The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20181638 Ver 1_Project Description_20181130Irl Mountain Vail,e�r MVP Southgate Project Pre -Construction Notification — Joint Permit Application U.S. Army Corps of Engineers — Wilmington District (SAW -2018-00887) North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Resources November 2018 M Mountain Valley Joint Permit Application 'T PIPELINE US Army Corps of Engineers & NC Dept of Environmental Quality Docket No. PF18-4-000 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 SCOPE OF THE JOINT PERMIT APPLICATION.......................................................1-1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION...........................................................................................................2-1 2.1 PURPOSE AND NEED...................................................................................................2-1 2.2 LOCATION.....................................................................................................................2-3 2.3 PROPOSED FACILITIES...............................................................................................2-4 2.3.1 Pipeline Facilities................................................................................................2-5 2.3.2 Additional Temporary Workspace......................................................................2-5 2.3.3 Access Roads......................................................................................................2-6 2.3.4 Contractor Yards.................................................................................................2-6 2.3.5 Aboveground Facilities.......................................................................................2-7 2.3.5.1 Meter Stations.....................................................................................2-7 2.3.5.2 Mainline Valves..................................................................................2-8 2.3.5.3 Pig Launchers and Receivers..............................................................2-8 2.4 CONSTRUCTION...........................................................................................................2-8 2.4.1 General Practices................................................................................................2-8 2.4.2 Typical Upland Pipeline Construction Procedures.............................................2-9 2.4.3 Typical Wetland Pipeline Construction..............................................................2-3 2.4.4 Typical Waterbody Crossings.............................................................................2-4 2.4.5 Aboveground Facilities.....................................................................................2-17 2.4.6 Access Roads....................................................................................................2-17 2.5 RESTORATION............................................................................................................2-17 2.5.1 Pipeline.............................................................................................................2-18 2.5.1.1 Uplands.............................................................................................2-18 2.5.1.2 Wetlands............................................................................................2-18 2.5.1.3 Waterbodies.......................................................................................2-19 2.5.2 Access Roads....................................................................................................2-19 2.5.3 Aboveground Facilities.....................................................................................2-19 2.5.4 Contractor Yards...............................................................................................2-19 2.6 QUALITY ASSURANCE MEASURES.......................................................................2-20 2.7 SCHEDULE...................................................................................................................2-21 2.8 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.........................................................................2-21 2.9 FUTURE PLANS AND ABANDONMENT................................................................2-22 2.10 ROUTE ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS......................................................................2-22 3.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS.................................................................................................3-1 3.1 WETLAND AND WATERBODY DELINEATION......................................................3-1 3. 1.1 Wetlands.............................................................................................................3-1 3.1.2 Waterbodies........................................................................................................3-1 3.1.3 Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination...........................................................3-9 4.0 WETLAND AND WATERBODY IMPACT ASSESSMENT....................................................4-1 4.1 WETLAND IMPACTS...................................................................................................4-6 4. 1.1 Temporary Construction Impacts.......................................................................4-6 4.1.2 Permanent Conversion of Forested Wetlands to Nonforested Wetlands ............ 4-6 4.1.2.1 Permanent Fill for Access Road..........................................................4-6 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Ir PIPELINE Joint Permit Application USACE-Wilmington Districts and NCDEQ SAW -20188-00887 4.2 WATERBODY IMPACTS..............................................................................................4-7 4.2.1 Temporary Construction Impacts.......................................................................4-7 4.2.2 Permanent Impacts..............................................................................................4-7 4.3 RIPARIAN BUFFER IMPACTS....................................................................................4-7 4.3.1.1 Diffuse Flow Requirement................................................................4-14 4.3.1.2 No Practicable Alternatives...............................................................4-14 4.3.1.3 Impact Mitigation..............................................................................4-14 4.4 IMPACT AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION MEASURES..................................4-14 4.4.1 Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan.............................................4-18 4.4.1.1 Stormwater Management Plan..........................................................4-18 4.4.1.2 Certified Local Government Stormwater Review.............................4-18 5.0 ADDITIONAL SUPPORTING INFORMATION.......................................................................5-1 5.1 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION...................................................................5-1 5.2 VIOLATIONS.................................................................................................................5-1 5.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS.............................................................................................5-1 5.4 SEWAGE DISPOSAL.....................................................................................................5-5 5.5 ENDANGERED SPECIES AND DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT ....................5-5 5.5.1 Consultation........................................................................................................5-5 5.5.2 Findings..............................................................................................................5-6 5.5.3 Wildlife Species..................................................................................................5-6 5.5.4 Aquatic Species...................................................................................................5-7 5.5.5 Plant Species.......................................................................................................5-8 5.5.6 Conclusions.........................................................................................................5-8 5.6 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT........................................................................................5-9 5.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES INFORMATION...............................................................5-9 5.8 FLOOD ZONE DESIGNATION....................................................................................5-9 6.0 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................6-1 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Joint Permit Application 'T PIPELINE USACE-Wilmington Districts and NCDEQ SAW -20188-00887 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Southgate Project Overview Map ................... Figure 2. Typical Pipeline Construction Sequence ........ Figure 3. Dam and Pump Crossing Method Typical...... Figure 4. Flume Crossing Method Typical .................... Figure 5. Cofferdam Crossing Typical .......................... Figure 6. Conventional Bore Typical ............................ Figure 7. Horizontal Directional Drill Typical .............. ..........................................................................1-2 ........................................................................ 2-10 .......................................................................... 2-7 ............................Error! Bookmark not defined. ........................................................................2-11 ........................................................................ 2-13 ........................................................................ 2-16 LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1 Major Regions, 8 -digit HUC and 10 -digit HUCs crossed by the Project ........................2-3 Table 2-2 Proposed Southgate Project Facilities and Land Requirements in North Carolina .......... 2-4 Table 2-3 Southgate Project Contractor Yards in North Carolina...................................................2-7 Table 2-4 Southgate Project Mainline Valve and Meter Station (Interconnect) Locations .............2-8 Table 2-5 Construction Schedule for Major Components of the MVP Southgate Project.............2-21 Table 2-6 Minor Route Variations to Avoid or Minimize Impacts to Wetlands or Waterways in North Carolina.......................................................................................................................... 2-23 Table 3-1 Summary of Wetlands Delineated and Desktop Reviewed in the North Carolina Project Survey Area by Sub-watershed........................................................................................ 3-2 Table 3-2 Summary of Waterbodies Delineated and Desktop Reviewed in the North Carolina Project Survey Area by Sub-watershed........................................................................................ 3-5 Table 4-1 Summary of Proposed Wetland Impacts in North Carolina............................................4-2 Table 4-2 Summary of Proposed Waterbody Impacts in North Carolina........................................4-4 Table 4-3 North Carolina Riparian Buffer Impacts within the Jordan Watershed ...........................4-9 Table 5-1 Projects with Potential Cumulative Impacts....................................................................5-3 Table 5-2 100 -Year Floodplain areas crossed................................................................................5-10 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A North Carolina USGS 7.5 -Minute Topographic Map Excerpts Appendix B North Carolina Alignment Sheets Appendix C Typical Construction Detail Drawings Appendix D FERC Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan Appendix E FERC Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures Appendix F Spill Prevention and Countermeasure Control Plan Appendix G Wetland and Waterbody Crossing Analysis Appendix H HDD Site Specific Crossing Plans Appendix I HDD Contingency Plan Appendix J FERC Environmental Document Appendix K North Carolina Wetland and Waterbody Delineation Report Appendix L-1 Proposed Wetland Impacts by ID and Impact Type Appendix L-2 Proposed Waterbody Impacts by ID and Impact Type Appendix M North Carolina Proposed Impact Drawings Appendix N Compliance Statement for NWT 12 Terms and Conditions iv November 2018 IT Mountain Valley Joint Permit Application PIPELINEJu USACE-Wilmington Districts and NCDEQ SAW -20188-00887 Appendix O Water Resources Identification and Testing Plan Appendix P Unanticipated Cultural Resources Discoveries Plan Appendix Q FEMA Flood Zone Maps v November 2018 M Mountain Valley Ir PIPELINE Joint Permit Application USACE-Wilmington Districts and NCDEQ SAW -20188-00887 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS API American Petroleum Institute ATWS Additional temporary construction workspace BA Biological Assessment BMPs best management practices CEQ Council on Environmental Quality Certificate Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity CFR Code of Federal Regulations Corps US Army Corps of Engineers or USACE DOE US Department of Energy ECD Erosion Control Device EI Environmental Inspector E&SCP Erosion and Sediment Control Plan East Tennessee East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC FERC or Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission EFH Essential Fish Habitat EFSO Ecological Field Services Office EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESI Environmental Services Inc. FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FWS Fish and Wildlife Service HDD Plan Horizontal Directional Drill Fluid Monitoring, Operations, and Contingency Plan HDD Horizontal Directional Drill HUC Hydrologic Unit Code hp horsepower IPaC System Information Planning and Conservation System MLV mainline valve MP milepost NCDEMLR North Carolina Department of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources NCDEQ North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality NCDWR North Carolina Department of Water Resources NGO non-governmental organization NHD National Hydrography Dataset NHI National Heritage Inventory NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NWI National Wetland Inventory NWP Nationwide Permit Plan FERC Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan PCN Pre -Construction Notification Procedures FERC Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures Project MVP Southgate Project psig pounds per square inch gauge PSNC Energy PSNC Energy, a wholly owned subsidiary of SCANA Corporation A November 2018 M Mountain Valley Ir PIPELINE Joint Permit Application USACE-Wilmington Districts and NCDEQ SAW -20188-00887 SPCC Plan Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan The Project Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC Transco Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC U.S. United States USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USDOT United States Department of Transportation USGS United States Geological Survey USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service WQC Water Quality Certification vii November 2018 M Mountain Valley Joint Permit Application PIPELINE USACE — Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 1.0 INTRODUCTION Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC ("Mountain Valley") is proposing to construct and operate the MVP Southgate Project ("Southgate Project" or "Project"). The Southgate Project will provide timely, cost- effective access to new natural gas supplies to meet the growing needs of natural gas users in the southeastern United States ("U.S."). The Project is expected to be in service by late 2020 and is a separate project from the 303 -mile Mountain Valley Pipeline that is currently under construction. The Southgate Project includes an approximately 0.4 -mile -long 24 -inch -diameter pipeline (H-605), 73 miles of 24- and 16 -inch -diameter natural gas pipeline (H-650), a new 28,915 nominal horsepower ("hp") compressor station (Lambert Compressor Station), meter stations and other ancillary facilities (e.g. contractor yards and access roads) required for the safe and reliable operation of the pipeline. The Southgate Project facilities will be located in Pittsylvania County, Virginia and Rockingham County and Alamance County, North Carolina. A location map (Figure 1) illustrates the proposed Project facilities. The Project is regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC" or "Commission") pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act and requires a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity ("Certificate") to construct and operate. The FERC will conduct a full review of the Project under its regulations in compliance with the Natural Gas Act ("NGA") and the National Environmental Policy Act. On May 3, 2018, the Project requested approval from the FERC to initiate the Pre -filing review process for the Project, and the FERC issued its approval of the request on May 15, 2018, under Docket No. PF 18- 4-000. The Pre -filing review process allows for active participation by interested stakeholders early in Project development while maintaining a coordinated schedule and helps to ensure the timely review and determination on the Certificate application. The Project filed an application with the Commission for a Certificate to construct, install, own, operate, and maintain the Project on November 6th, 2018. 1.1 SCOPE OF THE JOINT PERMIT APPLICATION In addition to the FERC Certificate, the Southgate Project will require several additional permits, clearances and / or approvals to construct or operate the Project facilities. This application is limited to the portion of the Project within the State of North Carolina, and is being submitted in support of requests for the following: • Nationwide Permit 12 verification from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("USACE") Wilmington District for wetland and waterbody impacts under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1344); • 401 Water Quality Certification from the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality ("NCDEQ") for activities in state surface waters and wetlands under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1341), N.C. General Statue § 143-215.3(c), and Title 15A N.C. Administrative Code § 02H.0500 et seq.; and • Riparian Buffer Authorization from NCDEQ under N.C. General Statue § 143-214.5 and Title 15A N.C. Administrative Code § 02B.0262 et seq. A separate Joint State/Federal Permit application is being prepared for the portion of the Project within Virginia under USACE Action # NAO-2018-1574. 1-1 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Ir PIPELINE iu Franklin - County 0 0 44 0 Joint Permit Application USACE — Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 y - r Pittsylvania Yp i County mm�n H e n ry County - 10 +olllusrlll,= O 't 1 1f20 1 , T1 '=3 1 CSG! -------� ------- —. --x... _..—..—.. �..�-.—.-_—..—..--- 30 o 4 l Rockingham40 50 o ------__------1=-----------------------------------------•r----- .-I �►/0 ,ice Silnlmrcl•.I�k �,Tati faarf1 «�1. ti�fi� 60 Alamance !a �1ittfit I County Guilfore7.' �✓ J .: s County ^'.7i L� IG14A®F! I r ' 70 + • I' .I p 1.1eG:.h�� U 3 11 r r r n I I i0 4. - 6 ', Fores-t Oaks - Pleasant �- I I nnIAG G,vtden lgend —Proposed Pipeline Route 0 Compressor Station ❑ Contractor Yard • Meter Station L Valve Site — iState Boundary _—_'County Boundary 1 inch = 8 miles Data Sources: ESRI, USGS, TRC, EQT When Printed 8.5x11 Figure 1. Southgate Project Overview Map. Halifax f C ou m y Soulh\liasi o :LL Hyco,'L!ke ese Person County Orange County t 186 ' ❑ Hip I2WOU .