20140957 Ver 2_Cumulative Impact Analysis (11-17) with JAB Notes_20171101

INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS SCREENING
Atlantic Coast Pipeline
November 2017
Summary Report
Indirect and Cumulative Effects Screening Matrix
The purpose of this analysis is to identify and describe secondary' (hereafter referred to as
indirect) and cumulative 2 impacts that could potentially result from construction and operation of
those portions of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP or Project) within the Study Area, which has
been defined by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) as
Johnston, Cumberland, and Robeson counties, North Carolina (see Figure 1).
The categories listed on the Indirect and Cumulative Effects Screening Matrix below
have been shown to influence land development decisions in numerous areas statewide and
nationally. Each characteristic is assessed individually and the results of the table are analyzed to
determine ihe indirect effects potential of the proposed project.
,*- I
This cumulative impacts analysis is focuse'd-on Water quality, wetlands, and water
resources. A cumulative impact assessment of other resources affected by the ACP was included
in the previous submittal to the NCDEQ on September 29, 2017, and the fmal environmental
impact statement for the Project prepared by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC). Pursuant to guidance provided in the October 26, 2017, Information Request Letter
from NCDEQ, projects included in the cumulative impacts assessment for the Project were
limited to those within Johnston, Cumberland, and Robeson counties that would be constructed
in a similar timeframe.to the Project. Attachment I summarizes the projects with potential
cumulative impacts identified in each county.
In accordance with the National Envirom-nental Policy A�t (NEPA) and North Carolina
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), the indirect and cumulative impacts of the Project and
other projects or actions in the same areas are considered. This analysis uses an approach
consistent with the guidelines set forth by the NCDEQ. Under these guidelines, the inclusion of
actions within the analysis is based on identifying commonalities of impacts from other actions
to potential impacts that would result from the Project.
"Secondary impacf' means actions, or actions directly linked to an activity, that may affect classified surface waters or wetlands that would
not occur bit for the prop6sed activity.
"Cumulative impacf 'means environmental impacts resulting from incremental effects of an activity when added to other past, present, and
reasonable forseeable future activities regardless of what entities undertake such other actions.

Screening Tool Results
Based on the information gathered from local land use and development plans and
information from mapping and data reviews, a screening tool was developed.
SCREENING RESULTS
The results of the indirect effect screening tool are summarized in Table 1 and discussed
in more detail below.
SCOPE OF THE PROJECT
Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC (Atlantic) is proposing to construct approximately 600
miles of mainline natural gas transmission underground pipeline, 81 miles of lateral underground
pipeline, three compressor stations, nine metering and regulating (M&R) stations, and various
appurtenant facilities in West Virginia, Virginia; and North Carolina. Approximately 100 miles
of pipeline and 3 M&R stations would be constructed in Johnston, Cumberland, and Robeson
Counties, North Carolina. The proposed route and facility locations within the 3 North Carolina
counties under review are depicted in Figure 1, below. County -specific descriptions of proposed
facilities are provided as follows:
Johnston County
The ACP enters Johnston County from the northeast and extends approximately 3 8 miles
southwest to the border of Cumberland County. The proposed pipeline route passes near the
towns of Kenly, Micro, Selma, Smithfield, Four Oaks, and Benson. Throughout Johnston
County, 12 permanent and 4 temporary access roads would be utilized along the pipeline.
Johnston County has one M&R station, the Smithfield M&R station, which is approximately 5.5
acre in size and located in central Johnston County. The M&R station is in a rural setting
approximately 2.5 miles west from the town of Smithfield.
