20140957 Ver 2_ACP Hearing Presentation + speaker notes_20170718

ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE
Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification &
Neuse and Tar -Pamlico Riparian Buffer Authorization
Northampton, Halifax, Nash, Wilson, Johnston, Sampson,
Cumberland and Robeson Counties, North Carolina
Una copia de esta presentacion esta disponible en espahol en una de las mesas de registro fuera del auditorio.
a. I work for the Department of Environmental Quality in the Division of Water Resources
b. The Division is reviewing Atlantic Coast Pipeline's application for a Clean Water Act
Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Neuse and Tar -Pamlico River Basin
Riparian Buffer Authorization of their proposed transmission pipeline and supporting
infrastructure
C. The pipeline is proposed to be located through Northampton, Halifax, Nash, Wilson,
Johnston, Sampson, Cumberland and Robeson Counties in North Carolina
1

NATURAL GAS FACILITIES AND ROUTE
PROPOSED IN NC
Transmission pipelines
Compressor
A -5
P 300
Station
* AP- 1: —200 feet of 42 -inch
0
AP -1 AP -3
- AP -2: —186 miles of 36 -inch
p t' o
* AP -3: —12 miles of 20 -inch
d
New compressor station in
5d,
AP -2
Northampton County
Three metering and regulating
North
stations
Carolina,,_,,
Eleven valve sites
NOR M 100
Four pig launchers/receivers
k�' HIM
150
a. The pipeline is proposed to deliver natural gas from the Appalachian region to markets
in Virginia and NC
b. It would enter NC at Northampton County as a 42 -inch pipeline to a new compressor
station to be located near NC's border with VA
C. A 36 -inch pipeline is proposed to carry the gas from the compressor station generally
along Interstate 95 to Robeson County
d. 3 M&R stations, 11 valve sites and 4 pig launchers/receivers, which are pipeline
inspection tools, are proposed to support operation of the pipeline
e. A lateral pipeline is also proposed to connect the new compressor station to the
Norfolk, VA area. It would run N/NE for approximately 12 miles in NC before crossing
into VA.
2

PROPOSED IMPACTS TO SURFACE WATERS,
WETLANDS,AND PROTECTED STREAMSIDE BUFFERS
- SurfaceWaters (Waterbodies)
* —326 crossings including streams, ponds and the Neuse River
* —35,95 1 linear feet temporarily impacted
* —766 linear feet permanently impacted
* Seven crossings will be horizontal directional drill (no impact)
• Roanoke,Tar, Little and Cape Fear Rivers
• Fishing, Swift and Contentnea Creeks
• Wetlands
* —453 acres temporarily impacted
* —0.80 acre permanently impacted
• Strearnside buffers in the Neuse and Tar -Pamlico River Basins
a. Along its route, the pipeline crosses approximately 326 surface waters or waterbodies
and wetlands. Surface waters include streams, ponds and the Neuse River.
b. Seven crossings are proposed to be installed underneath rivers and large stream
channels listed on the slide using the horizontal directional drill method.
a. This type of installation avoids impacts to the surface water (On the next slide,
I'll show you what this looks like and briefly explain how it works)
C. Once construction is complete, the ground surface, streams, and wetlands would be
restored as near as practical to their pre -construction condition
d. A total of approximately 35, 951 linear feet of surface waters and 453 acres of
wetlands would be temporarily impacted by construction
e. Permanent impacts totaling approximately 766 linear feet of surface waters and
8/10ths of an acre of wetlands would result from upgrading farm roads and building
new access roads to the pipeline corridor
3

Stnearnaide buffers within the Neuse and Tar -Pamlico River Basins are protected by the
State. These are also called riparian buffers
i. Impacts to these areas adjacent to atnearna and other surface waters require a
Buffer Authorization
3

HORIZONTAL DIRECTIONAL DRILL
This is a cross-section showing how the pipeline is installed using a horizontal
directional drill
a. A drill, setup on one side of the waterbody, creates a horizontal pathway for
the pipe underneath the waterbody then the assembled pipeline is pulled
through the drilled pathway to complete the crossing
b. This method is proposed for all river crossings, except for the Neuse River, and
large stream channels or those that support protected species. Using this
method avoids surface disturbance, riparian tree clearing, and in -stream
construction.
N