+ti- " a:;* \+i �F�7�pl Hili 1T1 Mountain Valley Figure 1 Project overview OCT 2018 TRCWO Wilowbroek Ln 1"'[�+ �/ye st Cheffier, PA19382 1-2 November 2018 M Mountain Valle PIPELINE 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PURPOSE AND NEED Joint Permit Application USACE — Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 The proposed Southgate Project is a new pipeline designed to (1) meet the growing needs of natural gas users in the southeastern U.S.; (2) add a new natural gas transmission pipeline to provide competition and enhance the reliability and resiliency of the existing pipeline infrastructure in southern Virginia and North Carolina; and (3) provide southern Virginia and North Carolina with direct pipeline access to the Marcellus and Utica gas regions in West Virginia, Ohio and southwestern Pennsylvania. The Project will enhance the diversity of gas supply and create additional pipeline capacity in the region. The overall purpose and need with respect to the single and complete projects included in this preconstruction notification is to provide a timely, efficient, and cost-effective means of transporting natural gas from the existing terminus of the Mountain Valley Pipeline in Pittsylvania County, Virginia to the T-15 Dan River Interconnect in Rockingham County and then on to the T-21 Haw River Interconnect in Alamance County, North Carolina, so that that the natural gas may be distributed to local and regional end users via those interconnects. In 2017, PSNC Energy, a wholly owned subsidiary of SCANA Corporation, solicited interest from existing and proposed interstate pipeline providers for additional natural gas transportation capacity. PSNC Energy is a local distribution company primarily engaged in the purchase, transportation, distribution, and sale of natural gas to more than 563,000 customers in North Carolina. PSNC Energy solicited interest because it requires additional pipeline capacity to meet forecasted incremental demand on its distribution system. Over the past four years, PSNC Energy has experienced a 15 percent increase in peak daily throughput on its system. This trend will carry forward into the future, as PSNC Energy expects its design day requirements to increase an additional 11 percent over the next five years. This past, present, and future demand growth on PSNC Energy's system reflects, at least in part, the substantial population increase in North Carolina. North Carolina's population is expected to increase by nearly 2 million people between 2020 and 2035.1 After consideration of other existing and proposed interstate pipeline providers, PSNC Energy committed to 300 million cubic feet per day ("MMcf/d") of firm transportation service to be made available by the Project. Mountain Valley and PSNC Energy entered into binding long-term agreements in December 2017 that made PSNC Energy an anchor shipper for the Project.2 In choosing the Southgate Project to provide its needed incremental pipeline capacity, PSNC Energy cited numerous reasons, including transportation cost, supply cost, supply diversity, reliability/resiliency, and operational efficiencies: • PSNC Energy found the Southgate Project provides the best -cost transportation alternative available to satisfy PSNC Energy's long-term interstate capacity needs. 1 See North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management population projections, available at: http s://files. nc. gov/nco sbm/demog/countytotals_populationoverview. html 2 Mountain Valley and PSNC Energy entered into binding agreements for the Southgate Project more than three years after Mountain Valley entered the pre -filing process, and more than two months after the Commission issued its certificate, for the 303 -mile Mountain Valley Pipeline Project. While the Mountain Valley Pipeline Project is targeted to commence service during 2019, Mountain Valley expects the Southgate Project to commence service in late 2020. 2-1 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Ir PIPELINE Joint Permit Application USACE — Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 The Southgate Project will provide PSNC Energy with a third direct interstate pipeline connection, which will improve reliability and add resiliency to the interstate pipeline services PSNC Energy receives.' The addition of a third interstate pipeline diversifies risk by giving PSNC Energy multiple options on geographically -diverse interstate pipelines. In the event of outages or constraints on one of the pipelines serving the region, PSNC Energy would have access to the other pipelines to continue serving its customers. • The Southgate Project will provide PSNC Energy additional direct access to low-cost natural gas produced in the prolific Marcellus and Utica shale regions.' PSNC Energy will have more competitive and diverse options for natural gas supply. PSNC Energy will gain optionality in selecting best -cost supply sources and will be able to take advantage of price differentials across more gas supply regions. The Southgate Project will provide a direct connection between PSNC Energy's distribution system and the East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC ("East Tennessee") pipeline system. PSNC Energy currently sources gas from Saltville Storage and transports these volumes on the East Tennessee and Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Company, LLC ("Transco") systems before delivery to PSNC Energy's distribution system. The Project provides a primary receipt and delivery forward haul transportation path that offers improved reliability as compared to the secondary -firm backhaul deliveries PSNC Energy currently receives from Transco. • The Southgate Project will provide PSNC Energy flexibility with deliveries from the intrastate Cardinal Pipeline, which should avoid the need for PSNC Energy to acquire additional Cardinal capacity. • The Southgate Project allows PSNC Energy to avoid incremental capital investment for system upgrades. The other pipeline alternatives considered by PSNC Energy would have required additional system upgrades. • Mountain Valley and PSNC Energy have agreed to a minimum delivery pressure that is higher than Transco's existing obligation. This should improve PSNC Energy's ability to conduct system planning and enhance the operation of its system. In addition to executing agreements that made PSNC Energy an anchor shipper for the Project, Mountain Valley conducted an Open Season between April 11, 2018 and May 11, 2018 to determine interest from additional shippers. Negotiations continue with interested shippers for the remaining capacity of the Southgate Project. The Southgate Project is not designed to provide natural gas to any liquefied natural gas export terminal and has no intention of seeking authorization under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act to export natural gas, nor does the contracted shipper have plans to transport gas to a liquefied natural gas terminal. The Project terminates at an inland location more than 185 miles from the nearest coastal Virginia port, 155 miles from ' In 2013, the North Carolina Utilities Commission recognized the need for competitive interstate pipeline capacity alternatives in Docket No. G-100, Sub 91, Investigation Regarding Competitive Alternatives for Additional Natural Gas Service Agreements. The Project will satisfy this need for a new competitive interstate pipeline consistent with the expressed goal of the North Carolina Utilities Commission. ' Mountain Valley and PSNC Energy also executed binding long-term agreements whereby PSNC Energy became a shipper on the Mountain Valley Pipeline Project. 2-2 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Joint Permit Application PIPELINE USACE —Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 the nearest coastal North Carolina port, and even farther from the nearest liquefied natural gas export terminal. Accordingly, the Southgate Project does not have the physical ability to export natural gas. As currently designed, gas transported on the Southgate system will be delivered into existing facilities in Eden and Graham, North Carolina. The Project's anchor shipper, PSNC Energy, has committed to 300 MMcf/d of firm transportation service and will use the gas it transports to serve its fast growing residential, commercial and industrial markets in North Carolina. 2.2 LOCATION The North Carolina portion of the Project includes approximately 47 miles (64 percent) of the proposed pipeline alignment. It originates at the Virginia/North Carolina state boundary in Rockingham, North Carolina at milepost ("MP") 26.1 and ends at MP 73.1 in Alamance County, North Carolina, as shown on Figure 1. The route through North Carolina is described below and is depicted on U.S Geological Society ("USGS") 7.5 -Minute topographic excerpt maps provided in Appendix A. From the Virginia/North Carolina border, at MP 26.1 in Rockingham County, the 24 -inch -diameter pipeline extends southwest approximately 4.3 miles to a proposed delivery interconnect (T-15 Dan River Interconnect) located at approximate MP 30.4. From the T-15 Dan River Interconnect, the pipeline will be a 16 -inch -diameter pipeline and continue southwest for approximately 2.4 miles. East of the City of Eden, North Carolina, the pipeline will turn to the southeast near MP 32.8 and continue southeast for approximately 20 miles into Alamance County at (MP 52.6), east of the town of Wentworth and the City of Reidsville. From the Alamance County boundary, the pipeline will continue southeasterly to MP 66.3, where it will turn south and continue for approximately 6.8 miles to its delivery terminus (T-21 Haw River Interconnect) located at MP 73.1 approximately 2.5 miles southeast of the City of Graham, North Carolina. The North Carolina portion of the Project is located within the USGS designated 03 -South Atlantic -Gulf Region (USGS, 2018a). In North Carolina, the Project crosses the Roanoke River Basin and the Cape Fear River Basin, three sub basins and five watersheds (NCDEQ, 2018b). Table 2-1 (below) identifies these major regions and their respective sub -basins by 8 -digit HUC and watershed by 10 -digit HUC. Table 2-1 Major Regions, 8 -digit HUC and 10 -digit HUCs crossed by the Project Major Region River Basin County Sub -basin Watershed (2 -digit HUC) (8 -digit HUC) (10 -digit HUC) Rockingham Upper Dan Cascade Creek -Dan River 3010103 301010309 Roanoke Rockingham Lower Dan Hogans Creek -Dan River 03- South Atlantic- 3010104 301010401 Gulf Region Rockingham/ Headwaters Haw River Alamance Haw 3030002 303000202 Cape Fear Alamance Haw 3030002 Back Creek -Haw River 303000204 Source: NCDEQ, 2018b 2-3 November 2018 M Mountain Valley 2.3 PROPOSED FACILITIES Joint Permit Application USACE -Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 In North Carolina, the Project includes 46 miles of new 24 -inch and 16 -inch diameter pipeline, temporary construction workspace, new and existing access roads, above ground facilities, cathodic protection and contractor yards. These are depicted on the Project's alignment sheets (Appendix B) and are described below. Typical construction details depicting the workspace for the proposed facilities in a variety of work conditions are provided as Appendix C. Table 2-2 summarizes the facilities by location and land requirements for construction and operation. Table 2-2 Proposed Southgate Project Facilities and Land Requirements in North Carolina Total Land Requirements Pipeline (acres) c/ County Facility Length (miles) Construction Operation e/ d/ H-650 Pipeline Right -of -Way a/ 26.5 304.10 153.30 Additional Temporary Workspace NA 97.70 0.00 Access Roads b/ NA 50.40 4.70 Rockingham Contractor Yards NA 93.10 0.00 Aboveground Facilities NA 8.70 1.50 Cathodic Protection Ground beds NA 0.60 0.60 Total c/ 26.5 554.6 160.1 Pipeline Right -of -Way 20.5 235.30 119.70 Additional Temporary Workspace NA 72.00 0.00 Access Roads NA 24.70 2.30 Alamance Contractor Yards NA 8.50 0.00 Aboveground Facilities NA 3.60 0.70 Cathodic Protection Ground beds NA 1.70 1.70 Total 20.5 345.8 124.4 Guilford Access Roads NA 0.20 0.00 Contractor Yards NA 14.50 0.00 Total NA 14.70 0.00 Project Total in North Carolina 47.0 915.1 284.5 a/ Acreage based on 100 -foot construction right-of-way and 50 -foot operations right-of-way. Impacted acreage will be less due to avoidance of sensitive resources where practicable. b/ Acreage assumes a 25 -foot road width for temporary and permanent access roads. Actual road widths may be less than 25 feet. c/ Includes uplands and wetlands. d/ Construction acreage includes the area affected by construction (i.e., temporary and additional temporary workspace, contractor yards, and access roads) and the area affected by operation of the Southgate Project. (i.e., facility operation footprint and 50 -foot pipeline permanent right-of-way). The 50 -foot -wide permanent right- of-way between horizontal directional drill entry and exit points and within railroad rights-of-way are not included in this acreage. e/ Operation acreage includes only the operation footprint of the Southgate Project facilities (e.g., the 50 -foot -wide permanent pipeline right-of-way in uplands and 25 -foot -wide maintenance corridor in wetlands). The 50 -foot -wide permanent right-of-way between horizontal directional drill entry and exit points and within railroad rights-of-way are not included in this acreage. NA = Not Applicable 2-4 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Joint Permit Application PIPELINE USACE — Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 2.3.1 Pipeline Facilities The pipeline will generally require a 100 -foot -wide construction right-of-way (limit of disturbance) during construction consisting of a 50 -foot permanent right-of-way and 50 feet of temporary workspace. The temporary workspace is necessary for worker safety, the safe travel of construction vehicles and equipment, stockpiling soil, and installation of erosion and sediment controls. The proposed 100 -foot wide construction right-of-way is consistent with the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America's ("INGAA") recommendations for a pipeline diameter of 18 to 24 inches. INGGA recommends the use of a 95 -foot baseline width and increasing or decreasing this baseline width for special conditions (Gulf Interstate Engineering, 1999). The necessary construction workspace is largely dictated by the area required for the safe operation and movement of equipment required to install the pipeline as well as the additional workspace needed to install and maintain appropriate erosion and sediment controls. These workspace requirements are not materially different for a 16 inch or 24 inch pipeline. See Appendix C for typical construction workspace details. The Southgate Project has reduced the construction right-of-way width at wetland and waterbody crossings to 75 feet along the construction right-of-way, for a distance of 50 feet on each side of the crossing to preserve upland and riparian buffer areas. The Project will implement the FERC Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan ("Plan") (Appendix D) and the FERC Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures ("Procedures") (2013) (Appendix E), and its Project -specific Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (`B&SCP") that comply with state -specific regulations to minimize impacts during construction. The Project is preparing a state -specific E&SCP that will comply with North Carolina erosion control regulations and will incorporate all relevant substantive provisions of General Permit — NCGO1000.5 See Appendix C for typical wetland and waterbody crossing details. The pipeline is located parallel to and adjacent with an existing gas or electric transmission corridor for approximately 18 miles (37 percent) of the proposed alignment in North Carolina. Where collocation with existing utility right-of-way occurs, the Project has designed the workspace such that the construction right- of-way for the new pipeline is located immediately adjacent to or partially within the existing pipeline right- of-way wherever feasible. The Project is proposing to use up to 25 feet of temporary workspace within the adjacent utility right-of-way where possible; however, final design and use of workspace within these areas is dependent on successful negotiation with the easement owner(s). See Appendix C for typical construction workspace details for construction with collocated facilities. 2.3.2 Additional Temporary Workspace Additional temporary work space "ATWS" areas will be required for construction activities requiring space outside the standard 100 -foot construction right-of-way. Construction activities that may require ATWS include but are not limited to: • Areas requiring extra depth of cover over the pipeline; • Timber storage areas; • Areas with unstable soil; • Installation of erosion and sediment controls and other stormwater management facilities; 5 The Project is exempted from obtaining coverage under this permit for stormwater discharges by 33 U.S.C. § 1342(1). 2-5 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Ir PIPELINE Joint Permit Application USACE — Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 • Road and railroad crossings; • Winch hills; • Wetland and waterbody crossings; • Conventional bores; • Horizontal Direction Drills; • Foreign pipeline crossings and interconnects; • Foreign utility crossings; • Areas requiring full -width topsoil segregation; • Specific request of the landowner; • Areas with steep side slopes, rock, or other difficult terrain; • Pipeline access and truck turnarounds; • Material storage, storage of excess spoil at crossings, parking, vehicle turning radius, or other worker safety issues; • Fabrication and staging areas; and • Hydrostatic test water withdrawal and discharge locations. The ATWS areas will be limited to the minimum size necessary to safely construct the pipeline and be protective of the environment with respect to the existing conditions at the time of construction. ATWS is located near wetlands and waterbodies in accordance with the setback requirements contained in the FERC Procedures and in consultation with other federal and state agencies. If field conditions do not allow for a minimum 50 -foot setback from wetlands and/or waterbodies, the Project will request alternative measures to the FERC Procedures. Proposed ATWS and ancillary sites required for the Project are shown on the alignment sheets (Appendix B). 2.3.3 Access Roads New or existing roads will be used to provide access to the pipeline right-of-way during construction and/or operation of the Project. Access road widths will be the minimum necessary to provide access for construction equipment while maintaining safe travel conditions. Access will be constructed such that the length of the road minimizes impacts on waters of the United States and will be maintained as close as possible to pre -construction contours and elevations. Temporary construction -related wetland or waterbody impacts are proposed along 11 access roads in Rockingham and two in Alamance Counties. Two of the permanent access roads in Rockingham County have limited permanent wetland impacts and three will have permanent culverted waterbody crossings. These impacts are discussed further in Section 4.0. The locations of proposed temporary and permanent access roads are shown on the 7.5 -Minute topographic maps (Appendix A) and alignment sheets (Appendix B). 2.3.4 Contractor Yards The Southgate Project has identified potential contractor staging yards for temporary use during construction. They will be used to stockpile pipe and fabricate facilities, if needed. Additionally, they will be used by the construction contractor to stage construction operations, store materials, park equipment, and set up temporary construction offices. The contractor yards were selected due to their proximity to existing roads, railways, and rail yards and primary open industrial/commercial land uses. Focus was given to properties with limited streams, wetlands, and other sensitive habitats. Depending upon the condition of 2-6 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Joint Permit Application PIPELINE USACE — Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 these yards and their current use, some surface grading, drainage improvements, placement of surface materials (e.g., crushed rock), and internal roadways may be required. Seven contractor yards are proposed. Minor construction -related temporary impacts to wetlands and waterbodies are proposed for contractor yards 5 and 6. Table 2-3 details the land requirements and current land use for contractor yards, and their locations are shown on the alignment sheets (Appendix B). Table 2-3 Southgate Project Contractor Yards in North Carolina Contractor Yard Name Location/County Approximate Milepost Existing Workspace Land Use a/ (acres) CY-04 Eden, Rockingham 2.8 miles West of 28.5 OL 3.8 CY-05 Eden, Rockingham 3.7 miles West of 28.3 Cl, OL, WL 49.9 CY-06 Eden, Rockingham 3 miles West of 28.9 OL, WL 15.9 CY-07 Eden, Rockingham 3.2 miles West of 28.9 OL, FW, Cl 8.8 CY-08 Reidsville, Rockingham 2.9 miles West of 44.6 OL, Cl 14.6 CY-09 McLeansville, Guilford 15.8 miles West of 68.2 OL, FW, RD 14.5 CY-10 Altamahaw-Ossipee, 60.2 OL 8.5 Alamance a/ Existing Land Use: Cl = Commercial / Industrial; FW = Upland Forest / Woodland; OL = Upland Open Land; RD = Residential; WL = Wetland 2.3.5 Aboveground Facilities 2.3.5.1 Meter Stations Two downstream delivery points with the PSNC Energy system are proposed near MP 30 and MP 73. The Project will install a meter (interconnect) station at both of these locations consisting of but not limited to custody -transfer flow meter, pressure/flow regulator, over pressure protection, isolation mainline valves, and associated instrumentation and controls at the proposed gas receipt and delivery points to measure the flow of natural gas between the Project and the interconnect. Each interconnect will consist of one or more meter runs located inside a fenced and gated site and will contain flow or pressure control. The metering sites will be located as close as practicable to the actual intersection of the Project and the receipt / delivery facilities to keep the length of the interconnecting piping to a minimum. The locations of these facilities are described in Table 2-4 and are shown on the alignment sheets in Appendix B. The meter stations will include upstream and downstream piping to connect to the pipeline and third -party pipelines. 