2
Table I
Indirect and Cumulative Effects Screening Matrix
Rating
Scope of Project
Population Growth
Available Land
Water/Sewer
Natural Gas
Market for
Notable Water
Availability
Availability
Development
Resources
More
Major new
> 3% annual
5000+ acres of
All services
All services
Development
Targeted or
threatened
Concern
location
population growth
land
existing/ available
existing/ available
activity abundant
resources
T
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Less
Very limited
No population
Litruted land
No service
No service
Development
Featured
Concern
scope
growth or decline
available
available now or in
available now or in
activity lacking
incorporated in
future
future
local protection
SCOPE OF THE PROJECT
Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC (Atlantic) is proposing to construct approximately 600
miles of mainline natural gas transmission underground pipeline, 81 miles of lateral underground
pipeline, three compressor stations, nine metering and regulating (M&R) stations, and various
appurtenant facilities in West Virginia, Virginia; and North Carolina. Approximately 100 miles
of pipeline and 3 M&R stations would be constructed in Johnston, Cumberland, and Robeson
Counties, North Carolina. The proposed route and facility locations within the 3 North Carolina
counties under review are depicted in Figure 1, below. County -specific descriptions of proposed
facilities are provided as follows:
Johnston County
The ACP enters Johnston County from the northeast and extends approximately 3 8 miles
southwest to the border of Cumberland County. The proposed pipeline route passes near the
towns of Kenly, Micro, Selma, Smithfield, Four Oaks, and Benson. Throughout Johnston
County, 12 permanent and 4 temporary access roads would be utilized along the pipeline.
Johnston County has one M&R station, the Smithfield M&R station, which is approximately 5.5
acre in size and located in central Johnston County. The M&R station is in a rural setting
approximately 2.5 miles west from the town of Smithfield.
2

Johnzt�h
Comity
I—ww Malt
too
110
130
130
Via-CTbwt6A me
1.
Cumbefland-I
Coll , jity
Rubosqq,,
County
0
Atlantic Coast Pipeline
Fopre I - Cumulalve InkWIs S" At"
I"),'
.r'. - I ' I
. j

The ACP would require approximately 616.4 acres of construction workspace in
Johnston County, of which 254.8 acres would be maintained during operations for the permanent
pipeline right-of-way, permanent access roads, and the Smithfield M&R station. Table 2
includes a summary of the construction and operations impacts.
Table 2
Construction and Operational Impacts (in acres) in Johnston, Cumberland, and Robeson County, North Carolina
Construction (Temporary and Permanent) Operation (Permanent)
Johnston County 616.4 254.8
Cumberland County 589.1 270.7
Robeson County 313.5 144.3
Total 1,519.0 669.8
Cumberland County
The ACP enters Cumberland County from the northwest and extends approximately 39.7
miles south, then east, to the border of Robeson County. The proposed pipeline route passes
near the towns of Godwin, Wade, Fayetteville, and Stedman. Throughout the county, 16
permanent access roads would be utilized along the pipeline. In Cumberland County, the Project
includes one M&R station, the Fayetteville M&R station, which is an approximately 7.3 acre site
located in northern Cumberland County. The M&R station is approximately ten miles north of
the city of Fayetteville and 1.5 miles west from the town of Wade. The area immediately
surrounding the site is rural and contains agricultural fields. The ACP would require
approximately 589.1 acres of construction workspace in Cumberland County, of which 270.7
acres would be maintained during operations for the permanent pipeline right-of-way, permanent
access roads, and the Fayetteville M&R station (see Table 2).
Robeson County
The Project enters Robeson County from the northeast and extends 22.4 miles southwest
to the southern terminus of the ACP. The proposed pipeline route passes by the towns of St.
Pauls and Rennert, and ends approximately 3.3 miles northwest of the town of Pembroke. The
Pembroke M&R station is an approximately 2.5 acre site. The area immediately surrounding the
site is rural and contains agricultural fields. Throughout Robeson County, 12 permanent and
four temporary access roads would be utilized along the pipeline. The ACP would require
approximately 313.5 acres of construction workspace in Robeson County, of which 144.3 acres
would be maintained during operation for pen-nanent pipeline right-of-way, permanent access
roads, and the Pembroke M&R station (see Table 2).
Due to the scope of the Project in the three counties, this category was rated as High.