401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
Projects that require a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit from the U.S.Army
Corps of Engineers must also receive a 401 Water Quality Certification for the
permit to be valid
Certifications are issued where the Division determines that water quality
standards are met, including protection of existing uses
• Water Quality Standards
• Numeric limits on pollutants
• Criteria to maintain the characteristics typical of resources
• Existing Uses
• Aquatic life habitat o Primary Recreation o Agriculture
• Wildlife o Secondary Recreation o Water supply
Projects that require a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers must also receive a 401 Water Quality Certification from the
State for the permit to be valid
Certifications are issued where the Division determines that water quality standards
are met, including protection of existing uses
i. Water quality standards are a combination of numeric limits on pollutants and
criteria to maintain the characteristics that are typical of these resources
ii. Existing uses consist of aquatic life habitat including fishing, wildlife, primary
recreation such as swimming, secondary recreation such as wading and
boating, agriculture and water supply for drinking and food processing
5

401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
Project must meet the following criteria to be issued a Certification:
I . Has no practical alternative
2. Will minimize adverse impacts to the surface water/wetland based
on consideration of existing topography, vegetation, fish and wildlife
resources, and hydrological conditions
3. Does not result in the degradation of groundwaters or surface
waters
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
5. Provides for replacement of existing uses through mitigation
For a project to be issued a Certification, it must meet the following criteria
i. The project has no practical alternative
ii. Minimizes adverse impacts to surface waters and wetlands based on
consideration of existing topography, vegetation, fish and wildlife resources,
and hydrological conditions
iii. Does not result in the degradation of groundwaters or surface waters
iv. 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 and
v. Provides for replacement of existing uses through mitigation
I

ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED
FERC NEPA Alternative Analysis
No action alternative - Conceptual route
• Alternative energy alternatives
sources - Eastern (along 1-95)
and Western (west of
• Energy conservation Durham)
• System alternatives - Southern (around
Great Dismal Swamp
National Wildlife
Refuge & State Park)
An alternative analysis was completed as part of the FERC's National Environmental
Policy Act review
i. This included
1. No action alternative
2. Alternative energy sources
3. Energy conservation
4. System alternatives
5. Two Conceptual alternatives were evaluated
a. An eastern route along 1-95 that is the proposed route and
Western route that was located west of Durham
b. Also, a Southern route for the lateral pipeline was evaluated to
select a route around the Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife
Refuge & State Park
I

ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED
Major Route Alternatives
Baseline developed using:
• Location of receipt/delivery
points
• Engineering and
constructability criteria
• Terrain
- Existing land use
Alternatives to avoid localized
resources
• Conservation easements
• Cultural resource sites
• Forest areas (avoidance &
preference for collocation)
• Protected plants and animals
- Stakeholder concerns
- Surface waters and wetlands
ACP also evaluated several major route alternatives
1. Initially, a baseline was developed using the
1. Location of receipt/delivery points
2. Engineering and constructability criteria
3. Terrain and
4. Existing land use
2. Then, alternatives were evaluated to avoid or minimize impacts to
localized resources and stakeholders which involved mainly
a. Conservation easements
b. Cultural resource sites
c. Forest areas including avoidance and collocation with existing
utility corridors
d. Protected plants and animals
e. Stakeholder concerns and
f. Surface Waters and Wetlands
I

CONSTRUCTION MINIMIZATION
SurfaceWaters (Waterbodies)
• Install temporary bridges to reduce potential for sediment impacts
• Use methods to work in the dry (routing water around work area)
where feasible
• Plans for removing fish and other aquatic species from clewatered
work areas
• Use water from municipal sources for testing pipeline integrity after
construction with a few exceptions
• Restoring streambed/banks to near as practicable pre-existing
conditions after pipeline installation
ACP has also taken steps to minimize the impact of construction on surface waters
and wetlands
At surface water crossings, they
i. Will install temporary bridges to reduce the potential for sediment impacts
ii. Will use methods to work in the dry by routing water around the work area
where it is feasible
iii. They have plans for removing fish and other aquatic species from dewatered
work areas
iv. After construction, they will use water from municipal sources for testing the
pipeline integrity, except for the Tar River and Contentnea Creek crossings, and
v. They will restore streambeds and banks to near as practicable pre-existing
conditions after pipeline installation
I

CONSTRUCTION MINIMIZATION
Wetlands
• Limit construction right-of-way (ROW)
• Locate additional temporary work spaces in uplands at least 50 feet
from wetland boundaries
• Maintaining sediment barriers during construction
• Restoring ground surface to pre-existing conditions after pipeline
installation
• Re -seeding with native seed mix
• Limiting post -construction maintenance of vegetation within
easement
In wetland areas, they
Have limited the width of the construction ROW, which I will show you on the next slide
ii. The have located additional temporary work spaces in uplands at least 50 feet from
wetland boundaries
iii. Will maintain sediment barriers during construction
iv. Will restore the ground surface to pre-existing conditions after pipeline installation
v. Will re -seed the construction corridor with a native seed mix and
vi. Will limit post -construction maintenance of vegetation within the pipeline easement
10

TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION
RIGHT-OF-WAY IN WETLANDS
11-- pm-- TE—m Y
RO RO ROW
B—C." Rp,— BOUNDAW B--
—25'�
PE—E.. ROW 1 T,W01—C— 1-110N
ROW
w.— s'.
75'
0 -1 -TION ROW
This is a drawing showing what the typical ROW within wetlands would look like during
construction
a. The total width of the construction ROW is reduced from 110 feet to 75 feet in
wetlands
b. Topsoil will be removed first and kept segregated from the subsoil below for wetland
restoration
C. The trench will be centered within the 50 -foot permanent easement for the pipeline
leaving 50 feet for construction equipment needed to install the pipeline in the trench
and travel along the construction corridor
11

MITIGATION
• Surface water and wetland impacts that will be restored after construction are
temporary
- Do not require mitigation for the 401 WQC
• Mitigation is required for permanent impacts due to access road development
• Mitigation requires restoration of streams, wetlands and buffers somewhere else in
the same watershed as the impact
• Payment to a private mitigation bank to perform restoration
• Payment to State program that performs restoration
• Restoration performed by or on the behalf of the applicant
As I mentioned earlier, mitigation is required to provide for replacement of existing uses
a. Surface water and wetland impacts that will be restored after construction are
temporary and do not require mitigation for the 401 water quality certification
because the impact does not result in a loss of the resource. It is important to note
that the Corps of Engineers will require mitigation for the permanent conversion of
forested wetlands to wetlands without woody plants within the pipeline easement
that will be permanently maintained.
b. For the 401 Certification, mitigation to provide replacement of existing uses is required
for permanent impacts that would result from access road development
C. Mitigation requires restoration of streams, wetlands, and buffers somewhere else in
the same watershed as the impact
d. There three options available to mitigate proposed losses of surface waters, wetlands,
and strearnside buffers. The applicant can
a. Make a payment to a private mitigation bank to purchase credits from
completed restoration projects
12

b. Make a payment to a State program that performs restoration projects or
c. Restoration can be performed by or on the behalf of the applicant directly
a. ACP plans to use a tiered approach in their mitigation plan. They will purchase
mitigation credits from private mitigation banks where these credits are available.
Where credits are not available, ACP will purchase credits from the State program.
Lastly, ACP may propose to provide mitigation themselves where neither of these
options are available.
12

401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
PROCESS &TIMELINE
DEQ Stakeholder Meeting
401 WQC/Buffer Authorization Application Received
Public Notice of Project and Hearings
Public Notice Correction
DWR Request for Additional Information
Additional Information Received
Fayetteville Public Hearing
Rocky Mount Public Hearing
Public Comment Period Ends
DWR 40 [/Buffer Decision
March 23,2017
May 8,2017
June 16,2017
June 19,2017
June 27,2017
July 12,2017
July 18,2017
July 20,2017
August 19, 2017
September 18,2017
Lastly, I'll outline the 401 WQC process and its timeline
a. The Division, Army Corps of Engineers and State and Federal resource agencies
have been engaging in pre -application consultation with ACP since 2014 to
avoid and minimize impacts to surface waters, wetlands, and strearnside
buffers
b. In March of this year, the Department organized a meeting with all the
Divisions that are responsible for processing permits for the project and
conservation groups and other interested stakeholders to hear any concerns
One concern that we heard from several stakeholders was that the
project should be processed as an Individual Certification instead of the
more abbreviated General Certification process
ii. The Department adopted this recommendation and planned two
hearings to facilitate stakeholder input into the process
C. We received ACP's application for Certification and Authorization on May 811
13

1h
d. On June 16 , we issued a public notice of the project and announced that two
hearings would be held, which was also published in newspapers serving the
counties crossed by the project on the 171h and 181h
e. We issued a correction of the public notice a few days later to correct a
typographical error in the pipeline diameter reported
1h
f. A request for additional information about the project was issued on June 27
and the information was received on July 121h
g. In addition to the hearing tonight, a hearing was also held in Fayetteville on
Tuesday
h. The public comment period for written comments will remain open until August
19th.
a. A decision on the application would be issued by September 18th unless
additional information necessary to process the application is needed and not
yet available
13

WRITTEN COMMENTS
Tonight
Submit them at one of the sign -in tables
By US Mail
401 Permitting
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
By Email
[e-mail] (please include "ACP" in the subject line)
Written comments can be submitted here tonight, by mail or by email to the applicable
address shown. Thank you.
14

Compressor
AP -5 300
Station
0
AP -1 AP -3
501.1"'40 A -2
P
North
Carolina,,,,,,,
100
NOR M
AR (11 1 NA
I
noxd
ji- i1w1f am 150
15