2-7 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Ir PIPELINE Joint Permit Application USACE — Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 Table 2-4 Southgate Project Mainline Valve and Meter Station (Interconnect) Locations Name County Approximate Milepost Location T-15 Dan River Interconnect / MLV 4 Rockingham 30.4 MLV 5 Rockingham 42.2 MLV 6 Alamance 55.1 MLV 7 Alamance 68.2 T-21 Haw River Interconnect / MLV 8 Alamance 73.1 a/ Mainline Valves ("MLV's") will be 30 feet by 30 feet in area and will be wholly contained within the permanent right-of-way. Mainline valves at the T-15 Dan River Interconnect and T-21 Haw River Interconnect will be located within the fence line of those facilities. 2.3.5.2 Mainline Valves The Project will install mainline valves ("MLVs") at intermediate locations as necessary to meet operational needs and the design and installation requirements described in 49 CFR 192.179(a) — Transmission Line Valves that require minimum distances to the nearest valve based on pipeline location class. Table 2-4 identifies the location of MLVs. MLVs will be located within the permanent right-of-way of the pipeline. With the exception of those located at pig launcher/receiver locations, MLVs will be buried with aboveground extensions and equipped with valve actuators to allow for local or remote operation. Each MLV will be contained within a fenced, gated, and locked area. None of the MLVs are located in wetlands or waterbodies. 2.3.5.3 Pig Launchers and Receivers The Project has incorporated launching and receiving facilities to accommodate in-line inspection tools (smart pigs) for periodic internal inspections of the pipeline during operations. A pig launcher is proposed at the origination point inside the Lambert Compressor Station fence line at MP 0.0 of the pipeline in Pittsylvania County, Virginia. The corresponding pig receiver will be located at MP 30.4 in Rockingham County, North Carolina at the T-15 Dan River Interconnect (meter station), and a second pig launcher will also be located at this site. A second pig receiver will be located at the terminus of the pipeline at approximate MP 73.1 at the T-21 Haw River Interconnect near Graham, North Carolina. The locations of these facilities are included on the alignment sheets located in Appendix B. No wetlands or waterbodies will be affected by the construction or use of these Pig Launchers and Receivers. 2.4 CONSTRUCTION 2.4.1 General Practices Construction of the Southgate Project will follow industry -accepted practices and procedures and will be done in accordance with applicable federal and state regulations and guidelines, as well as the specific requirements of applicable permits. The Project will adopt the FERC Plan (Appendix D) and Procedures (Appendix E) to minimize impacts on the environment. The Project will develop its own Project -specific Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (`B&SC") based on field conditions and state requirements that will outline best management practices (`BMPs") to minimize impacts. The Project will train construction personnel in the environmental restrictions and/or requirements applicable to their particular duties. The Project will provide construction management personnel and environmental inspectors ("EIs") with the 2-8 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Joint Permit Application PIPELINE USACE — Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 appropriate environmental information/materials specific to the Project. The Project will handle any hazardous materials stored or encountered during construction in accordance with the Project Spill, Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Control Plan ("SPCC") (Appendix F). Waste will be disposed of at an approved, off-site facility. The pipeline will be buried a minimum of three feet below the ground surface except for locations where the pipe will be installed within rock. In those instances, the minimum depth of cover will be two feet. The pipeline will be constructed of high strength carbon steel pipe manufactured in accordance with the American Petroleum Institute's ("API") specification API 5L PSL2, Specification for Line Pipe. The Project will protect the pipe from corrosion by a fusion -bonded epoxy coating and an impressed current cathodic protection system during operation. Weld joints and other piping that are not factory coated will be field coated per applicable standards. The Project is proposing to use two spreads to construct the pipeline. Spread 1 includes MP 0 to MP 30.4 and Spread 2 includes MP 30.4 to MP 73.1. Generally, construction of the proposed pipeline within each spread will follow a set of sequential operations as shown in Figure 2. In this typical pipeline construction scenario, the construction spread proceeds along the pipeline right-of-way in one continuous operation. The Project will coordinate the entire process in such a manner as to minimize the total time a tract of land is disturbed and therefore exposed to erosion and temporarily precluded from normal use. Appendix C includes typical construction details depicting various construction scenarios. The following sections provide detailed descriptions of each proposed construction method. 2.4.2 Typical Upland Pipeline Construction Procedures The majority of the pipeline is in upland terrain and will be crossed via conventional overland construction techniques for large -diameter pipelines. In this typical pipeline construction scenario (Figure 2), the construction contractor will construct the pipeline along the construction right-of-way using sequential pipeline construction techniques, including survey, staking and fence crossing; clearing and grading; trenching; pipe stringing, bending and welding; lowering -in and backfilling; hydrostatic testing; clean-up and restoration; and commissioning. Each step is briefly described in the following: (a) Surveying The initial step in preparing the right-of-way for construction will be the civil survey. A civil survey crew will stake the outside limits of the construction right-of-way, the centerline location of the pipeline, highway and railroad crossings, access roads, and any temporary ATWS, such as laydown areas or at stream crossings. The Project will contact the North Carolina 811 "One Call" system, and all known underground utilities (e.g., cables, conduits, and pipelines) will be located and flagged. The Project will notify affected landowners a minimum of 24 hours prior to surveying and staking of the proposed route, following applicable state/federal guidelines. (b) Clearing and Grading, and Fencing After the right-of-way has been surveyed and easements have been secured (for the permanent and temporary construction right-of-way, and any existing right-of-way if necessary), the Project will clear the right-of-way of obstructions (e.g., trees and stumps, brush, logs, and large rocks) according to the FERC Plan, the Project -specific E&SCP and applicable regulatory approvals. The Project will clear the right-of- way to the width required for construction, but not more than specified on the pipeline alignment sheets (Appendix B) and approved by applicable regulatory approvals. Merchantable timber will be stacked 2-9 November 2018 ITI Mountain Valley P L f '� Joint Permit Application USACE — Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 1) Survey and Staking 2) Clearing 3) Front -End Grading 4) ROW Topsoil Stripping 5) Restaking Centerline of Trench 6) Trenching (wheel ditcher) 7) Trenching (rock) 8) Padding Trench Bottom Figure 2. Typical Pipeline Construction Sequence 9) Stringing Pipe 10) Field Sending Pipe 11) Line -Up, Initial Weld 12) Fill d Cap, Final Weld 13) T4s -Built Footage I4) X -Ray Inspection, Weld Repair 15) Coating Field Welds 16) Inspection 6 Repair of Coating 17) Lowering Pipe into Trench IS)As-Built Survey 19)Pad, Backfitl, Rough Erode 20) Hydrostatic Testing, Final Tie -In Z1)Replace Topsoil, Final Clean -Up, Full Restoration 2-10 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Joint Permit Application T PIPELINE USACE —Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 outside of the work area alongside the edge of the right-of-way or ATWS (outside of jurisdictional wetlands or waters). The Project will dispose of brush and slash through burning, windrowing, or chipping, in accordance with applicable approvals and conditions. (c) Trenching The Project will excavate the pipeline trench with a track -mounted backhoe or similar equipment and only use explosives when necessary in areas where rock substrates are at depths that interfere with conventional excavation or rock -trenching methods. On actively cultivated agricultural tracts, at wetland crossings, and in residential areas, subsoil will be segregated and stockpiled separately from topsoil per the FERC Plan. The Project will stockpile excavated soils along the right-of-way on the side of the trench (the "spoil" side) away from the construction traffic and pipe assembly area (the "working" side). Where the pipeline route is collocated adjacent to an existing infrastructure, the spoil will generally be placed on the same side of the trench as the existing infrastructure. (d) Pipe Stringing and Bending New steel pipe for the pipeline will be procured and protected with an epoxy coating applied at the factory or at a coating yard (the beveled ends will be left uncoated for welding) and shipped to strategically located materials storage areas, contractor yards, or "pipe yards." The Project will transport the individual joints to the right-of-way by truck and place along the excavated trench in a single, continuous line that is easily accessible to the construction personnel on the working side of the trench (typically opposite the spoil side). This will allow the subsequent lineup and welding operations to proceed efficiently. The Project will deliver the pipe to the Project workspace in straight joints typically 40 to 60 feet in length. The use of controlled internal diameter fittings, in addition to the bending of pipe, will be required to allow the pipeline to follow natural grade changes and directional changes of the right-of-way. Prior to welding, track -mounted hydraulic bending machines will bend selected joints in the field. (e) Pipe Assembly and Welding Following stringing and bending, the Project will place the joints of pipe on temporary supports adjacent to the trench. The ends will be aligned and welded together by qualified personnel using multiple passes for a full penetration weld. To ensure that the assembled pipe will meet or exceed the design strength requirements, the completed welds will be visually inspected and tested for integrity using non-destructive examination methods such as radiography (X-ray), or ultrasound, in accordance with API 1104. Welds displaying unacceptable slag inclusions, void spaces, or other defects will be repaired or replaced. Following welding, the Project will sandblast the previously uncoated ends of the pipe at the joints and cover them in epoxy. The coating on the completed pipe section will be inspected, and damaged areas will be repaired prior to lowering in accordance with applicable industry standards. (f) Pipe Lowering The completed section of pipe will be lifted off temporary supports and lowered into the trench by side - boom tractors or equivalent equipment. Prior to lowering the pipe, the Project will inspect the trench to ensure that it is free of rocks and other debris that could damage the pipe or the coating. In rocky areas, if the bottom is not smooth, a layer of soil or sand may be placed on the bottom of the trench to protect the pipe using a padding machine or excavator with a "shaker bucket," which separates rocks from satisfactory 2-1 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Joint Permit Application PIPELINE USACE — Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 padding materials. Concrete -coated pipe or aggregate filled sacks (pipe weights) will be used if necessary for negative buoyancy in areas prone to flooding or with a high groundwater table. (g) Padding and Backfilling After the pipe is lowered into the trench, the Project will backfill the trench. Previously excavated materials will be pushed back into the trench using equipment or backhoes. Where the previously excavated material contains large rocks or other materials that could damage the pipe or coating, clean fill will be used to protect the pipe. Due to concerns about the acidity of fly ash and its potential impacts on cathodic protection, fly ash will not be used as backfill material. However, limestone dust or sand, which is typically basic and will often aid in the cathodic protection of the pipeline, may be used as backfill material. The remaining fill of the trench will be the aggregate of the excavation material removed at the time of the excavation. If additional fill is required, it will be either flowable fill or clean fill. After the subsoil is placed in the trench, segregated topsoil will be placed in the trench above the subsoil. Following backfilling in agricultural land, and open land, a small crown may be left to account for any future soil settling that might occur. In wetlands, a crown will not be left to ensure restoration of ground and surface water hydrology to pre-existing conditions. Excess soil will be distributed evenly on the right-of-way in accordance with landowner and agency requirements, only in upland areas and only to meet the pre - construction surface elevations. (h) Hydrostatic Pressure Testing and Final Tie -In Following backfilling of the trench, the Project will hydrostatically test the pipeline to ensure that it is capable of safely operating at the design pressure. Test segments of the pipeline will be capped and filled with water. Test water is anticipated to be procured from municipal sources. The water in the pipe will be pressurized and held for a minimum of 8 hours in accordance with the U.S. Department of Transportation ("USDOT") Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Office of Pipeline Safety requirements identified in 49 CFR Part 192 prior to being placed in service. Any loss of pressure that cannot be attributed to other factors, such as temperature changes, will be investigated. Leaks detected will be repaired and the segment will be retested. The total estimated volume of water used for hydrostatic testing is proposed to be approximately 8,500,000 gallons. Each of the construction spreads will likely be broken down into smaller test sections. The hydrostatic test has been designed such that the water should only need to be drawn from the identified source once. From there, it will be transferred into the next test section, which has been chosen to be smaller than the first. By this method, no additional water will be needed within a construction spread, since the large volume initially drawn will be transferred to increasing smaller sections that require less volume. Test water will contact only new pipe, and no chemicals will be added to the test water unless otherwise approved by FERC and applicable federal and/or state regulatory agencies. If a municipal water source with chlorinated water is used for testing, addition of an approved dechlorinating agent may be required prior to release depending on the release location. These measures will be implemented to ensure that hydrostatic test water releases will not have the potential to cause or contribute to an exceedance of any water quality standards, consistent with 15A NCAC 02H.0106(f). Upon completion of the test, the water may be pumped to the next segment for testing, or the water may be released. The test water will be released through an energy -dissipating device to a vegetated upland area. To the extent practicable, the Project will release test water within the same watershed from which water was withdrawn, to an upland, well vegetated 2-2 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Joint Permit Application PIPELINE USACE — Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 area, directed through containment structures such as hay bale structures and filter bags. The release will be monitored and the rate will be regulated using valves and energy dissipation devices to prevent erosion. Once a segment of pipe has been successfully tested and dried, the test cap and manifold will be removed, and the pipe will be connected to the remainder of the pipeline. No desiccant or chemical additives will be used to dry the pipe. The Project will implement Section VII of the FERC Procedures regarding hydrostatic testing. (i) Cleanup and Restoration The Project will conduct post -construction restoration activities in accordance with the measures specified in the FERC Plan and Procedures as required. After a segment of pipe is installed, backfilled, and successfully tested, the Project will final -grade the right-of-way, temporary ATWS, and other disturbed areas, and construction debris will be disposed of properly. The Project will grade the surface of the right- of-way disturbed by construction activities to match original contours and to be compatible with surrounding drainage patterns, except at those locations where permanent changes in drainage will be required to prevent erosion, scour, and possible exposure of the pipeline. The Project will return segregated topsoil to its original horizons in agricultural areas and install temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control measures where necessary, including silt fencing, diversion trenches, and vegetation. The Project will also restore, to original or better condition, all private and public property impacted by the Project such as fences, gates, driveways, and roads that have been disturbed by the pipeline construction. 