POPULATION GROWTH
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Johnston, and Cumberland Counties have
experienced an estimated population increase of 13.3 and 2.3 percent, respectively, from 2010
until early 2016. The population in Robeson County decreased an estimated 0.7 percent from
2010 until 2016. In comparison, the state of North Carolina had an estimated growth of 6.4
percent during this same period. In 2016, the total estimated population of the three counties
2

was estimated to be 651,812; approximately 6.4 percent of the total population of North Carolina
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2016). Based on the level of population growth across Johnston,
Cumberland, and Robeson Counties, this category was rated as Moderate.
AVAILABLE LAND
Table 3 summarizes the undeveloped land in Johnston, Cumberland, and Robeson
Counties based on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gap data (USGS, 2011). Attachment 2
provides figures illustrating the extent of developed and undeveloped land in each county. Based
on the available land in Johnston, Cumberland, and Robeson Counties, this category is rated as
High.
Table 3
Developed and Undeveloped Land By County
Total Land (Acres) Developed Land (Acres) Undeveloped Land (Acres)
Johnston 372,241 30,754 341,487
Cumberland 369,271 69,063 300,208
Robeson 608,654 36422 572,232
WATER/SEWER AVAILABILITY
Municipal water service is available for the majority of Johnston County; sewer services
are mainly only available for the western portion of the county (Johnston County, 2017).
Municipal water and sewer services are available for portions of Cumberland County, mainly in
the areas in and around the City of Fayetteville (Cumberland County, 2017). In Robeson
County, larger municipalities such as Lumberton, Pembroke, Fairmont, Red Springs, and St.
Pauls, all have municipal water and sewer systems. However these services are lacking in
unincorporated towns (Robeson County, 2014). Based on the availability of municipal water and
sewer in Johnston, Cumberland, and Robeson Counties, this category was rated as Low.
NATURAL GAS AVAILABILITY
Natural gas service is available in larger municipalities of Johnston County such Benson,
Clayton, Smithfield, and Selma; expansion of these services is ongoing (Johnston County, 2017).
Natural gas utilities are available in large municipalities of Cumberland County such as
Fayetteville; there is limited information available on the extent of distribution in other areas of
the county (Cumberland, 2010). Natural gas availability is limited in Robeson County. In 2010,
it was estimated that approximately 60 to 70 percent of homes are farther than 0.25 mile away
from a gas distribution line (Robeson County, 2014). Based on the availability of natural gas in
Johnston, Cumberland, and Robeson Counties, this category was rated as Moderate.
MARKET FOR DEVELOPMENT
Johnston County:
Johnston County adopted the Johnston County, North Carolina 2030 Comprehensive
Plan in 2009 (Johnston County, 2009). In northern Johnston County, a steady, long-term
increase in economic activity due to the County's proximity to the Research Triangle Park in
5

Durham and Wake Counties has transformed whathad long been an agrarian area to a more
diverse mix of urban, agricultural, and forested landscapes. Conversely, the southern portion of
the county has seen little or no growth due to real estate markets, less available public
transportation, and lack of infrastructure, such as water and sewer services, and poor soils.
According to the county's 2009 comprehensive plan, Johnston County has experienced
significantly high growth rates overall since 1990, a trend that has continued since 2009.
Urban development is most intense in the western part of the County; however,
residential developments are becoming increasingly dense in the central portion of the County
between the towns of Selma and Pine Level. According to the County Comprehensive Plan,
additional development between these two communities, which share planning jurisdictions, "is
both likely and desirable." The County Comprehensive Plan anticipates future municipal
annexations (Johnston County, 2009).
Immediately south of the Selma -Pine Level area of growth, the Town of Smithfield has
planning jurisdiction. No planned developments have been identified in this area, although some
commercial development around freeway interchanges may occur if a long -planned bridge
replacement project at Market Street moves forward (Embler, 2015). Other parts of Johnston
County include rural residential areas, with a number of residential clusters and subdivisions,
where development is occurring at a slower pace (Johnston County, 2009).
With transportation improvements, approved development, and availability of suitable
land, The Johnson County 2030 Comprehensive Plan estimated 42,500 new dwelling units and
accompanying non-residential growth would occur across the County and suggested that future
growth demands should benefit from municipal planning initiatives and decisions and
investments already in place (Johnston County, 2009).
