactly the same for the Neuse and Tar -
.5A NCAC 02B.0260 respectively] and makes
qCAC 02B .02951. For the purposes of this
E!commendations will be combined in one
15A NCAC 0213.0233 and 15A NCAC 0213.0259
(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.506 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 buffered 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.
12

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
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
from the riparian buffer rules. EXEMPT is defined in 15A NCAC 02B.0233(7)(0) and 15A NCAC
02B.0259(7)(a), respectively.
The applicant proposes to locate the Smii
be subject to the Neuse Buffer Rules.
permitting requirements as part of the Ph
and diffuseflow requirements will oddres�
Recommendation: The buffer out)
that diffuse flow conditions be n
flowing to or within the protected
stated above or other applicable bi
(6) TABLE OF USES.
Non -electric utility lir
Impacts other
Imnacte. nthpr
'M&R station in Johnston County and would
;tation is also subject to state stormwater
stormwater rules. Stormwater management
rough the Phase // process.
tion certificate should include conditions requiring
fined for a// stormwater from impervious surfaces
rs in accordance with the diffuse flow requirements
4orification memos.
r crossings in Zone 2 — Allowable
in Zone 1 — Allowable with Mitigation
i -electric utility 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 Mitieation
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, 50feet, G// buffer impacts would
be considered allowable with mitigation.
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
13

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:
(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 pipelii
Pennsylvania through Virginia and Non
proposed route would be constructed thro
Sampson, Cumberland, and Robeson Coun
521,430 square feet and 594,070 square I
Basin and the Tor -Pamlico River Basin, re.�
to transport natural gas from West Virginia and
Carolina. The North Carolina oortion of the
ties.
investigated several alternatives to meet the
build, alternative energy, energy conservation,
the build alternative best met the purpose and
orthampton, Halifax, Nash, Wilson, Johnston,
'he proposed project will permanently impact
protected riparian buffers in the Neuse River
lely. As part of the FERC NEPA analysis, ACP
urpose and need of the project including no
ndsystem alternatives. Of these alternatives,
wed 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 on new location 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, wetlands, protected riparian buffers, 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 the Division and NCWRC
on avoidance and minimization opportunities. ACP has continued to refine the avoidance and
minimization practices in response to additional information requests from the Division and
through environmental commitments.
14

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:
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
Recommendation: The applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that there is no practical
alternative that can accomplish the project's basic purpose with less adverse impacts to
protected buffers. The buffer authorization cer-tij,iGetien certi 'cates should be conditioned to
incorporate the best management practices proposed by the applicant intended to minimize
disturbance, preserve aquatic life and habitat, and protect water quality. Furthermore, the
buffer authorization certificates hould require demarcation of protected buffer with flogging
or signs prior to the initiation of construction and limiting operation of construction equipment
in buffers to only that necessary for clearing, excavation, pipe installation, backfilling, and
restoration
(10) Mitigation. Persons who wish to undertake uses designated as allowable with
mitigation shall meet the following requirements in order to proceed with their
proposed use.
(a) Obtain a determination of "no practical alternatives" to the proposed use
pursuant to Item (8) of this Rule.
(b) Obtain approval for a mitigation proposal pursuant to 15A NCAC 0213.0242 [.260].
15

15A NCAC 213.0242 and .260 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 10feet, a// of the buffer impacts are considered allowable with mitigation and
subject to the buffer mitigation requirements [15A NCAC 02B.0295]. The[Wa17] applicant has
proposed to obtain a// buffer 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 payment
for the buffer mitigation creditsfor the proposed project, DMS will administer the mitigation
credits in accordance with the In -Lieu Fee program instrument dated July 28, 2010 and 15A
NCACO2B.0295.
Recommendation: The buffer authorization -cert
ificates - should include
conditions requirinq buffer mitiqation in accordance with the table below:
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 Certification be denied based on the potential environmental justice impacts.
As discussed above, the Director evaluates a 401 Certification application based on .,J1'1 -X V
..................
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
. . . . ... . . It,
cumulative impacts analysis,
and replacement of existing uses through mitigation. Environmental justice is
not included in the criteria upon which the Director must evaluate the application. Although
environmental justice is not an evaluation criteria, the Nerth Careh­., Department ef
Envirenmental Qua4y4l)epartment� has been intimately engaged with the stakeholders of
North Carolina through the permitting process.
16

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 Certification 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 heaLL0gs_thfeug-4
ether ehann4sby_mailing flyersin both_English and Spanish to community organizations, such
as churches, government and non-government organizations, libraries, etc. �[WBIL18]�[imiq]
On August 9, 2017, the Department participated in an Environmental Justice Forum hosted
by the Haliwa-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
Pipeline.
Between August 15 and 17, 2017, the Department hosted three listening sessions along the
proposed pipeline route to obtain additional public feedback on the project. In addition to
the Department, the NC Department of Commerce, NC Department of Natural and Cultural
Resources, and the US Army Corp of Engineers were present.
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).
17

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
standards.
V11. Attachments (on OLaserficheHY.20
A.
May 8, 2017 401 Water Quality Certification Appli
B.
Notice of Public Hearings — DEQ-P.��tmg_nt web!
C.
Notice of Public Hearings —June 17, 2017 and Jun
D.
Correction to Notice of Public Hearings —June 19-
E.
July 18, 2017 Non -speaker sign -in sheets
F.
July 20, 2017 Non -speaker sign -in sheets
G.
July 18, 2017 Speaker list
H.
July 20, 2017 Speaker list
1.
July 18, 2017 Public Hearing transcript, including (
J.
July 20, 2017 Public Hearing transcript, including (
K.
Written comments received during the comment
hearings
18
Mareh 12, 2&1-5June 16, 2017
.2017
ral comments
ral comments
)eriod, including at the public