2.4.3 Typical Wetland Pipeline Construction The Southgate Project will cross wetlands in accordance with state and federal permit conditions and the FERC Procedures. Pending site conditions, the Project may request alternative measures to the FERC Procedures, and these would require approval by FERC prior to construction in these areas. In accordance with the FERC Procedures, fuel will not be stored within 100 feet of wetlands. Hydrological conditions along the construction corridor in areas proposed for open ditch construction will likely dictate the use of either open ditch lay or open ditch push/pull lay methods. Selection of the most appropriate method will depend on site-specific weather conditions, inundation, soil saturation, and soil stability at the time of construction. The conventional open ditch lay method will be the most frequently used technique for installation of the pipeline in wetlands. The Project will use the push/pull method, as described in the FERC Procedures, in inundated or saturated wetland areas where groundwater conditions preclude conventional construction. Selection of the push/pull method will be decided during construction by the construction manager or Project representative depending on the conditions at the time of construction. Appendix G (Wetland and Waterbody Crossing Analysis) provides a practicability assessment for wetland and waterbody crossing methods. Practicable is defined as available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes. The Southgate Proj ect will continue to consult with the USACE, USFWS, NCDEQ, NCDEMLR, and NCWRC on the appropriate crossing method for each wetland. If the Project moves forward with an alternative crossing method that is not practicable, it is due to the request of a regulatory agency that does not consider practicability. Descriptions of the crossing methods are provided below. (a) Unsaturated Wetland Crossings When crossing unsaturated wetlands (wetlands without standing water or saturated soils), construction will be similar to the typical upland construction described in Typical Upland Pipeline Construction Procedures 2-3 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Joint Permit Application PIPELINE USACE — Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 above, with some exceptions. Only one traffic lane will be provided for construction equipment. The Project will use low ground pressure equipment if normal construction equipment causes rutting or mixing of wetland topsoil and subsoil, or install temporary equipment mats to allow passage of equipment with minimal disturbance of the surface and vegetation. Trees will be cut to grade, but stumps will only be removed within 15 feet of the edge of the pipe trench, or where safety concerns dictate otherwise. The Project will segregate the topsoil from subsoil in wetlands where hydrologic conditions permit this practice, and all excavated material will be placed in an upland area if possible. All excavated material stockpiled in wetlands will be placed on filter cloth, mats, or other semipermeable surface to prohibit mixing with underlying material. Excavated soil material in wetlands will be stabilized with straw bales or filter cloth to prevent re-entry into wetlands or waterbodies and will not be stored in wetlands for more than 30 days after the pipeline has been laid in the trench without permission from the USACE-Wilmington District. Segregated topsoil will be placed in the trench following subsoil backfilling to restore the original contour. The Project will install and maintain erosion control measures to minimize sedimentation within the wetland. Trench plugs will be installed at the entry and exit points of wetlands and waterbodies to prevent the modification of subsurface hydrology. (b) Saturated Wetland Crossings For the purposes of this report, saturated wetlands include wetlands with standing water, but not those wetlands that are constantly or regularly completely submerged. Topsoil segregation will not be practical in saturated wetlands. Otherwise, construction will be similar as described for unsaturated wetlands to provide for anticipated widths of the pipeline trench and trench spoil areas. The Project will use low ground pressure equipment (e.g., rubber tire excavator) or timber mats to facilitate equipment movement through, and work within, the wetland. Equipment not associated with the pipeline construction within the wetland will be allowed to pass through the wetland when there is no other reasonable access, as provided in the FERC Procedures. The Project will use the push/pull lay method in inundated or saturated wetland areas where groundwater conditions preclude conventional construction. Upon completion of construction, the right-of-way will be restored and revegetated. 2.4.4 Typical Waterbody Crossings The Southgate Project will conduct construction across waterbodies in accordance with the FERC Procedures and state and federal permit requirements. In accordance with the FERC Procedures, fuel will not be stored within 100 feet of waterbodies. Multiple variables were evaluated when determining the appropriate crossing method (e.g., waterbody width, waterbody depth, riparian impact, available workspace, sensitive species, duration to complete the crossing, safety, and cost) that would avoid or minimize impacts to the greatest extent practicable. The normal trenching operations will skip the waterbody crossing, stopping on each side near the top of bank. The Project will install the waterbody section of the pipeline by one of the methods described below. In general, pipe will be bent and fabricated as the work progresses along the right-of-way so that the excavation of the waterbody crossing is completed prior to pipe installation by the tie-in crew. Construction methods at each waterbody will vary based upon the characteristics of the waterbody encountered and applicable regulatory approvals. Conventional crossing methods where there is discernable flow (wet crossing methods) were not considered for any waterbody crossings because of potential impacts to aquatic resources and water quality. Dry open cut crossings combine traditional trench 2-4 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Joint Permit Application PIPELINE USACE — Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 construction techniques with erosion and sediment control best management practices (silt fence, compost filter socks, turbidity curtains, pumped water filter bags) and water management techniques (damming, pumping, etc.) to install pipeline across waterways.' The construction manager's decision whether to use a dam and pump, flume, or cofferdam stream crossing method will be largely dependent upon the following at the time of construction: width and depth of the stream, flow rate, flow velocity, weather forecast, and anticipated time required to complete the crossing. As such, this decision is typically made just before the installation begins with significant consideration given to the above factors. Based on the data collected to date, trenchless crossing methods (i.e., conventional bore and HDD) have been selected as the appropriate crossing alternative for a few waterbodies. More detail on trenchless crossing methods and why these waterbodies were selected are provided below. The planned crossing method and practicability of the methods for each stream can be found in Appendix G (Wetland and Waterbody Crossing Analysis). Practicable is defined as available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes. Prior to construction, any previously identified crossing conditions (mussel relocation or time of year restrictions) will be satisfied. The Southgate Project will continue to consult with the USACE, USFWS, NCDEQ, NCDEMLR, and NCWRC on the appropriate crossing method for each waterbody. If the Project moves forward with an alternative crossing method that is not practicable, it is due to the request of a regulatory agency that does not consider practicability. The Project will require construction activities parallel to and within 10 feet of the top of bank of several waterbodies and also includes some crossings that are not perpendicular (between 75 and 105 degrees) based on site-specific conditions in Table 2-4. The Project requests authorization from NDEQ to perform these necessary construction activities.' (a) Conventional Crossing The Project will cross intermittent or ephemeral waterbodies with no discernable flow at the time of construction using the conventional crossing methods, unless otherwise required. Conventional crossing requires the least amount of time to complete pipeline installation and restore the waterbody, the least amount of ground disturbance, and is the most cost effective. Minimizing the time in which riparian areas remain disturbed and the extent of the disturbed area is required in the Jordan Lake buffer rules for utility, non -electric projects that include non -perpendicular crossings of streams and other surface waters (15A NCAC OsB.0267(9), n.4). The ability to use conventional crossing methods when there is no discernable flow would allow the Project to meet this requirement. Materials will be available to implement a dry crossing method should flow be anticipated due to precipitation events or other conditions. Trench spoil will be placed on the bank above the high-water mark for use as backfill. A prefabricated segment of pipeline will be laid horizontally across the waterbody bed past the high banks on each side of ' It is possible to cross streams with discernible flow using a wet open cut method. The primary difference with the wet open cut method is that the trench is cut through the stream without diverting the flow around the excavation. The wet open cut method has not been considered for the Project as a crossing method. Reference to "open cut" in this application refer solely to the dry open cut method. I Although NDEQ's Water Quality General Certification (No. 4133) does not expressly apply to this application for an individual 401 Water Quality Certification, the Project is using its conditions as guidance for developing this application. 2-5 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Ir PIPELINE Joint Permit Application USACE — Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 the waterbody before raising in elevation to the normal trench level. If necessary, the pipeline may be weighted with concrete weights, and/or aggregate filled sacks to obtain sufficient negative buoyancy. Compaction percentage of backfill will be equal to or above that of the adjacent undisturbed areas. Trench plugs consisting of sandbags or foam may also be used to keep backfill from sloughing in toward the center of the waterbody. The Project will restore waterbody banks to their original grades and remove and dispose of excavated material not required for backfill at an upland site. The Project will follow the FERC Procedures to limit water quality and aquatic resource impacts during and following construction. The Project will schedule construction activities so that the pipeline trench is excavated immediately prior to pipe laying activities. 2-6 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Ir PIPELINE (b) Dam and Pump Crossing Method Joint Permit Application USACE — Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 The dam and pump method involves installation of temporary dams upstream and downstream of the proposed waterbody crossing. The temporary dams will typically be constructed using materials such as sandbags and synthetic sheeting. Following dam installation, all fishes will be removed from within the structure prior to completely dewatering, appropriately sized pumps will be used to dewater and transport the stream flow around the construction work area and trench. Pumps will be placed within secondary containment. Intake screens will be installed at the pump inlets to prevent entrainment of aquatic life, and energy dissipating devices will be installed at the pump discharge point to minimize erosion and streambed scour. See Figure 3 below for a typical dam and pump design. Trench excavation and pipeline installation will then commence through the dewatered portion of the waterbody. Following completion of pipeline installation, backfill of the trench, and restoration of stream banks, the temporary dams will be removed, and flow through the construction work area will be restored. This method is generally only appropriate for those waterbody crossings where pumps can adequately transfer the stream flow volume around the work area and there are no concerns about the passage of sensitive aquatic species. This crossing method generally minimizes the duration of downstream turbidity by allowing excavation of the pipeline trench under relatively dry conditions. SILT €13M ("rj —=%a F =zL I WN - PILE a At DAM (SANDBAGS, ETC.) TRENCH BREAKER. (TYP.) PIPELINE WATER BAR AH TEMP. CCESS pE IAD COMPOST TER SACK S&T FEICE I fT1'P.) TW !1i T SFENZDAR ) KEATER EI UTHENT -E]o—m r1:1;ESS 6 ROAD E; F ENERGY nISSIPATER Figure 3. Dam and Pump Crossing Method Typical 2-7 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Joint Permit Application T PIPELINE USACE — Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 (c) Flume Crossing Method The flume crossing method will consist of temporarily directing the flow of water through one or more flume pipes placed over the area to be excavated (See Figure 4). This method will allow excavation of the pipe trench across the waterbody completely underneath the flume pipes without disruption of water flow in the stream. Stream flow will be diverted through the flumes by constructing two bulkheads and using sand bags or synthetic dams to direct the stream flow through the flume pipes. If necessary, dewatering pumps may be used to pump excess water to ensure stream flow is adequately moved past the work area. If used, dewatering pumps will be placed within secondary containment. Intake screens will be installed at the pump inlets to prevent entrainment of aquatic life, and energy dissipating devices will be installed at the pump discharge point to minimize erosion and streambed scour. The Project will remove bulkheads and flume pipes following completion of pipeline installation, backfill of the trench, and restoration of waterbody banks. This crossing method generally minimizes the duration of downstream turbidity by allowing excavation of the pipeline trench under relatively dry conditions.' a The difference between the dam and pump and flume crossing methods is based on how streamflow is temporarily diverted around the work area to allow trenching and pipeline installation to occur in dry conditions. Streamflow conditions at the time of construction generally dictate which method is preferable. However, they are not considered true crossing "alternatives" because there is no material difference in the relative water quality impacts between the two methods 2-8 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Ir PIPELINE MATER FLIM FLUME : ! PIPE ---- L_i__-- II l A f ken.—[ I CREEK. BANK WhTE:R L FLUME PIPE WATER�fL�W �+y CREEK BOTTOM k PROPPPIPEUNE I — EXCAVATED TRENCH SECTION "A -A" Joint Permit Application USACE —Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 EROSION COHTRCL AAEASLfETES 10 BE LOCATED BELOW APPROACH AREAS FLOW P4'= a x EXCAVATED TRENCIN A fAEROSION CONTR OL EASURES TO BE OCATED BEI -61w PPRCA.CH AREAS CREEK 6ANK CREEK BANK MCR EGATE WATER lE�EL FPIE PIPE £ �' \ T � PPEPOSEEC SECTION "B B" Figure 4. Flume Crossing Method Typical 2-9 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Ir PIPELINE (d) Cofferdam Crossing Method Joint Permit Application USACE — Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 The cofferdam crossing method may be used for crossing channels 10 feet or wider where the dam and pump and flume methods will be inadequate to safely convey the volume of streamflow around the crossing and will be designed so as not to prevent the flow of the stream. A cofferdam will be constructed within the construction right-of-way (e.g., using cofferdam products), enclosing approximately half the streambed in a semi -circle. The cofferdam seals tightly to the streambed to minimize water from entering the construction area. Pumps are used to remove water from within the cofferdam and to keep water out of excavations. This water is pumped to the upland area adjacent to the crossing and is released through pumped water filter bags places behind silt fence or similar devices. All earth disturbance will occur in the dry area behind the cofferdam. The pipe will be installed, and the disturbed area backfilled and stabilized. Sediment barriers at the waterline will be installed and functional before the cofferdam is removed. Following construction, banks will be stabilized with either riprap or vegetation. The cofferdam is then set up from the opposite bank and extends far enough to include the tie-in point in mid -stream. The remainder of the pipe is installed, and the tie-in weld is made. Clean up follows the same procedures described above. See Figure 5 below for an example. 2-10 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Joint Permit Application USACE —Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 EXISTING STREAM WIDTH W 1/2 W (RAIN. RIPRAP OR OTHER NON— ERODI6LE A MATERIAL A Q W (p) TRE14CHLINE o w m AGGREGATE OR FLOW - SAN D � o FILTER CLOTH PLAN DEWATERING DEVICE, SEE STD. do SPEC_ 3.25 PERIMETERw I rrnnrrRnt c f ` * (ID MINA BE 257. OF TOTAL WIDTH (W) OF THE STREAM. PERIMETER CONTROLS TRENCHUNE L ---- SECTION A -A Figure 5. Cofferdam Crossing Typical 2-11 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Ir PIPELINE (e) Conventional Bore Crossing Method Joint Permit Application USACE — Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 Some waterbodies crossed by the Southgate Project are directly associated with or adjacent to roads or railroads. Where these roads or railroads are to be crossed using a horizontal or conventional boring machine, the waterbody will typically be included within the length of the bore to avoid the need to excavate a bore bit in the waterbody. Some elevated or channelized waterbodies, such as irrigation ditches, may also be successfully bored, depending upon the groundwater level in the area. This crossing method avoids instream disturbance and therefore is proposed for three crossings where consultation with the USFWS and NCWRC indicated sensitive aquatic species could be present: Cascade Creek, Wolf Island Creek, and Deep Creek. To complete a horizontal or conventional bore, two pits will be excavated, one on each side of the feature to be bored. A boring machine will be lowered into one pit, and a horizontal hole will be bored to a diameter equal to the diameter of the pipe (or casing, if required) at the depth of the pipeline installation. The pipeline section and/or casing will then be pushed through the bore to the opposite pit (See Figure 4). If additional pipeline sections are required to span the length of the bore, they will be welded to the first section of the pipeline in the bore pit before being pushed through the bore. Issues which must be considered during evaluation of conventional bore for potential use during crossing of waterways and wetlands include: • Worker safety, especially when high groundwater poses risk to stability of bore pits. • Significantly more workspace required due to the boring machines, drill string and pipe storage and storage of spoil from the bore pits (as much as 900 cubic yards for a 20 -foot deep pit). Topography in stream valleys significantly reduces (or eliminates) the amount of space available. • Groundwater must be managed due to proximity of the bore pit to the feature being bored. • Bore pits situated on a slope, the depth of the upslope wall of the pit will increase quickly creating the need for additional surface disturbance and associated workspace as the pit walls must be graded (laid back) for worker safety. • Geology may hinder or eliminate the potential use of conventional bore due to the hardness of rock encountered, the presence of varying different materials in the bore path (i.e. large boulders in sand and gravel) or changes in bedding thickness. • Disturbance of riparian buffer associated with workspace and excavation of bore pits. 2-12 November 2018 K�mwn��^k��aU&~°" Joint PenndApp|�aton ' ' '''~~-''~~—^ P/��L��. USACE—VVi|mingbznDisthotandNCDEQ S/VW'2018'008887 IOPSCIL �2 LIKIM M45EF.RA'R ON PCIL ML _ I BEUNCLESORNG SIZE SOL � EMIPMCWT STORAGE AREA PLAN VIEW TURNPIKE OCRW: �K:Uiofz MOLE MACHINE Figure 6. Conventional Bore Typical 2-13 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Joint Permit Application T PIPELINE USACE — Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 (f) Horizontal Directional Drilling Crossing Method Horizontal directional drilling ("HDD") is a method that allows for trenchless construction across an area by pre -drilling a hole below the depth of a conventional pipeline lay and then pulling the pipeline through the pre -drilled borehole (See Figure 5). Currently, the Project is proposing an HDD at the Dan River and Stony Creek Reservoir crossings. The HDD was selected at the Dan River due to crossing length, depth of the river, fluctuation of water levels, and threatened and endangered species concerns. The Stony Creek Reservoir HDD was selected due to the length of crossing, depth of the reservoir, and to limit impact on the recreational uses of the waterbody. HDD Site-specific Plans are provided in Appendix H. The HDD method has been in use since the 1970s as a means to install pipelines across rivers and at shore approaches to mitigate for construction activities within a waterbody. Pipelines up to 60 inches in diameter have been successfully installed using this method. The length of pipeline that can be installed by HDD depends upon topography, soil conditions, geology, and pipe diameters and is limited by available technology and equipment sizes. Typically for HDD crossings, electric -grid guide wires will be hand -laid across the land surface along the pipeline right-of-way to help guide the drill bit along the predetermined HDD route. In thickly vegetated riparian areas, a swath approximately two to three feet wide may be hand -cleared across the land surface for the placement of guide wires to monitor the track of the drill alignment, resulting in minimal ground and vegetation disturbance. This may occur over the pipe or temporary access may be utilized if it does less harm to the vegetation. Following guide wire installation, a directional drilling rig will be set up and a small -diameter pilot hole will be drilled along a prescribed profile. Electromagnetic sensors located on the tip of the drill