Cumberland County:
Cumberland County has adopted a 2030 Growth Vision Plan and a Land Use Policies
Plan (Cumberland County, 2008). The Cumberland County Joint Planning Board divided the
County into several land use planning study areas.
The Northeastern Study Area Northeast Cumberland Citizen's Planning Committee -
Recommended Land Use Plan shows that the Northeast part of the County includes Open Space,
Farmland, One -Acre Residential, Suburban Residential, Commercial, and Industrial land with
the latter four recommended uses located in and around the community of Godwin (Cumberland
County, 2011). Rural residential and suburban tract development is relatively dense in some
portions of this section of Cumberland County.
Yhe Draft Wade Study Area Detailed Land Use Plan addresses the city of Wade and
surrounding area, including the land -use designation "Farmland", and areas within the Wade
City limits which are planned for low density residential use, but are currently undeveloped.
The South Central Study Area Proposed South Central Land Use Plan covers the section
of the County south of the Cape Fear River to the Robeson County line. With the exception of a
one -mile strip of land south of the Cape Fear River to Rainey Road, the land use is designated as
"Farmland." Despite this designation, there are numerous housing tracts with parcels of less than
.1

one acre. The land between the Cape Fear River and Rainey Road is designated for "One Acre
Mixed Housing Types." The Cumberland County zoning ordinance does not specifically address
natural gas transmission pipelines; however, the ordinance contains a "Use Matrix" indicating
that public/community utility stations/substations are allowable in all zoning districts
(Cumberland County, 2010).
Robeson County:
Robeson County is largely undeveloped and rural with the majority of existing lands
classified as agricultural lands, rural residential, or vacant. There is no unincorporated land in
the County that is zoned. As an estimated minimum, 4,500 new dwellings will be required by
2030 correlating with population growth (Robeson County, 2014).
The Robeson Comprehensive Plan with a Health & Wellness Component was developed
to outline goals for enhancing the quality of life for residents. The County specific plan also
supports long-term economic growth. The goals outlined include protecting the natural areas
while providing land -use patterns to support economic development.
Based on the land use and growth plans developed for Johnston, Cumberland, and
Robeson Counties, this category was rated as Moderate.
NOTABLE WATER RESOURCES
Johnston, Cumberland, and Robeson Counties include portions of 6 major watersheds in
the State of North Carolina:
Upper Cape Fear and Lurnber Watersheds (Robeson and Cumberland Counties);
Little Pee Dee Watershed (Robeson County);
Upper Neuse Watershed (Johnston County);
Contentnea Watershed (Johnston County);
Black Watershed (Johnston and Cumberland Counties); and
Lower Cape Fear Watershed (Cumberland County).
The major rivers flowing through the counties include the middle or lower reaches of the
Neuse, Cape Fear, and Lumber rivers and their tributaries.
Table 4 summarizes the wetlands and waterbodies in Johnston, Cumberland, and
Robeson Counties based on National Wetlands Inventory data and the National Hydrography
Dataset (USGS, 2017; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS], 2017). Based on the amount of
wetlands and waterbodies in Johnston, Cumberland, and Robeson Counties, this category is rated
as Moderately -Low.
7

IMPACTS AND IMPACT CAUSING ACTIVITIES
Waterbodies and Wetlands
Waterbodies are defined by the FERC as "any natural or artificial stream, river, or
drainage with perceptible flow at the time of crossing, and other pennanent waterbodies such as
lakes and ponds." The term "waterbodies," as used here, is best understood as those water
features — excluding wetlands — that are potentially subject to jurisdiction under the Clean Water
Act. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency jointly define
wetlands as "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence
of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." Atlantic corresponded with
the USFWS to determine which streams are sensitive based on the presence, or anticipated
presence of species protected under the Endangered Species Act (16 U. S. C. § 15 3 1 et seq.). The
FERC (lead federal agency) and the USFWS determined that no North Carolina aquatic species
would "likely be adversely affected" based on communication between the two agencies. A
summary of waterbodies and wetlands delineated along the ACP in Johnston, Cumberland, and
Robeson Counties is provided in Table 5. Figures illustrating the wetlands and waterbodies
crossed are included as Attachment 3.