bit will follow an electromagnetic field created by the guide wires along the prescribed path. Where guide wires cannot be used, bit tip positioning sensors will be used to guide the drill bit. In either case, once the pilot hole is completed, it will be enlarged, using reaming tools to provide access for the pipe. The reaming tools will be attached to the drill string at the exit point of the pilot hole and then rotated and drawn back to the drilling rig, thus progressively enlarging the pilot hole with each pass. During this process, drilling fluid consisting of water and bentonite clay (typically a 97:3 mixture) will be continuously pumped into the hole to remove cuttings and maintain the integrity of the hole. Bentonite clay is classified as a non-toxic/non-hazardous substance. Due to the unique characteristics of bentonite, the slurry is capable of absorbing 10 times its own weight in water and swells up to 19 times its dry volume. The combined bentonite and water mixture serves the following purposes: lubricate and cool the drill head; seal and fill the porous space on the circumference of the drilled hole; form a cake -like substance to help prevent the walls of the drill hole from collapsing inward; and suspend the cuttings for removal through the drilling process. Water for HDDs is anticipated to be obtained from municipal sources. If necessary, additional potential sources of water for HDDs may include other municipal systems, groundwater supply wells, and/or approved surface waters. Additional additives that are approved by agencies may be needed dependent upon viscosity readings. These additives will be determined by a mud engineer on site. The Project will use additives for HDDs that are certified for conformance with NSF International/American National Standards Institute Standard 60, which provides assurances that the product is safe for use in drinking water (NSF International, 2018). These fluids will comply with state and federal requirements. HDD fluid will be disposed of per the HDD Contingency Plan (Appendix I). Water containing mud, silt, drilling fluid, or other materials from equipment washing or other activities, will not be allowed to enter 2-14 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Joint Permit Application PIPELINE USACE — Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 wetlands and waterbodies. The bentonite used in the drilling process will be either disposed of at an approved disposal facility or recycled in an approved manner. Once the hole has been sufficiently enlarged, a prefabricated segment of pipe will be attached behind the reaming tool on the exit side of the crossing and pulled back through the drill hole to the drill rig, completing the crossing. The Project will dispose of all HDD cuttings and fluids at approved disposal facilities. The primary advantage of the HDD method is that there is minimal planned disturbance of the surface between the entry and exit points of the HDD (limited to the temporary deployment of telemetry cable and water pipe), provided there is reasonable access to the entry and exit points for the drilling rig and fluids handling equipment. Where the HDD and the adjacent right-of-way are in or near parallel alignment, the pull section will be pre -fabricated within the construction right-of-way to the greatest extent practical; minimal ATWS will be required for this pull section. In areas where pullback space is limited due to topographic constraints, adjacent resources, encroachment, or other utilities, the pullback string may be broken into several segments for assembly during the pullback activity. However, the process of breaking an HDD in multiple pullback sequences significantly increases the amount of time the bore pits and associated disturbance exist due to the time required for welding the seams mid -pull. This in turn can also increase the potential for failure of the HDD due to pipe failure and borehole caving. Potential failures can be avoided or mitigated by conducting geotechnical analysis prior to construction or by making appropriate adjustments during operation of the HDD equipment. In addition to the potential for an inadvertent return, the minimum bend radius of the pipe must also be considered in design. Based on the conservative industry practice of calculating a bending radius using the formula of 100 times the pipe outer diameter for a HDD, for example the allowable bending radius for 24 - inch steel pipe is 2,400 feet. The bend radius will affect the catenary, or the curve formed where the pipe is hanging at the pullback point. Topography, bend radius, and entry/exit angles will all be factors in the catenary height from the ground. A pipeline depth of at least 25 feet below waterbodies for HDD construction will also be employed based on minimizing the potential for inadvertent returns. At a minimum, any HDD below a waterbody would be at least 2,400 feet long and therefore require 2,400 feet of straight stringing space without introducing additional risks. Additional factors to consider when selecting the HDD crossing method practicality include significantly higher costs, duration to complete the crossing, increased safety concerns, and increased workspace. Because of the complexities and variables described above, HDD is not an appropriate crossing alternative for all waterbodies. 2-15 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Joint Permit Application r PIPELINE USACE —Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 APMIOOPAiRY 375' . .WITELT •. D „ } m F Q ❑e i t ' j ? 3 1 17 S ____ ' � IS'll n n3 acc' - gar w� wh. EQUIPMENT E . 1 1•E T. 1. SPOL CONTAIMM 8' X 20' - IL _CNTNNER: 8' X 20' 2. SH*ER. 8' X 12' 2. SK -IU 8' X 12' 3. CESILIS: 8' X 8' 3. "E LTEF- 8' X 8' e, VUD RIC: 8' X 25' 4. N ' 1,: 8' X 25' 5. SUPPLY 1RAPM 8' X 25' S. S� L PALM 8' X 25' 6. ENTRY PR: 8' X 20' 6. E)1T R x 10' 7. SrORAGF 30' X 30' 7. SI - E x 30' 8. VEHICLE PAWK: 15' X 50' & '.EH LE -4INC: 15' X 50' 9. POWER UNEF 8' X 10' 9. �Ea-TE r 1VE 8' X 20' 10. DRILL PIPE: 30' X 30' 10. NrE T .=1L& 8' X 40' 11. ME: 8'X8' 12. DPoLLMC PIC: 8' X 45' 13. SUFNEY TR.VLER: 8' X 25' PLAN E7(IT EN7RY 3wr POINT WATER9COY POINT C:.FVCUT, AL J E:_I-E1, DEPTH = _� F -E ...;-FILE :IRCFILE Figure 7. Horizontal Directional Drill Typical. 2-16 November 2018 M Mountain Valle Ir PIPELINE 2.4.5 Aboveground Facilities Joint Permit Application USACE — Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 Construction activities and storage of construction materials and equipment will be confined within the designated workspace areas associated with the aboveground facilities. Debris and waste generated from construction will be disposed of as appropriate. Disturbed surface areas will be restored in a timely manner. The facilities will be constructed in accordance with the Project construction standards and specifications as more generally described in the paragraphs that follow. The compression, piping and other equipment will be shipped to the sites by truck. The equipment will be offloaded using cranes and/or front-end loaders. The equipment will then be positioned on the foundations, leveled, grouted where necessary, and secured with anchor bolts, as required. Non -screwed piping associated with the aboveground facilities will be welded, except where connected to flanged components. Welders and welding procedures will be qualified in accordance with API standards. Welds in gas piping systems will be examined using radiography, ultrasound, or other approved non-destructive examination methods to ensure compliance with code requirements. Aboveground piping surfaces will be cleaned and painted in accordance with the Project construction specifications. Paint inspection and cleanup will be conducted in accordance with regulatory requirements and best engineering practices. Components in high-pressure natural gas service will be tested prior to placing in service. Pressure testing will follow all applicable federal and state requirements. Before being placed in service, controls and safety equipment and systems including emergency shutdown, relief valves, gas and fire detection, and engine over speed and vibration protection will be calibrated and tested. 2.4.6 Access Roads New and existing roads will be used to provide access to the pipeline right-of-way during construction and/or operation of the Southgate Project. Access road widths will be the minimum necessary to provide access for construction equipment while maintaining safe travel conditions. Maintenance or upgrades may be required on some of the existing roads prior to use by construction equipment. Upgrades may include grading to prevent rutting, widening or placement of additional stabilization means including but not limited to gravel or crushed stone on the existing surface to ensure safe travel conditions in uplands. Matting or a similar material would be used for access roads through wetlands. Existing culverts that are damaged or otherwise not properly functioning will be repaired or replaced with an in-kind structure to ensure they are functional during construction activities. Permanent culverts or temporary flumes installed as part of the Project will include measures to promote the safe passage of fish and other aquatic organisms. The dimension, pattern, and profile of the stream above and below a culvert will not be modified by altering the width or depth of the stream profile in connection with the construction activity. The width, height, and gradient of a proposed culvert will be sufficient to pass the average historical low flow and spring flow without adversely altering flow velocity. Access will be constructed such that the length of the road minimizes impacts on waters of the United States and will be maintained as close as possible to pre -construction contours and elevations. 2.5 RESTORATION Following construction of the Southgate Project, the areas disturbed by construction will be restored to their original grades, condition, and use, to the greatest extent practicable. The Project will complete restoration in accordance with the FERC Plan and Procedures, the Project -specific E&SCP, stormwater management plans (SWMP), applicable regulatory approvals, and landowner agreements. Restoration will be considered 2-17 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Joint Permit Application T PIPELINE USACE —Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 successful if the disturbed surface condition is similar to adjacent undisturbed lands, construction debris is removed (unless requested otherwise by the landowner in upland areas), revegetation is successful, proper drainage has been restored, and the appropriate federal and state agencies approve. The Project will reseed areas disturbed by construction in accordance with and proposed seed mixes that will be developed for the Project and provided in an additional submittal. 2.5.1 Pipeline Upon completion of the pipeline installation, the surface of the right-of-way disturbed during construction activities will be graded to match original contours and to be compatible with surrounding drainage patterns, except at those locations where permanent changes in drainage will be required to prevent erosion, scour, and possible exposure of the pipeline. Segregated topsoil will be replaced, and soils that have been compacted by construction equipment traffic will be de -compacted. Permanent stormwater management measures will be installed in accordance with the Project's SWMP. Temporary erosion control measures may be left in place, where appropriate, until sufficient vegetative cover is re-established to prevent significant erosion or sedimentation. 2.5.1.1 Uplands In most upland locations, excluding actively cultivated cropland, herbaceous vegetative cover will be re- established by spreading a grass seed and hydro or straw -mulch mixture over the disturbed surface. The type of seed will be selected to match the mix required by applicable regulatory agencies, or as otherwise requested by the landowner. Depending upon the time of year, a temporary seed mix may be broadcast or drilled until a more permanent cover can be established. Steep slopes (e.g., stream banks) may require additional stabilization using erosion control fabric, revetments, or sod. Vegetation success in these areas will be monitored by the Project, and reseeding, fertilizing, hydroseed (where allowed), or other supplemental revegetation measures may be implemented until the density and cover of non -nuisance vegetation is similar in density and cover to adjacent undisturbed lands. 2.5.1.2 Wetlands Original surface hydrology will be re-established in wetlands by backfilling the pipe trench and grading the surface to pre -construction contours with equipment operating from timber mats or equivalent or using low - ground -pressure tracked vehicles working in the spoil pile depending upon degree of soil saturation and the bearing capacity. Segregated topsoil will be replaced in unsaturated wetlands. Once the trench is backfilled and ground surface restored to its natural grade, the soils will be mechanically loosened to a depth of 12 inches, if necessary, and allowed to naturally revegetate. In emergent wetlands, the herbaceous vegetation is expected to regenerate quickly (typically within one growing season). The Project will conduct restoration and monitoring of wetland crossings in accordance with the FERC Procedures to ensure successful wetland revegetation. Wetland revegetation will be considered successful when the cover of herbaceous and/or woody species is at least 80 percent of the type, density, and distribution of the vegetation in adjacent wetland areas that were not disturbed by construction. Revegetation efforts will continue until wetland revegetation is successful based on the FERC Procedures and other applicable regulatory approvals. If revegetation is unsuccessful, the wetlands will be seeded with appropriate native wetland species in consultation with USACE and NCDEQ. 2-18 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Joint Permit Application PIPELINE USACE — Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 2.5.1.3 Waterbodies Cleanup and restoration activities commence as soon as practicable following completion of the waterbody crossing. Waterbody substrate will be segregated from other soils and will be used to backfill the trench once the pipeline is laid. Sediments will be placed in uplands to the extent practicable, and where not practicable will be placed on filter cloth or other semi -impervious surface. Areas disturbed will be restored to pre -construction or better conditions. Original streambed and bank contours will be re-established for surface water and groundwater flow, and mulch, jute thatching, or bonded fiber blankets will be installed on the stream banks, which are preferential to plastic erosion control blankets because they reduce wildlife entrapment and are biodegradable. Where the flume technique is used, stream banks will be stabilized before removing the flume pipes and returning flow to the waterbody channel. Additionally, the Project will conduct a scour analysis on perennial streams 10 -feet wide or greater in width crossed by the pipeline to ensure that the placement depth is sufficient to prevent erosion by expected high flows. The analysis will be completed in early 2019 and results will be provided to USACE and NCDEQ for review. Seeding of disturbed stream approaches will be completed in accordance with the FERC Procedures after final grading, weather and soil conditions permitting. Other Federal and State permit seeding requirements will be considered where applicable. Where necessary, slope breakers will be installed adjacent to stream banks to minimize the potential for erosion. Sediment barriers, such as silt fence and/or straw bales will be maintained across the right-of-way until permanent vegetation is established. Temporary equipment bridges will be removed following construction. 2.5.2 Access Roads Previously existing access roads that were modified and used during construction will be returned to original or better condition upon completion of the pipeline facilities installation. Temporary access roads constructed specifically for the Project installation will be removed, the surface graded to original contours, and the land restored to its original use unless otherwise requested by the landowner. Temporary erosion control measures will be removed upon final stabilization and approval from applicable regulatory agencies and installation of permanent erosion control measures, if necessary. 2.5.3 Aboveground Facilities Aboveground facilities will be fenced. The areas inside the fence at the aboveground facilities will be permanently converted to industrial use. Most areas in and around the buildings, meters, and associated piping and equipment will be covered with an approved stabilization method (typically crushed rock or equivalent) to minimize the amount of maintenance required. Roads and parking areas may be crushed rock, concrete, or asphalt. Other ground surfaces will be seeded with a grass that is compatible with the climate and can be easily maintained. Temporary workspace areas outside the fence will be restored as described above for the pipeline right-of-way. 2.5.4 Contractor Yards Upon completion of construction, all temporary facilities (e.g., trailers, sheds, latrines, pipe racks, fencing, and gates) will be removed from the contractor yards. Unless otherwise requested by the landowner, each site will be graded to original contours and the land restored to its original use, to the greatest extent possible. The site will be revegetated, permanent erosion control measures will be installed, and temporary erosion control measures will be removed. 2-19 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Joint Permit Application PIPELINE USACE — Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 2.6 QUALITY ASSURANCE MEASURES To ensure that construction of the facilities will comply with measures identified in the FERC Certificate and applicable regulatory permits and clearances, the Project will include implementation details in its construction drawings and specifications. Copies of permit requirements, known conditions and related drawings will be added to the Construction Bid Package. Consistent with the FERC Plan and Procedures and the Project -specific E&SCP, environmental training will be given to the Project personnel and to contractor personnel whose activities may impact the environment during pipeline and aboveground facility construction. The level of training will be commensurate with the type of duties of the personnel. All construction personnel from the Chief Inspector, EI, craft inspectors, and contractor job superintendent to clearing crews, welders, equipment operators, and laborers will be given the appropriate level of environmental training. The training will be given prior to the start of construction and throughout the construction process, as needed. The training program will cover job -specific permit conditions (NWP 12, 401 Water Quality Certification, NPDES, etc.), contaminated sediment and groundwater management, health and safety, company policies, cultural resource procedures, threatened and endangered species restrictions, the SPCC Plan (Appendix F), HDD Contingency Plan (Appendix H), and any other pertinent information related to the Project. The Invasive Species Plan will be provided at a later date. In addition to the EIs, all other construction personnel will play an important role in maintaining strict compliance with all permit conditions to protect the environment during construction. To ensure quality assurance and compliance with mitigation measures, a Chief Inspector will represent the Project assisted by another Inspector, and one or more craft inspectors. In addition, there will be at least one EI who will report to the Chief Inspector, who in turn reports to the Construction Manager. The EI's duties are consistent with those contained in Section II.B (Responsibilities of the Environmental Inspector) of the FERC Plan; the EI will be: • Responsible for monitoring and documenting compliance with all mitigation measures required by the FERC's Order and any other grants, permits, certificates, or other authorizing documents; • Responsible for evaluating the construction contractor's implementation of the environmental mitigation measures required in the contract or any other authorizing document; • Empowered to order correction of acts that violate the environmental conditions of the FERC's Order, or any other authorizing document (e.g., USACE Section 404 permit), including stop work authority; • A full-time position separate from all other activity inspectors; and • Responsible for maintaining status reports and training records. Copies of the Construction Drawing Package will be distributed to inspectors and to contractors' supervisory personnel. If a contractor's performance is unsatisfactory, the terms of the contract will allow for work stoppage and will require the contractor to begin remedial work. The Project's engineering and construction departments are responsible for designing and constructing certificated facilities in compliance with regulatory and contractual requirements and agreements. If technical or management assistance is required, the responsible Construction Manager and/or Chief Inspector will request assistance from the appropriate company department. The operations department 2-20 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Joint Permit Application PIPELINE USACE — Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 will be responsible for long-term Project maintenance and regulatory compliance once the Project is in- service. 