Table 4
Table 5
Waterbody and Wetlands Affected by the Atlantic Coast Pipeline By County
Waterbodies and Wetlands By County
Johnston County
Cumberland County
Johnston County
Cumberland County
Robeson County
Waterbody Classifications
Ephemeral
Miles of Waterbodies
15
Canal/Ditch
Intermittent
13
192
414
Intermittent
20
1,286
499
965
Perennial
83
748
812
1,031
Number of Wetlands
Waterbody Total
2,047
1,503
2,410
Wetland Classifications
Palustrine forested
95
Acres of Wetlands
31
Open Water
9
7,538
7,241
3,306
Emergent
104
497
949
5,091
Scrub -Shrub
3,607
11,148
15,943
Forested
62,817
58,997
147,366
Wetland Total
74,459
78,325
171,706
IMPACTS AND IMPACT CAUSING ACTIVITIES
Waterbodies and Wetlands
Waterbodies are defined by the FERC as "any natural or artificial stream, river, or
drainage with perceptible flow at the time of crossing, and other pennanent waterbodies such as
lakes and ponds." The term "waterbodies," as used here, is best understood as those water
features — excluding wetlands — that are potentially subject to jurisdiction under the Clean Water
Act. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency jointly define
wetlands as "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence
of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." Atlantic corresponded with
the USFWS to determine which streams are sensitive based on the presence, or anticipated
presence of species protected under the Endangered Species Act (16 U. S. C. § 15 3 1 et seq.). The
FERC (lead federal agency) and the USFWS determined that no North Carolina aquatic species
would "likely be adversely affected" based on communication between the two agencies. A
summary of waterbodies and wetlands delineated along the ACP in Johnston, Cumberland, and
Robeson Counties is provided in Table 5. Figures illustrating the wetlands and waterbodies
crossed are included as Attachment 3.
Table 5
Waterbody and Wetlands Affected by the Atlantic Coast Pipeline By County
Johnston County
Cumberland County
Robeson County
Waterbody Classifications
Number of Waterbodies
Ephemeral
4
15
5
Intermittent
21
34
17
Perennial
20
34
8
Waterbody Total
45
83
30
Wetland Classifications
Number of Wetlands
Palustrine emergent
9
28
7
Palustrine forested
95
63
31
Palustrine scrub -shrub
9
13
13
Wetland Total
113
104
51

Cumulative effects on surface water resources affected by the construction and operation
of the Project in Johnston, Cumberland, and Robeson Counties, North Carolina would be limited
to waterbodies that are affected by other projects located within the same watershed (see
Attachment 1). Atlantic would minimize impacts on waterbodies and wetlands by implementing
its sediment and erosion control plan (S&ECP) and adhering to all applicable state and federal
permit conditions. Atlantic has developed the S&ECP using the FERC Plan and Procedures, and
the North Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual. To further
minimize impacts, USFWS identified sensitive waterbodies within the Project area. Atlantic
would implement enhanced erosion and sediment control measures at these 17 waterbody and
wetland crossings.
Indirect Effects Conclusion
Indirect Summary Statement
The North Carolina Administrative Code defines indirect impacts as impacts that "are
later in time or further removed in distance." (Council on Environmental Quality 1986, 40 CFR
1508.8). The majority of land development outside of the proposed Project is expected to occur
within or near urban areas within Johnston, Cumberland, and Robeson Counties. The Project has
been routed to avoid urban areas and areas with planned developments identified during the
routing process. According to the counties' comprehensive plans, future development activities
are anticipated for the areas around Selma, Pine Level, Fayetteville, and Lumberton.
Customers of the ACP in North Carolina have indicated that the majority of the gas
would be used for power generation, with the remainder for commercial, industrial and
residential customers. IN-I'aal a—as u-&FsDor—ted7'bTt-fie—ACYWo-u-FdEro—vfje—ai�alt—em�t-e�ol�ice of
increased reliability, and support projected growth, and would be but one of several
LtiLallysontributhig to growth in the 3 counties.
The Project would have direct land use impacts on the areas crossed, but would have little
to no indirect impacts on land use, and wetlands/waterbodies outside of the immediate vicinity of
the pipeline right-of-way, aboveground facilities, and access roads. Atlantic has no commitment
t9 p9tenf lans to extend ACP bqyo�d the current
jal customers or reasonably foreseeable p
terminus. Because there is no planned expansion that can be scoped or analyzed, the potential
-To-r-'extension of the pipeline is not addressed in this report. /" � W,
Water Quality Statement Zme'r
/q,*// &
Moccasin =Creek in oukt;� L)O /)A jj-bo
The ACP would cross one 303(d) impaired water, Moccasin Cr ek * JoHnston
which is impaired for benthos. To minimize impacts on �o=ccasin Creek, Atlantic has developed
a S&ECP plan that incorporates requirements from the FERC Plan and Procedures, and the
North Carolina General Permit to Discharge Stormwater under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System for Construction Activities, general permit NCGO 10000. The S&ECP plan
review is being coordinated with NCDEQ staff out of the Raleigh and Fayetteville Regions.
Atlantic would follow the requirements of general permit NCGO 10000 and the approved S&ECP
plan to minimize potential impacts on Moccasin Creek.
10,

It is unlikely that significant or permanent indirect effects to waterbodies would result
from construction activities within the stream channels and adjacent banks of the waterbodies.
Short term increases in sedimentation and turbidity could result from in -stream construction
activities, trench dewatering, and storm water runoff from construction areas. These impacts are
expected to primarily be limited to in -stream construction. Impacts are expected to be short-
term, given that waterbody crossings would occur as quickly as possible and stabilization of the
construction area would occur immediately after the crossing of each waterbody, so that
conditions would be stabilized shortly after stream restoration activities are complete.
Direct impacts to the majority of affected wetlands are anticipated to be short-term.
Temporary impacts on wetlands would occur within the construction limits of disturbance, with
long-term conversion of forested and scrub -shrub to emergent wetlands due to maintenance of
the pipeline right-of-way according to the FERC Procedures and U.S. Department of
Transportation requirements. The majority of the impacts would be temporary as revegetation
would occur through reseeding with and reestablishment of native vegetation after construction.
As a result, Atlantic does not anticipate significant direct and indirect impacts to water quality.
Cumulative Effects Statement
As with most linear projects, water resources such as wetlands and streams cannot be
completely avoided because of the extensive and reticulated nature of the waterbodies. Atlantic
has worked with the FERC, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, USFWS, and North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission field staff to provide minor adjustments of the pipeline route or
adopt alternative construction measures to avoid waters of the U.S. with special ecological value
where feasible. In addition, Atlantic has incorporated dry crossing methods at each waterbody
crossing in North Carolina at the request of the NCDEQ, with an option of coordinating review
of site-specific conditions where dry or difficult construction conditions are present.
Loss of wetlands associated with the Project in the three Counties under review is limited
to 0.54 acre (0. 17 acre in Johnston County and 0.37 acre in Cumberland County) which are all
attributable to improvements to permanent access roads. Where a permanent loss of waters of the
U.S. is unavoidable, Atlantic has proposed compensatory mitigation to offset impacts within the
associated watershed and to mitigate impacts to a no more than minimal level. In addition, as
part of the Section 404 review process, Atlantic has proposed compensatory mitigation for
impacts that do not constitute a loss of waters of the U.S., but would result in a permanent
conversion of forested or scrub/shrub wetlands (e.g., forested wetlands converted to emergent
wetlands due to long term maintenance of the right-of-way).
The direct impacts associated with construction are planned to occur in an
expedient and efficient manner such that impacts on the waterbody and in the case
of streams, the impacts to its banks are temporary in nature. Based on the short
duration and nature of the waterbody crossings, Atlantic anticipates that cumulative
impacts would result in minimal adverse impacts on the waterbodies within the
watershed basin and sub -basins crossed.