2.7 SCHEDULE The order in which each facility will be constructed may vary, depending upon numerous factors, including the receipt of necessary authorizations, the capabilities of each contractor, available work force, and optimized logistics. The Southgate Project anticipates clearing to start in the first quarter of 2020 contingent upon receipt of necessary approvals, and pipeline construction will begin in early 2020 to achieve a target in-service date of December 2020. A preliminary construction schedule is provided below in Table 2-5. Table 2-5 Construction Schedule for Major Components of the MVP Southgate Project Component Commence Activity Complete Activity Clearing Q1 2020 Q1 2020 Pipeline Construction Q1 2020 Q4 2020 Compressor Stations Q1 2020 Q4 2020 Restoration Q2 2020 Q4 2022 Hydrostatic Testing Q4 2020 December 2020 Anticipated full in-service date of December 2020 2.8 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE The Southgate Project will be operated and maintained in compliance with Federal regulations provided at 49 CFR Part 192, FERC regulations at 18 CFR § 380.15, and maintenance provisions of the FERC Plan and Procedures and its Project -specific E&SCP. Operational activity on the pipeline will be limited primarily to vegetation management within the permanent easement and inspection, repair, and cleaning of the pipeline. Periodic aerial and ground inspections by the Project will identify: • soil erosion that may expose the pipe; • dead vegetation that may indicate a leak in the line; • conditions of the vegetation cover and erosion control measures; • unauthorized encroachment on the right-of-way, such as buildings and other substantial structures; and • other conditions that could present a safety hazard or require preventive maintenance or repairs. Following construction, certain areas along the pipeline alignment (and at aboveground facilities) will have an associated permanent right-of-way or operational area. For pipeline facilities, the Project will maintain a typical permanent right-of-way of 50 feet in width. Vegetation on the permanent right-of-way will be maintained by mowing, cutting, and trimming. Herbicide treatment will only be used to control invasive species, as necessary, and will not be allowed within 100 feet of a waterbody or wetland unless specifically allowed by the appropriate federal or state agency. 2-21 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Joint Permit Application PIPELINE USACE — Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 In uplands, routine vegetation mowing or clearing over the full width of the permanent right-of-way will occur no more than once every three years. However, to facilitate periodic corrosion/leak surveys, the Project may clear a corridor not exceeding 10 feet in width centered on the pipeline at a frequency necessary to maintain the 10 -foot corridor in an herbaceous state. See Appendix C for a typical construction detail of the maintenance corridor. In wetlands, routine vegetation mowing or clearing over the full width of the permanent right-of-way will not occur. However, to facilitate periodic corrosion/leak surveys, the Project may clear a corridor centered on the pipeline up to 10 feet in width at a frequency necessary to maintain the 10 -foot corridor in an herbaceous state. In addition, trees within 15 feet of the pipeline may be selectively cut and removed from the permanent right-of-way to ensure that root systems do not affect the exterior coating of the pipeline. 2.9 FUTURE PLANS AND ABANDONMENT The Project currently has no plans for either future expansion or abandonment of the facilities. Should the Project propose any future expansion or abandonment of Project facilities, the Project will seek the appropriate authorizations from FERC and other federal and state agencies as applicable. 2.10 ROUTE ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Due to the linear nature of this Project, there are no practical alternatives that fulfill the project purpose, while avoiding all impacts to surface waters and wetlands. Impacts have been avoided and minimized to the extent practicable through the routing alternatives analysis discussed in this section, the right-of-way area limitations discussed in Section 2.3.1, and the impact avoidance and minimization measures outlined in Section 4.4. During development of the Southgate Project, an extensive review of potential routes was evaluated to identify viable corridors for placement of the pipeline. Potentially viable corridors were reviewed for a variety of potential constraints including environmental impacts, effects on landowners, and constructability and further refined to determine the most feasible route within the least impactful corridor. One of the Project's primary objectives with respect to pipeline routing was to avoid or minimize, to the extent possible, crossings of major population centers and significant environmental resources, including waterbodies and wetlands. The Project also attempted to route its pipeline adjacent to existing rights-of- way, where feasible, to minimize new land impacts. The Project used field reconnaissance, aerial photography, topographic maps from the U.S. Geological Survey, and National Wetland Inventory maps during the route identification and evaluation processes. Appendix J is the FERC Environmental Document that was filed November 7, 2018. Resource Report 10 of the FERC Environmental Report provides an in- depth discussion of the Project's alternatives analysis. Appendix G provides an analysis of wetland and waterbody crossing methods. The Project evaluated four major route alternatives (including the preferred route) as part of the planning and design process (See Appendix J). The evaluation was based on environmental and land use impacts, as well as permanent easement acquisitions and overall Project costs. The primary objective of the evaluation was to develop the most direct route that could connect customers to the available supply system while avoiding or minimizing potential adverse environmental impacts and engineering constraints to the greatest extent practicable. The Project evaluated pipeline routing options based on potential adverse environmental impacts, existing land usage, constructability, safety, and feasibility considerations. The selection of the major route alternatives involves several steps. 2-22 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Ir PIPELINE Joint Permit Application USACE — Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 • Development of routing criteria; • Identification of potential routing alternatives; • Collection of data relative to each alternative; • Evaluation of potential environmental and land use impacts; • Evaluation of routing alternatives against routing criteria; and • Determination of the most cost-effective technical solution The route best meeting the selection criteria was selected as the preferred route. The preferred route was selected primarily for these reasons: • Shortest length and, therefore, least area of land disturbance during construction and operation; • Greatest percent of route collocated with existing rights -of -ways; • Least mileage of forested land crossing; and • Least area of forested land construction or operation impacts. Minor Route Variations The Project evaluated a 300 to 400 -foot wide "study area" around the preferred route. The purpose of the study was to allow for minor route deviations within the corridor to avoid or minimize impacts to sensitive resources, including wetlands and waterbodies. The Project has currently identified 280 route variations during preliminary routing, stakeholder outreach efforts, and landowner and/or and agency requested route deviations. Of these, the Project has incorporated 191 of these into the proposed current preferred route. Those that are relevant to avoiding or minimizing impacts to wetlands or waterbodies are summarized in Table 2-6. Table 2-6 Minor Route Variations to Avoid or Minimize Impacts to Wetlands or Waterways in North Carolina Reroute Number Begin End Length Variation Description Justification Milepost Milepost (miles) MVP -RA -153-1309 28.3 28.3 0 ATWS adjustment Wetland avoidance Avoidance of multiple MVP -RR -193-1030 34.95 35.35 0.4 Centerline adjustment stream crossings and side -slope construction MVP -RR -193-1501 39.2 39.6 0.4 Centerline adjustment Avoid wetland / pond complex MVP -RA -163-1116 40 40.2 0.2 Centerline adjustment Avoidance of waterbody MVP -RA -186-1423 57.35 57.75 0.4 Centerline adjustment Avoidance of pond MVP -RA -143-1534 63.1 63.5 0.4 Centerline adjustment Move point of inflection out of pond MVP -RR -186-1407 67.9 68.2 0.3 Centerline adjustment Avoidance of pond 2-23 November 2018 M Mountain Valle 1W PIPELINE 3.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS Joint Permit Application USACE — Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 3.1 WETLAND AND WATERBODY DELINEATION The Southgate Project performed a wetland and waterway delineation for the Project environmental survey area that consisted of a typical 300 to 400 -foot -wide corridor along the 47 miles of proposed pipeline. The survey area included limits of additional temporary workspaces, above ground facilities, construction yards, staging areas, and access roads. A typical 50 -foot wide corridor centered over the proposed access road was surveyed for all access roads. Overall, the survey area for the North Carolina portion of the Project encompasses approximately 2,135 acres. The wetland and waterbody delineation was conducted using a combination of the desktop and field surveys. The field surveys covered approximately 78 percent of the North Carolina Project survey area, where survey access was available. The remaining area where survey access was not available was evaluated using existing data resources such as National Wetland Inventory ("NWI") maps, National Hydrography Dataset ("NHD") maps, published US Department of Agriculture- Natural Resources Conservation Service "USDA-NRCS" Soil Surveys for Rockingham and Alamance Counties, North Carolina, and site specific aerial photography and Lidar data flown for the Project area in 2018. Project scientists made observations of the estimated resources from adjacent tracts where survey access was available, to the extent possible. Wetland and waterbody limits estimated using desktop analysis will be field delineated when survey access is available. Wetlands and waterbody boundaries were identified based on the interpretation of this data and typically represent an over -estimation of the extent of jurisdictional resources. Details of the survey methodology and results, including data forms, wetland and waterway delineation maps, and photographs, are provided in Appendix K (MVP Southgate Project — North Carolina Wetland and Waterbody Delineation Report). The areas delineated via desktop methods will be surveyed in the field when access becomes available. 3.1.1 Wetlands One hundred thirty-one wetlands were delineated within the North Carolina Project survey area. These wetlands are identified in Appendix K (Wetland and Waterbody Delineation report — Appendix A-1) by resource ID, milepost, and type. None of the delineated wetlands are isolated. The wetlands in the survey area are associated with stream and river floodplains or their headwaters and include a combination of palustrine forested ("PFO"), palustrine scrub -shrub ("PSS"), and palustrine emergent wetlands ("PEM"). Table 3-1 summarizes the wetlands delineated (in the field and by estimated) in the North Carolina Project survey area by watershed and Cowardin cover type. 3.1.2 Waterbodies Within the North Carolina Project survey area, 280 streams and waterbodies were delineated, including 22 ponds and 258 streams. Of the identified streams, 66 were determined to be ephemeral in nature, 101 are intermittent, and 91 are perennial. None of the delineated resources are isolated waterbodies and none are classified as Section 10 waterways by the USACE-Wilmington District. Appendix A-2 of the Wetland and Waterbody Delineation Report (Appendix K) provides a summary of each delineated waterbody, including resource ID, milepost, stream name, flow type, watershed, and area/linear feet within the North Carolina Project survey area. Table 3-2 (below) summarizes the waterbodies delineated in the Project survey area. 3-1 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Joint Permit Application USACE - Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 Table 3-1 Summary of Wetlands Delineated and Desktop Reviewed in the North Carolina Project Survey Area by Sub -watershed Milepost (MP) / Watershed Cowardin Classification a/ - Number of Resources b/ - Acres of Wetland Type Delineated within Survey Area Approximated Acres of Wetland within Survey Area c/ MP: 26.1 - 26.23 HUC 8: Upper Dan (03010103) HUC 10: Cascade Creek -Dan River (0301010309) HUC 12: Trotters Creek -Dan River (030101030903) PEM 1 0.01 0 PSS 0 0 0 PFO 1 0.09 0 Subtotal 2 0.10 0 MP: 26.23 - 28.13 HUC 8: Upper Dan (03010103) HUC 10: Cascade Creek -Dan River (0301010309) HUC 12: Cascade Creek (030101030902) PEM 3 1.72 0.31 PSS 0 0 0 PFO 2 0.11 0 Subtotal 5 1.83 0.31 MP: 28.13 - 36.3 HUC 8: Upper Dan (03010103) HUC 10: Cascade Creek -Dan River (0301010309) HUC 12: Town Creek -Dan River (030101030901) PEM 24 3.60 0.38 PSS 2 1.17 0.01 PFO 10 14.36 0.26 Subtotal 36 19.13 0.65 MP: 36.3 - 39.7 HUC 8: Upper Dan (03010103) HUC 10: Cascade Creek -Dan River (0301010309) HUC 12: Upper Wolf Island Creek (030101030904) PEM 5 2.59 0 PSS 1 0.16 0 PFO 5 1.15 0 Subtotal 11 3.91 0 MP: 39.7 - 42.2 HUC 8: Lower Dan (03010104) HUC 10: Hogans Creek -Dan River (0301010401) HUC 12: Lick Fork (030101040103) PEM 4 0.35 0 PSS 0 0 0 PFO 4 1.46 0.19 Subtotal 8 1.81 0.19 3-2 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Joint Permit Application USACE - Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 Table 3-1 Summary of Wetlands Delineated and Desktop Reviewed in the North Carolina Project Survey Area by Sub -watershed Milepost (MP) / Watershed Cowardin Classification a/ - Number of Resources b/ - Acres of Wetland Type Delineated within Survey Area Approximated Acres of Wetland within Survey Area c/ PEM 4 0.65 0.03 MP: 42.2 - 48.36 PSS 1 0.04 0 HUC 8: Lower Dan (03010104) HUC 10: Hogans Creek -Dan River (0301010401) PFO 2 0.33 0 HUC 12: Upper Hogans Creek (030101040104) Subtotal 7 1.02 0.03 PEM 3 0.26 0 MP: 48.36 - 49.48 PSS 1 0.53 0 HUC 8: Haw River (03030002) HUC 10: Headwaters Haw River (0303000202) PFO 1 0.03 0 HUC 12: Giles Creek -Haw River (030300020206) Subtotal 5 0.82 0 PEM 7 1.52 0.14 MP: 49.48 - 55.75 & 55.97 - 56.12 PSS 4 0.38 0 HUC 8: Haw River (03030002) HUC 10: Headwaters Haw River (0303000202) PFO 6 1.44 0.01 HUC 12: Town of Altamahaw-Haw River (030300020207 Subtotal 17 3.34 0.15 MP: 55.75 - 55.97; 61.12 - 61.49; 62.82 - 65.35 PEM 1 0.02 0 PSS 0 0 0 HUC 8: Haw River (03030002) HUC 10: Back Creek -Haw River (0303000204) PFO 7 2.08 0.27 HUC 12: Stony Creek -Stony Creek Reservoir Subtotal 8 2.10 0.27 (030300020403) MP: 56.12 - 61.12; 61.49 - 62.82 PEM 12 3.29 0.27 HUC 8: Haw River (03030002) PSS 2 0.19 0 HUC 10: Back Creek -Haw River (0303000204) HUC 12: Travis Creek -Haw River (030300020404) PFO 13 6.56 0 Subtotal 27 10.03 0.27 3-3 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Joint Permit Application USACE — Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 Table 3-1 Summary of Wetlands Delineated and Desktop Reviewed in the North Carolina Project Survey Area by Sub -watershed Milepost (MP) / Watershed Cowardin Classification a/ — Number of Resources b/ — Acres of Wetland Type Delineated within Survey Area Approximated Acres of Wetland within Survey Area c/ PEM 3 0.33 0 MP: 65.35 - 72.98 PSS 0 0.00 0 HUC 8: Haw River (03030002) HUC 10: Back Creek -Haw River (0303000204) PFO 2 0.12 0.01 HUC 12: Boyds Creek -Haw River (030300020408) Subtotal 5 0.45 0.01 PEM 0 0 0 MP: 72.98 to MP 73.11 (end) HUC 8: Haw River (03030002) PSS 0 0 0 HUC 10: Back Creek -Haw River (0303000204) PFO 0 0 0 HUC 12: Lower Back Creek (030300020407) Subtotal 0 0 0 PEM 67 14.34 1.13 PSS 11 2.47 0.01 Total PFO 53 27.73 0.74 Total 131 44.54 1.88 a/ Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin, 1979). b/ Based on field surveys conducted by the Southgate Project from May 2018 to September 2018. c/ Based on desktop reviews conducted by the Southgate Project during April -May 2018. PEM=Palustrine Emergent, PSS= Palustrine Scrub -Shrub, PFO=Palustrine Forested 3-4 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Joint Permit Application USACE — Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 Table 3-2 Summary of Waterbodies Delineated and Desktop Reviewed in the North Carolina Project Survey Area by Sub -watershed Milepost (MP) / Watershed Flow Type Number of Resources Delineated a/ — Linear Feet in Survey Area Delineated Acres of Waterbody Delineated with Survey Area Number of Resources Desktop Reviewed within Survey Area c/ Ephemeral 0 0 0 0 MP: 26.1 - 26.23 HUC 8: Upper Dan (03010103) Intermittent 0 0 0 0 HUC 10: Cascade Creek -Dan River (0301010309) Perennial 0 0 0 0 HUC 12: Trotters Creek -Dan River Pond 0 0 0 0 Subtotal 0 0 0 0 (030101030903) Ephemeral 0 0 0 0 Intermittent 2 359 0 1 MP: 26.23 - 28.13 HUC 8: Upper Dan (03010103) HUC 10: Cascade Creek -Dan River Perennial 1 468 0 2 (0301010309) HUC 12: Cascade Creek (030101030902) Pond 1 0 0.13 0 Subtotal 4 827 0.13 3 Ephemeral 16 3,155 0 1 MP: 28.13 - 36.3 Intermittent 23 12,059 0 2 HUC 8: Upper Dan (03010103) Perennial 21 10,060 0 5 HUC 10: Cascade Creek -Dan River (0301010309) Pond 1 0 0.08 0 HUC 12: Town Creek -Dan River (030101030901) Subtotal 60 25,274 0.08 8 3-5 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Joint Permit Application USACE — Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 Table 3-2 Summary of Waterbodies Delineated and Desktop Reviewed in the North Carolina Project Survey Area by Sub -watershed Milepost (MP) / Watershed Flow Type Number of Resources Delineated a/ — Linear Feet in Survey Area Delineated Acres of Waterbody Delineated with Survey Area Number of Resources Desktop Reviewed within Survey Area c/ Ephemeral 5 756 0 0 MP: 36.3 - 39.7 HUC 8: Upper Dan (03010103) Intermittent 3 943 0 0 Perennial 10 7,959 0 3 HUC 10: Cascade Creek -Dan River (0301010309) HUC 12: Upper Wolf Island Creek (030101030904) Pond 2 0 0.28 0 Subtotal 18 9,658 0.28 3 Ephemeral 3 155 0 0 MP: 39.7 - 42.2 HUC 8: Lower Dan (03010104) Intermittent 5 1,494 0 1 Perennial 7 3,240 0 0 HUC 10: Hogans Creek -Dan River (0301010401) HUC 12: Lick Fork (030101040103) Pond 0 0 0 0 Subtotal 15 4,889 0 1 MP: 42.2 - 48.36 Ephemeral 11 2,437 0 0 Intermittent 8 1,194 0 1 HUC 8: Lower Dan (03010104) HUC 10: Hogans Creek -Dan River (0301010401) Perennial 17 7,695 0 2 Pond 2 0 0.30 0 HUC 12: Upper Hogans Creek (030101040104) Subtotal 36 11,326 0.30 3 Ephemeral 0 0 0 0 MP: 48.36 - 49.48 HUC 8: Haw River (03030002) Intermittent 2 82 0 0 Perennial 2 698 0 0 HUC 10: Headwaters Haw River (0303000202) HUC 12: Giles Creek -Haw River Pond 0 0 0 0 Subtotal 4 780 0 0 (030300020206) 3-6 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Joint Permit Application USACE — Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 Table 3-2 Summary of Waterbodies Delineated and Desktop Reviewed in the North Carolina Project Survey Area by Sub -watershed Milepost (MP) / Watershed Flow Type Number of Resources Delineated a/ — Linear Feet in Survey Area Delineated Acres of Waterbody Delineated with Survey Area Number of Resources Desktop Reviewed within Survey Area c/ Ephemeral 6 998 0 0 MP: 49.48 - 55.75 & 55.97 - 56.12 HUC 8: Haw River (03030002) Intermittent 13 3,291 0 1 Perennial 13 6,042 0 2 HUC 10: Headwaters Haw River (0303000202) HUC 12: Town of Altamahaw-Haw River Pond 4 0 1.68 0 Subtotal 32 10,331 1.68 3 (030300020207) MP: 55.75 - 55.97; 61.12 - 61.49; 62.82 - Ephemeral 5 341 0 0 65.35 HUC 8: Haw River (03030002) Intermittent 8 1,230 0 2 Perennial 3 1,602 0 2 HUC 10: Back Creek -Haw River (0303000204) HUC 12: Stony Creek -Stony Creek Pond 1 0 0.20 0 Subtotal 16 3,243 0.20 4 Reservoir (030300020403) MP: 56.12 - 61.12; 61.49 - 62.82 Ephemeral 8 1,071 0 0 Intermittent 20 5,266 0 1 HUC 8: Haw River (03030002) HUC 10: Back Creek -Haw River (0303000204) Perennial 7 4,555 0 0 Pond 6 0 1.41 0 HUC 12: Travis Creek -Haw River (030300020404) Subtotal 35 10,892 1.41 1 MP: 65.35 - 72.98 Ephemeral 12 2,285 0 0 Intermittent 17 5,462 0 3 HUC 8: Haw River (03030002) HUC 10: Back Creek -Haw River (0303000204) Perennial 10 5,078 0 4 Pond 5 0 0.53 0 HUC 12: Boyds Creek -Haw River (030300020408) Subtotal 39 12,825 0.53 7 3-7 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Joint Permit Application USACE — Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 Table 3-2 Summary of Waterbodies Delineated and Desktop Reviewed in the North Carolina Project Survey Area by Sub -watershed Milepost (MP) / Watershed Flow Type Number of Resources Delineated a/ — Linear Feet in Survey Area Delineated Acres of Waterbody Delineated with Survey Area Number of Resources Desktop Reviewed within Survey Area c/ MP: 72.98 to MP 73.11 (end) Ephemeral 0 0 0 0 Intermittent 0 0 0 0 HUC 8: Haw River (03030002) HUC 10: Back Creek -Haw River (0303000204) Perennial 0 0 0 0 Pond 0 0 0 0 HUC 12: Lower Back Creek (030300020407) Subtotal 0 0 0 0 Ephemeral 66 11,197 0 1 Intermittent 101 31,374 0 12 Perennial 91 47,397 0 20 Total Pond 22 0 4.61 0 Total 280 89,968 4.61 33 a/ Based on field surveys conducted by the Southgate Project from May 2018 to September 2018. b/ Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin, 1979). c/ Based on desktop reviews conducted by the Southgate Project during April -May 2018. PEM=Palustrine Emergent, PSS= Palustrine Scrub -Shrub, PFO=Palustrine Forested 3-8 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Joint Permit Application PIPELINE USACE — Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 3.1.3 Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination An application for a preliminary jurisdictional determination ("PJD") was submitted to the USACE- Wilmington District in August of 2018. The Southgate Project has participated in several field review days of the delineated resources with USACE and North Carolina Division of Water Resources ("NCDWR') personnel on September 5', 1 lt' and 251}i, 2018. No additional field reviews with USACE and NCDWR are anticipated at the time of this Application. 3-9 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Ir PIPELINE Joint Permit Application USACE — Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 4.0 WETLAND AND WATERBODY IMPACT ASSESSMENT The majority of the wetland and waterbody impacts associated with construction and operation of the Southgate Project will be temporary. The only permanent impact would be conversion of forested wetland to non -forested wetland in the permanent maintenance easement and 0.025 acre of fill in non -forested wetland for a permanent access road at MP 41.8. Temporary impacts in wetlands may include temporary loss of vegetation; wildlife habitat disruption; soil disturbance associated with grading, trenching, and stump removal; soil compaction; sedimentation and increased turbidity; and hydrological profile changes. Impacts to forested wetlands may include conversion to emergent and/or scrub/shrub wetland types resulting from tree removal within the construction and operational right-of-way. A summary of the proposed impacts to wetlands and waters is provided in Tables 4-1 and 4-2 respectively, by resource type and impact type. Details of the proposed impacts for each individual wetland and waterbody crossing are provided in Appendix L-1 and L-2, respectively, and depicted on the Impact Drawings in Appendix M. The following sections outline the potential impacts and measures that the Project will implement to avoid and minimize impacts to the resources to the maximum extent practicable. 4-1 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Joint Permit Application USACE - Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 Table 4-1 Summary of Proposed Wetland Impacts in North Carolina Milepost (MP)/Watershed Wetland Type a/ Number of Affected Resources Pipeline Crossing Length (feet) b/ Construction Workspace Impacts (acres) c/ Permanent PFO Conversion to PEM/PSS (acres) d/ Permanent Fill for Access Road (acre) e/ MP: 26.1-39.7 HUC 8: Upper Dan (03010103) HUC 10: Cascade Creek -Dan River (0301010309) PEM 55 754 2.136 0 0 PSS 4 154 0.301 0 0 PFO 19 1732 3.222 1.159 0 Subtotal 78 2640 5.66 1.159 0 MP: 39.7 - 48.36 HUC 8: Lower Dan (03010104) HUC 10: Hogans Creek -Dan River (0301010401) PEM 4 0 0.055 0 0.025 PSS 0 0 0 0 0 PFO 4 136 0.246 0.107 0 Subtotal 8 136 0.301 0.107 0.025 MP: 48.36 - 56.12 HUC 8: Haw River (03030002) HUC 10: Headwaters Haw River (0303000202) PEM 9 186 0.346 0 0 PSS 5 40 0.136 0 0 PFO 5 180 0.297 0.124 0 Subtotal 19 405 0.779 0.124 0 MP: 56.12 - 73.11 HUC 8: Haw River (03030002) HUC 10: Back Creek -Haw River (0303000204) PEM 18 146 0.653 0 0 PSS 1 52 0.069 0 0 PFO 19 1571 2.482 1.077 0 Subtotal 38 1769 3.204 1.077 0 Project Total PEM 86 1086 3.19 0 0.025 PSS 10 245 0.507 0 0 PFO 47 3619 6.247 2.467 0 Total 143 4951 9.944 2.467 0.025 a/ Wetland type based on Classification of Deepwater of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin, 1979) PEM= Palustrine Emergent; PSS=Palustrine Scrub -Shrub; PFO=Palustrine Forested. All wetlands are jurisdictional under Section 404. 4-2 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Joint Permit Application USACE — Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 Table 4-1 Summary of Proposed Wetland Impacts in North Carolina Pipeline Construction Permanent Wetland Number of Crossing Workspace PFO Permanent Fill Milepost (MP)/Watershed Type a/ Affected Length Impacts Conversion to for Access Resources PEM/PSS Road (acre) e/ (feet) b/ (acres) c/ (acres) d/ b/ Construction impacts based on a 75 -foot wide construction workspace within wetlands. Wetlands crossed by Horizontal Directional Drill and outside of construction workspace will not have a construction impact. c/ Permanent impacts include conversion of forested wetland (PFO) to nonforested wetland (PSS/PEM) for 30 foot wide maintenance easement and fill for a permanent access road. The permanent impacts are a subset of the construction impacts, not an addition to the construction impacts. 4-3 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Joint Permit Application USACE — Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 Table 4-2 Summary of Proposed Waterbody Impacts in North Carolina Watershed Waterbody Type a/ Number of Affected Resources Waterbody Width at Pipeline Crossing (feet) b/ Stream within Construction Workspace (linear feet) c/ Permanent Stream Impact (linear feet) Pond withinPermanent Construction Workspace (square feet) Pond Impact (square feet) Ephemeral 37 680 2686 0 0 0 MP: 26.1 — 39.7 Intermittent 26 119 3569 25 0 0 HUC 8: Upper Dan (03010103) HUC 10: Cascade Creek -Dan Perennial 15 16 955 0 0 0 Pond 2 0 0 0 1441 0 River (0301010309) Subtotal 80 814 7211 25 1441 0 Ephemeral 20 263 2115 0 0 0 Intermittent 11 11 653 16 0 0 MP: 39.7-48.36 HUC 8: Lower Dan (03010104) Perennial 6 12 351 0 0 0 HUC 10: Hogans Creek -Dan River (0301010401) Pond 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal 37 286 3119 16 0 0 Ephemeral 17 74 1641 0 0 0 Intermittent 10 11 723 0 0 0 MP: 48.36 - 56.12 Perennial 4 3 129 0 0 0 HUC 8: Haw River (03030002) HUC 10: Headwaters Haw River (0303000202) Pond 1 0 0 0 350 0 Subtotal 32 88 2492 0 350 0 Ephemeral 30 605 2330 0 0 0 Intermittent 35 97 2557 26 0 0 MP: 56.12 — 73.11 (terminus) Perennial 10 14 636 0 0 0 HUC 8: Haw River (03030002) HUC 10: Back Creek -Haw River (0303000204) Pond 3 25 0 0 1881 11 Subtotal 78 740 5523 26 1881 11 4-4 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Joint Permit Application USACE — Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 Table 4-2 Summary of Proposed Waterbody Impacts in North Carolina Waterbody Stream Number of Width at within Permanent Pond withinPermanent Watershed Waterbody Type Affected Pipeline Construction Stream Impact Construction Pond Impact a/ Resources Crossing Workspace (linear feet) Workspace (square feet) (feet) b/ (linear feet) (square feet) c/ Perennial 104 1621 8772 0 0 0 Intermittent 82 237 7501 67 0 0 Total Ephemeral 35 45 2072 0 0 0 Pond 6 25 0 0 3672 11 Total 227 1928 18345 67 3672 11 a/ Waterbody type: stream classification based on field evaluations using the NCDWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 for delineated resource. For approximated waterbodies, flow type was estimated based on aerial imagery unless the approximated stream is directly associated with a delineated waterbody in which the approximated waterbody was assigned the same flow type as the associated delineated waterbody. All waterbodies are Section 404. None are Section 10. b/ Width of the pond or stream channel (at ordinary high water mark) at the intersection of the pipeline. For estimated waterbodies, aerial imagery was used to estimate the channel width if wide enough to discern, and defaulted to 5 feet if too narrow to be measured using aerial imagery. c/ Stream crossings by HDD or conventional bore have "0" linear feet in construction workspace 4-5 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Ir PIPELINE 4.1 WETLAND IMPACTS 4.1.1 Temporary Construction Impacts Joint Permit Application USACE — Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 The Project will temporarily impact approximately 10 acres of wetlands during the construction process from typical pipeline construction procedures, described in Section 2.4. These temporary impacts will result from vegetation clearing, stump and root removal above the proposed trench, excavation and stockpiling of wetland soils, and ground disturbance from construction vehicles. The impacts will temporarily affect 4.8 acres of non -forested wetland and 5.2 acres of forested wetland (Table 4-1). 4.1.2 Permanent Conversion of Forested Wetlands to Nonforested Wetlands As required by the FERC Procedures, the Southgate Project will maintain no more than a 10 -foot -wide strip centered over the pipeline in an herbaceous state and will only remove woody vegetation within a 30 -foot - wide strip centered over the pipeline. This will result in a 10 -foot wide strip of herbaceous vegetation centered over the pipeline flanked by a potential shrub (PSS wetland type) strip of 10 -foot width on either side. Woody species removal from the 30 -foot wide maintenance corridor would be performed periodically as needed and would be done on a selective basis, only removing woody species with potential to compromise the integrity of the buried pipeline. Maintaining this 30 -wide maintenance corridor is necessary for the safety and protection of the pipeline in accordance with the applicable federal standards. This operational requirement would result in the conversion of approximately 2.5 acres of forested wetlands to emergent and/or scrub/shrub wetland types. Crossing of the pipeline through forested wetlands has been minimized to the extent practicable through Project siting as described in Section 2.8. The Southgate Project will provide compensatory mitigation for the conversion of approximately 2.5 acres of forested wetland to non -forested wetland through purchase of wetland mitigation credits at a 1:1 ratio from an approved mitigation bank with a service territory covering the watershed where the impacts would occur. 4.1.2.1 Permanent Fill for Access Road The Project avoided siting permanent access roads in wetlands to the extent possible. There is one permanent access road where wetland impacts were not avoidable. This is an existing access road that leads to a permanent cathodic protection ground bed to be used during operation of the pipeline. Access Road (PA-RO-113A) at MP 41.8 will permanently fill approximately 0.025 acre of non -forested wetland. The access road is an existing farm road that crosses a PEM/PSS wetland and will provide access to ground bed #3. The additional fill is required to improve the road such that equipment can access the ground bed area during operation of the pipeline. Since the Project will use the existing road, the proposed upgrade will minimize impacts to wetlands since the alternative would be to develop a new road that would cross a portion of the wetland that is currently undisturbed. To compensate for the permanent wetland fill associated with the access road upgrade, the Southgate Project will purchase credits at a 1:1 ratio from an approved wetland mitigation bank. 4-6 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Ir PIPELINE 4.2 WATERBODY IMPACTS 4.2.1 Temporary Construction Impacts Joint Permit Application USACE — Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 The Project will temporarily impact six ponds (3,672 square feet) and 221 streams (18,345 linear feet) from typical pipeline construction activities, described in Section 2.4. No single and complete project will exceed 300 linear feet of temporary disturbance. These waterbodies will be restored to their pre -construction condition, as closely as possible, after construction and will be monitored to ensure they remain stabilized and restoration is successful per the FERC Procedures. 4.2.2 Permanent Impacts The Project will result in permanent impacts to four waterbodies. Approximately 11 square feet of WB - B18 -1, a pond located at MP 68.2, will be permanently filled for a ground bed in Alamance County. The other permanent waterbody impacts include three permanent culverted stream crossings associated with permanent access roads. Two of the permanent access roads are within Rockingham County: PA-RO-000 will cross 25 linear feet of AS-NHD-6002, an intermittent tributary to the Dan River and PA-RO-113A will cross 16 linear feet of S -B 18-32, an intermittent tributary to Lick Fork. In Alamance County, PAR -AL -164 will cross 26 linear feet of AS-NHD-1554, an intermittent tributary to the Haw River. 4.3 RIPARIAN BUFFER IMPACTS The Jordan Lake impoundment was created in 1983 by damming the Haw River near its confluence with the Deep River. Jordan Lake spans several county boundaries and supplies drinking water to approximately 500,000 people and offers recreational opportunities (swimming, boating, fishing) to residents (TCH, 2018, USACE, 2018). In December of 1963, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("USACE") Wilmington District took stewardship of Jordan Lake, proposing an earthen dam with a multi-level intake tower in the interest of flood control, water supply, water quality control, recreation and other purposes (USACE, 2018). In a joint effort to improve the low water quality of Jordan Lake, the Wilmington District and NCDWR have enacted the Jordan Lake Nutrient Strategy, consisting of the Jordan Lake Rules that are a nutrient management strategy designed to restore the water quality in the lake by reducing the amount of pollution entering upstream (15A NCAC 02B .0267). Specific issues addressed by the rules include reducing pollution from wastewater discharges, stormwater runoff from new and existing development, agricultural and fertilizer application (NCDWR, 2018). In an effort to further define the Jordan Lake Nutrient Strategy program, a riparian buffer zone watershed upstream of Jordan Lake was developed which outlines the stormwater and buffer permit program for the watershed. The Jordan Lake watershed is divided into three Jordan subsheds, the Lower New Hope, Upper New Hope and the Haw subshed (NCDWR, 2018). Although Jordan Lake is located approximately 25 miles southeast of the southern extent of the Southgate Project, the Project crosses the Jordan Lake riparian buffer zone watershed (Jordan Lake watershed), specifically the Haw subshed, for a total of approximately 24 miles in Rockingham (4 miles) and Alamance (20 miles) counties. The Southgate Project will abide by state requirements / permit conditions for the Jordan Lake riparian buffer ("riparian buffer') zone watershed. The riparian buffer applies to intermittent streams, perennial streams, lakes, ponds, estuaries and modified natural streams within natural drainageways that are depicted on the most recent published version of the soil survey map prepared by the Natural Resources Conservation Service or the 1:24,000 scale topographic map prepared by the USGS (Appendix A). 4-7 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Joint Permit Application PIPELINE USACE — Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 As outlined in 15A NCAC 02B.0267(7)(a), the Zone One buffer consists of a vegetated area that is undisturbed except for allowed uses initiating at the bank of a waterbody and extending 30 feet horizontally. The Zone Two buffer extends from the outer limit of the Zone One buffer and measures 20 feet horizontally, which comprises the outer portion of the 50 -foot buffer zone for waterbodies that qualify for the riparian buffer protection within the portion of the Southgate Project area that is inside the Jordan Lake watershed. The Southgate Project's temporary impacts within the riparian buffer zone are classified as either "Allowable" or "Allowable with mitigation" uses for non -electric, utility line projects (NCDEQ, 2010a). Therefore, the Project is seeking a buffer authorization for construction and operation -related impacts within the Zone One and Zone Two buffers associated with jurisdictional waterbodies. Surface waters that are exempt from the buffer requirements include man-made ponds and lakes that are not part of a natural drainage way; ephemeral streams and ditches or other man-made water conveyances (15A NCAC 02B .0267(5)). Additionally, the Project will continue to consult with NCDWR to identify applicable variances. Proposed impacts to waterbodies in the Jordan Lake watershed subject to the riparian buffer rules are summarized in Table 4-3 below and Appendix M (Impact Drawings). 