10

Atlantic has also identified other projects that are recent, underway, or planned within the
three counties crossed by the ACP (Attachment 1). Among these projects, 4 proposed projects
associated with Piedmont Natural Gas are connected to the ACP:
Piedmont Natural Gas Facility Modifications at the Smithfield M&R Station in
Johnston County;
Piedmont Natural Gas Facility Modifications at the Fayetteville M&R Station in
Cumberland County;
Piedmont Natural Gas Facility Modifications at the Pembroke M&R Station in
Robeson County; and
Piedmont Natural Gas 26 miles of 20" Diameter Pipeline in Robeson County.
The three Piedmont M&R station projects would involve modifications to piping
associated with connections to the ACP delivery and measurement of natural gas. The proposed
pipeline addition would provide a connection to an existing power plant. All of these projects are
subject to Federal and State regulatory review and approval, which would address any impacts to
water resources.
In summary, due to the implementation of specialized construction techniques, the
relatively short construction timeframe at any one location and carefully developed resource
protection and mitigation plans, minimal cumulative effects are anticipated when the impacts of
the ACP are considered along with the projects identified in Attachment 1. As with the ACP,
these other projects would also be required to adhere to state and federal water quality
regulations and permit requirements, limiting the potential for adverse cumulative impacts on
water quality. In addition, many of the projects are spatially separated from the Project, reducing
the likelihood of significant water quality impacts.
References:
Council on Environmental Quality. 1986. 40 CFR 1508.8(b). Indirect effects.
Cumberland County. 2008. 2030 Growth Vision Plan Policies and Actions. Available online at:
https://www,co.cumberland.nc.us/i)lanning/�downloads/growth/2030 Growth Vision Pla
n Sept08 032709 PlBdcol)y.pd Accessed October 2017.
Cumberland County. 2010. Cumberland County 2010 Land Use Plan. Available online at:
hLtp://www.co.cumberland.ne.us/planning/2010 growth plan.aspx. Accessed
November 2017.
Cumberland County. 2011. Northeastern Study Area Northeast Cumberland Citizen's Planning
Committee -Recommended Land Use Plan Available Online at:
http://www.co.cumberland.nc.us/Tlanning/downloads/land use/Northeast Study/Vision
Northeast Study 03-23-201 I.pd Accessed October, 2017.
Cumberland County. 2017. Cumberland County website. Available online at:
http://www.co.cumberland.nc.us/. Accessed November 2017.
11

Embler, Paul (Town of Smithfield), personal communication with John Cassady (ERM), July 13,
2015.
Johnston County. 2009. 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Available online at:
http://wwwjohnstonnc.com/mainpage.cfm?category_level_id=766. Accessed October
2017.
Johnston County. 2017. Johnston County website. Available online at:
httD://WWW.iohnstonnc.com/. Accessed November 2017.
RobesonCounty. 2014. Comprehensive Plan with a Health& Wellness Component. Available
online at: http://publichealth.southemregionalahec.org/robeson/docs/3-10-
2014%20DRAFT%2ORobeson%2OCounty%2OComp%20PIan.pdf. Accessed October
2017.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2016. Quickfacts Census Data. Available online at:
bqps://www.census.gov/guickfacts/fact/table/NC,iohnstoncountynorthcarolina,cumberlan
dcountynorthcarolina,robesoncoun!ynorthcarolina/POP0602 10. Accessed October, 2017.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017. National wetland Inventory. Available online at:
hqps://www.fws.gov/wetlands/nwi/index.html. Accessed October 2017.
U.S. Geological Survey. 2011. USGS Land Cover GAP Data: Vegetation Data. Available
Online at: htlps://gaanalysis.usgs.gov/data/
U.S. Geological Survey. 2017. National Hydrography Dataset. Available online at:
hgp://nhd.usgs.gov/data.html. Accessed October 2017.
12