4-8 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Joint Permit Application USACE -Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 Table 4-3 North Carolina Riparian Buffer Impacts within the Jordan Watershed Meets Perpendicular Workspace within Workspace within Area of Wetland Area of Wetland Milepost ID Flow type Crossing Standard Zone 1 Buffer Zone 2 Buffer Overlap Zone 1 Overlap Zone 2 Required Mitigation Additional Information on Non- (yes/no) (Square feet) (Square feet) Buffer Buffer (Square feet) Perpendicular Crossings (Square feet) (Square feet) Collocated with existing utility corridor 48.7 S -A18-60 Perennial No 5,224.93 3,343.97 307.05 0.00 14,753.64 Avoids solar farm Construction workspace reduced to 75 feet 49.3 S -A18-55 Perennial Yes 4,752.35 3,194.86 0.00 0.00 19,049.35 - AS -A18-182 / S -A18-182: Intermittent & No Collocated with existing utility corridor 49'9 S -A18-183: Perennial 13,797.69 11,256.00 3,347.60 2,367.94 31,350.27 Construction workspace reduced to 75 feet S -A18-185 Workspace only S -A18-185 Collocated with existing utility corridor 50.2 S -A18-244 Perennial No 4,334.94 3,211.68 9.17 0.00 12,977.31 Construction workspace reduced to 75 feet 50.3 S -A18-243 Perennial Yes 1,165.40 1,202.08 0.00 0.00 5,299.34 - Estimated waterbody boundary due to lack of 50.8 AS-NHD-305 Perennial No 6,690.08 8,276.70 0.00 0.00 20,070.24 survey access Construction workspace reduced to 75 feet Collocated with existing utility corridor 51.4 S -C18-21 Perennial No 5,203.08 3,357.32 508.09 884.69 14,084.97 Construction workspace reduced to 75 feet Yes S -C18-15 Intermittent 52.1 18, 349.13 9,602.85 0.00 0.00 69,451.67 - S -A18-217 Perennial A -A18-217 Workspace only 52.4 S -A18-219 Perennial Yes 4,702.17 3,134.84 0.00 0.00 18,808.77 - Waterbody meanders - crosses as 52.7 S-1318-94 Perennial No 6,918.77 4,208.03 0.00 0.00 20,756.31 perpendicular as possible Construction workspace reduced to 75 feet S -A18-84 No Collocated with existing utility corridor 53.7 Perennial 15,291.21 8,901.46 95.61 108.18 58,776.72 S -A18-87 Yes Construction workspace reduced to 75 feet 54 S -A18-89 Intermittent Workspace only 3,392.15 3,677.64 0.00 0.00 15,692.90 - Collocated with existing utility corridor 54.5 S -C18-63 Perennial No 8,510.36 5,193.70 0.00 0.00 25,531.08 Construction workspace reduced to 75 feet S -A18-215 Intermittent & 54.6 S -A18-216 Perennial Yes 2,310.42 1,071.05 0.00 0.00 8,537.84 - Collocated with existing utility corridor 54.6 S -C18-62 Perennial No 6,437.34 3,524.48 0.00 0.00 19,312.02 Construction workspace reduced to 75 feet S -B18-142 Collocated with existing utility corridor 54.9 S -C18-60 Intermittent No 10,852.41 7,500.16 0.00 0.00 32,557.23 Construction workspace reduced to 75 feet S -C18-61 4-9 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Joint Permit Application USACE -Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 Table 4-3 North Carolina Riparian Buffer Impacts within the Jordan Watershed Meets Perpendicular Workspace within Workspace within Area of Wetland Area of Wetland Milepost ID Flow type Crossing Standard Zone 1 Buffer Zone 2 Buffer Overlap Zone 1 Overlap Zone 2 Required Mitigation Additional Information on Non- (yes/no) (Square feet) (Square feet) Buffer Buffer (Square feet) Perpendicular Crossings (Square feet) (Square feet) AS -1318-59 / Yes: S-1318-59-2 S-1318-59 meander -crosses as perpendicular perpendicular as possible 55.3 S-618-59-2 Perennial No: AS -1318-59 / 25,054.93 13,021.18 3,132.36 0.09 85,299.35 Collocated with existing utility corridor S-1318-59 S -B18-59 & Construction workspace reduced to 75 feet S -C18-68 S -C18-68 55.6 S -A18-162 Intermittent Yes 0.00 1,102.50 0.00 0.00 1,653.76 - S -A18-120 Perennial & No: S -A18-120 Collocated with existing utility corridor 56.4 10, 256.10 4, 846.71 7, 323.42 0.92 8, 798.04 S-1318-65 Intermittent Yes: S-1318-65 Construction workspace reduced to 75 feet S -A18-125-2 S -A18-125-3 Collocated with existing utility corridor 56.6 Perennial Workspace only 17,204.96 12,813.77 6,472.25 6,010.83 42,402.54 S -A18-125-4 Construction workspace reduced to 75 feet S -A18-125 S -A18-132 Perennial & Collocated with existing utility corridor 57.1 No 8,226.69 8,696.42 353.53 941.52 23,619.48 S -A18-136 Intermittent Construction workspace reduced to 75 feet S -A18-136 57.2 S -A18-134 Intermittent & Pond Yes 2,025.57 5,283.58 1,753.80 3,057.88 4,153.86 - W B -A18-137 57.9 S -C18-2 Intermittent Yes 5,624.74 3,505.72 352.98 852.66 19,794.87 - S -C 18-8 58.1 Intermittent Yes 185.17 1,527.87 0.00 0.00 2,847.32 - S -C18-9 S -C18-11 No Waterbodies meander - crosses as Perennial & perpendicular as possible 58.7 S -C18-12 Intermittent 11,804.89 3,792.64 0.00 0.00 35,414.67 Collocated with existing utility corridor S -C18-13 S -C18-12 Workspace only Construction workspace reduced to 75 feet AS-NHD-1554: 58.9 I nt. Intermittent Yes 1,621.65 1,168.67 0.00 0.00 6,617.96 - Estimated waterbody boundary due to lack of 59.6 AS-NHD-1549 Intermittent No 5,701.92 3,767.72 0.00 0.00 17,105.75 survey access Construction workspace reduced to 75 feet Waterbodies meander - crosses as S -C18-28 perpendicular as possible 60.8 S -C18-30 Intermittent No 13,338.77 8,686.03 9,812.50 4,607.77 10,578.81 Collocated with existing utility corridor Construction workspace reduced to 75 feet Waterbody meanders - crosses as S -A18-78 Intermittent & perpendicular as possible 61.8 S -A18-76 Perennial No 6,129.77 8,269.82 157.17 0.00 17,917.80 Collocated with existing utility corridor Construction workspace reduced to 75 feet 61.9 S -A18-69 Intermittent Yes 187.96 1,531.48 0.00 0.00 2,861.11 - 4-10 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Joint Permit Application USACE -Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 Table 4-3 North Carolina Riparian Buffer Impacts within the Jordan Watershed Meets Perpendicular Workspace within Workspace within Area of Wetland Area of Wetland Milepost ID Flow type Crossing Standard Zone 1 Buffer Zone 2 Buffer Overlap Zone 1 Overlap Zone 2 Required Mitigation Additional Information on Non- (yes/no) (Square feet) (Square feet) Buffer Buffer (Square feet) Perpendicular Crossings (Square feet) (Square feet) S -A18-70-2 S -A18-70 62.5 S -A18-72-2 Intermittent & Yes 18,354.82 7,882.78 855.11 167.43 64,072.16 - Perennial S -A18-72 S -A18-71 S-1318-12-2 S-1318-12-3 S-1318-12-4 S-1318-12-5 S-1318-12-6 Intermittent & 63.1 Workspace only 35,454.71 16,924.25 14,083.87 4,880.13 82,178.70 - S-1318-12 Perennial S-1318-22-2 S-1318-22 S-1318-24 S-1318-26 63.7 S-1318-137 Intermittent Workspace only 1,680.94 1,041.91 0.00 0.00 6,605.68 - Estimated waterbody boundary due to lack of 63.8 AS -1318-20 Intermittent No 5,754.88 3,739.27 3,510.97 11.49 6,731.73 survey access 63.8 AS -1318-138 Perennial Yes 1,584.93 1,022.61 0.00 0.00 6,288.71 - Estimated waterbody boundary due to lack of 64 AS-NHD-1547 Perennial No 6,979.62 4,574.02 0.00 0.00 20,938.86 survey access 64.5 AS-NHD-3040 Intermittent Yes 4,763.72 3,149.65 0.00 0.00 19,015.64 - S -A18-250 Perennial & Waterbodies meander - crosses as 65.6 No 6,735.42 3,925.67 0.00 0.00 20,206.26 perpendicular as possible S -A18-251 Intermittent Construction workspace reduced to 75 feet 66.5 AS-NHD-7000 Intermittent Yes 1,542.76 1,021.83 0.00 0.00 6,161.03 - Estimated waterbody boundary due to lack of 66.8 AS-NHD-3025 Intermittent No 5,401.00 3,645.28 0.00 0.00 16,203.00 survey access Estimated waterbody boundary due to lack of 67.2 AS -A18-177 Perennial No 4,713.58 3,066.23 0.00 0.00 14,140.74 survey access AS -A18-233 / 67.6 S -A18-233 Perennial Yes 5,543.84 4,838.60 0.00 0.00 23,889.42 Estimated waterbody boundary due to lack of 68.1 AS-NHD-1551 Intermittent No 5,299.16 3,551.97 0.00 0.00 15,897.48 survey access 68.3 S-1318-3 Intermittent Yes 604.87 2,071.45 0.00 0.00 4,921.79 - 4-11 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Joint Permit Application USACE -Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 Table 4-3 North Carolina Riparian Buffer Impacts within the Jordan Watershed Meets Perpendicular Workspace within Workspace within Area of Wetland Area of Wetland Milepost ID Flow type Crossing Standard Zone 1 Buffer Zone 2 Buffer Overlap Zone 1 Overlap Zone 2 Required Mitigation Additional Information on Non- (yes/no) (Square feet) (Square feet) Buffer Buffer (Square feet) Perpendicular Crossings (Square feet) (Square feet) 68.4 S-1318-7 Perennial Yes 4,743.03 3,261.73 0.00 0.00 19,121.69 - 68.5 AS-NHD-1552 Intermittent Yes 5,598.24 4,631.52 0.00 0.00 23,742.01 - Waterbody meanders - crosses as 68.8 S-1318-8 Intermittent No 5,576.86 3,452.70 0.00 0.00 16,730.58 perpendicular as possible Construction workspace reduced to 75 feet Waterbody meanders - crosses as 68.9 S-1318-11 Intermittent No 5,857.99 4,043.59 0.00 0.00 17,573.97 perpendicular as possible Construction workspace reduced to 75 feet Maintained field S -A18-15 69.2 Intermittent & Pond No 5,065.77 4,244.49 0.00 0.00 15,197.31 Avoids forest impacts WB -A18-16 Construction workspace reduced to 75 feet 69.4 AS -1318-132 Perennial Yes 4,775.13 4,149.92 0.00 0.00 20,550.27 - 69.9 AS -A18-115 Perennial Yes 5,696.99 3,819.38 0.00 0.00 22,820.04 - S-618-133 Perennial & Yes Construction workspace reduced to 75 feet 70.2 S -B18-134 Intermittent No 8,493.33 7,421.01 0.00 0.00 36,611.51 Avoids parallel impacts Waterbody meanders - crosses as 70.4 S -C18-82 Intermittent No 7,176.12 5,109.15 0.00 0.00 21,528.36 perpendicular as possible Construction workspace reduced to 75 feet ATWS outside of wetlands and waterbodies 70.7 S -C18-81 Perennial No 4,974.16 3,310.56 0.00 0.00 14,922.48 Crosses as perpendicular as possible Construction workspace reduced to 75 feet Minimizes forested riparian corridor impacts to S -A18-108 Intermittent & No Haw River Nearby S -A-18-109 is crossed 70.9 S -A18-109 Perennial Yes 12,373.70 9,141.68 0.00 0.00 50,833.62 perpendicular Construction workspace reduced to 75 feet Minimizes forested riparian corridor impacts to Haw River Nearby S -A-18-109 is crossed 71 S -A18-107 Intermittent No 6,052.88 4,029.82 0.00 0.00 18,158.64 perpendicular Construction workspace reduced to 75 feet S -A18 -64S- Minimizes forested riparian corridor impacts to 71.5 A18-65 Intermittent & Yes 9,745.68 5,632.31 0.00 0.00 37,685.51 Haw River Construction workspace reduced to S-1318-58 Perennial No 75 feet 71.8 S -A18-68 Perennial Yes 5,495.44 5,201.27 0.43 323.94 23,801.01 - 72.1 AS-NHD-1560 Intermittent Yes 4,562.87 3,047.54 0.00 0.00 18,259.92 - 72.2 S -A18-207 Intermittent Workspace Only 141.40 416.42 141.40 3.82 618.90 - 72.2 S -A18-207 Intermittent Workspace Only 1,705.20 2,896.87 0.00 0.00 9,460.91 - 4-12 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Joint Permit Application USACE —Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 Table 4-3 North Carolina Riparian Buffer Impacts within the Jordan Watershed Meets Perpendicular Workspace within Workspace within Area of Wetland Area of Wetland Milepost ID Flow type Crossing Standard Zone 1 Buffer Zone 2 Buffer Overlap Zone 1 Overlap Zone 2 Required Mitigation Additional Information on Non- (yes/no) (Square feet) (Square feet) Buffer Buffer (Square feet) Perpendicular Crossings (Square feet) (Square feet) Avoids impacts to Haw River riparian buffer and 72.4 S-618-125 Intermittent No 6,043.78 4,120.56 0.00 0.00 18,131.34 wetlands Construction workspace reduced to 75 feet Avoids impacts to Haw River riparian buffer and 72.5 S-618-127 Intermittent No 7,060.20 5,099.74 0.00 0.00 21,180.60 wetlands Construction workspace reduced to 75 feet 72.7 S-1318-58 Perennial Yes 0.00 13.81 0.00 0.00 20.72 - Total: 440,848.57 302,170.52 52,217.31 24,219.29 1,380,275.50 4-13 November 2018 M Mountain Valle PIPELINE 4.3.1.1 Diffuse Flow Requirement Joint Permit Application USACE — Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 The Jordan Lake Rules state that `diffuse flow of runoff shall be maintained in the riparian buffer by dispersing concentrated flow prior to its entry into the buffer and reestablishing vegetation'. To ensure compliance with this requirement, the Project will implement its E&SCP during construction and adhere to the FERC Plan and Procedures. Both of these documents provide for stormwater best management practices during construction and detail post -construction stabilization and revegetation measures. In addition, the Project will comply with applicable federal and state stormwater management requirements and approvals. 4.3.1.2 No Practicable Alternatives Since the use associated with the Project is designated as `allowable' or `allowable with mitigation', Southgate is including a request for a `no practicable alternatives' determination. The Project is linear in nature and, as such, cannot completely avoid impacts within the riparian buffer. Since the Project terminus is located within the Jordan Lake watershed, there is no practical alternative that could avoid activities within the buffers. As detailed within this narrative, the Southgate Project certifies that the Project meets the following criteria for a determination of `no practical alternatives': • The basic project purpose cannot be practically accomplished in a manner that would better minimize disturbance, preserve aquatic life and habitat, and protect water quality; • 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; and • Best management practices shall be used if necessary to minimize disturbance, preserve aquatic life and habitat, and protect water quality. 4.3.1.3 Impact Mitigation Based on the table of uses within the Jordan Lake Rules, the Project will be regulated under two uses that are allowable with mitigation: (1) Utility, non -electric, perpendicular crossing of streams and other surface waters 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 (applicable in both Zone 1 and Zone 2); and (2) Utility, non -electric, other than perpendicular crossings with impacts located within Zone 1. Based on consultation with NCDEQ, the mitigation ratios for Project -related impacts within Zone 1 are 3 to 1, and 1.5 to 1 in Zone 2 for (1) Utility, non -electric, perpendicular crossing of streams and other surface waters, and the mitigation ratios for Project -related impacts within Zone 1 are 3 to 1, and allowable without mitigation in Zone 2 for (2) Utility, non -electric, other than perpendicular crossings. Riparian buffer impacts and associated mitigation estimates are provided in Table 4-3. The Project will continue to consult with NCDEQ regarding the approved form(s) of mitigation for the Project. 4.4 IMPACT AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION MEASURES Where impacts to wetlands and waterbodies cannot be avoided, the Southgate Project will seek to minimize impacts through use of the following measures, as applicable: • Clearly marking wetland and waterbody boundaries with signs and flagging in the field prior to the start of construction; 4-14 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Ir PIPELINE Joint Permit Application USACE — Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 • Limiting the construction right-of-way width to 75 -feet through wetlands and waterbodies (unless alternative, site-specific measures are requested by the Project and approved by the FERC and other applicable agencies) and extending this reduced width 50 feet on each side of the resource; • Limiting the operation of construction equipment within wetlands to only equipment essential for clearing, excavation, pipe installation, backfilling, and restoration; • Cutting trees to grade, and only removing stumps from directly over the trench, or where safety concerns dictate otherwise, thus allowing existing vegetation to recover more rapidly in the remainder of the right-of-way once the equipment mats and spoil piles have been removed; • Installing and maintaining sediment barriers, such as silt fences or other approved barriers throughout the construction process per the FERC Plan and Procedures and Project -specific E&SCP; • Preventing the compaction and rutting of wetland soils by operating equipment off of equipment mats or equivalent in wetlands that are not excessively saturated; • Restricting grading in wetlands to the area directly over the trench, except where necessary for safety concerns; • Locating ATWS at least 50 feet away from wetland and waterbody boundaries (unless alternative, site-specific measures are requested by the Project and approved by the FERC and other applicable agencies); • Selecting the most appropriate FERC -approved crossing procedure, based on site specific conditions at the time of crossing; • Dewatering the trench, if needed, in a manner designed to prevent heavily silt -laden water from entering a waterbody or undisturbed portions of wetlands within and adjacent to the Project limits; • Segregating topsoil from the trench in non -saturated wetlands and returning topsoil to its original location during backfilling to avoid changes in the subsurface hydrology and to promote re- establishment of the original plant community by replacing the seed bank found in the topsoil; • Placing excavated soils in wetlands on filter cloth, mats, or similar semi -permeable surface to avoid mixing of with underlying materials and stabilizing the soils with filter cloth, straw bales or other appropriate measure to prevent re-entry into adjacent wetlands or waters; • Limiting storage of excavated soil material in wetlands to no longer than 30 days after the pipe has been laid in the trench, without prior approval from the USACE; • Installing trench breakers or trench plugs at the boundaries of wetlands, as needed, to prevent draining of wetlands; • Backfilling the ditch with the spoil excavated from the wetland; • Spreading segregated topsoil over the area from which it was stripped and restoring the ground surface to approximate pre -construction contour; • Mechanically loosening the upper 12 inches of soils backfilled in wetlands; 4-15 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Ir PIPELINE Joint Permit Application USACE — Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 • Seeding wetland areas that are not inundated with annual rye to provide soil stabilization while allowing the natural seedbank to revegetate the wetland area. • Seeding wetlands with appropriate native wetlands species if natural revegetation is not successful; • Removing all equipment mats, debris, or other material from the wetlands and waterbodies after construction; • Aligning the crossings as close to perpendicular to the axis of the waterbody channel as engineering and site-specific conditions allow; • Limiting the operation of construction equipment within waterbodies to only equipment essential for clearing, excavation, pipe installation, backfilling, and restoration; • Avoiding the use of riprap for bank stabilization purposes. In the event that riprap is required for bank stabilization purposes, the Project will adhere to the general conditions; • Installing temporary bridges for equipment crossings over channels with flowing water and ensuring they are constructed and maintained to allow unrestricted flow and to prevent soil from entering the waterbody; • Limiting crossing of waterbodies to clearing equipment and equipment necessary for installation of bridges prior to bridge installation; • Remove temporary equipment bridges as soon as practicable after permanent seeding. • Aligning culverts to prevent bank erosion or streambed scour. If necessary, install energy dissipating devices downstream of the culverts; • Adherence to required time of year construction restrictions. If adherence to time of year restrictions is not possible, notification will be provided on a case-by-case basis to the applicable agency with a request for a modification or waiver of the timing restriction; • Adherence to the FERC Plan and Procedures and applicable permit requirements; • Adherence to NWP 12 terms and conditions (see Appendix N). • Developing and adhering to a Project specific SPCC plan; and • Use of independent qualified EI's through the construction process to ensure construction adhered to FERC Plan and Procedures and application permit terms and conditions. • Prohibiting the use of live concrete as a building material such that wet concrete does not come into contact with water; • Prohibiting the use herbicides or pesticides within 100 feet of a wetlands or waterbodies, unless specified or approved by a federal or state agency; • Prohibiting the storage of chemicals, fuels, hazardous materials, and lubricating oils within 100 feet of a wetland; • Prohibiting parking and/or fueling of equipment within 100 feet of a wetland; unless the Environmental Inspector determines there is no reasonable alternative, and appropriate steps (such as secondary containment structure) are taken; 4-16 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Ir PIPELINE Joint Permit Application USACE — Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 • Conducting annual monitoring of wetlands and waterbodies and performing maintenance activities, as needed, until the wetlands and waterbodies are successfully restored; • Preventing the invasion or spread of undesirable exotic vegetation according to a project -specific invasive plant species management plan; • Limiting post -construction maintenance of vegetation to removal of trees with roots that could compromise the integrity of the pipeline within 15 feet of the pipeline centerline, and the maintenance of a 10 -foot wide corridor centered over the pipeline as herbaceous vegetation; and • The Project will conduct pre -construction testing of all private wells located within 150 feet of the construction workspace. The Project will conduct post -construction tests if requested by a landowner who had a pre -construction test (See Appendix O — Water Resources Identification and Testing Plan). Specific measures to minimize or avoid impacts to waterbodies for the dry or trenchless waterbody crossing methods proposed include: Dam and Pump • Sufficient pumps, including on-site backup pumps, will be used to maintain downstream flows; • Pumps will be placed in secondary containment and properly aligned to prevent streambed scour at pump discharge; • Dams will be constructed with materials that prevent sediment and other pollutants from entering the waterbody; • Pump intakes will be screened to minimize entrainment of fish; and • Dams and pumps will be continuously monitored to ensure proper operation throughout the waterbody crossing. Flume • Sand bags, sand bag and plastic sheeting diversion structures, or the equivalent will be used to develop an effective seal and to divert stream flow through the flume pipe; • Flume pipes will be installed after blasting (if necessary), but before trenching; • Flume pipes will remain in place until trenching, pipe laying, backfilling, and initial streambed restoration efforts are complete; • Flume pipes will be properly aligned to prevent bank erosion and streambed scour; and • All flume pipes and dams that are not part of the equipment bridge will be removed as soon as final cleanup of the streambed and bank is complete. Cofferdam • Hydrographic studies of the waterbody • Sand bags, sand bag and plastic sheeting diversion structures, or the equivalent will be used to develop an effective seal 4-17 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Ir PIPELINE Conventional Bore • Desktop analysis of the water table HDD • Implementation of HDD Contingency Plan (if needed). Joint Permit Application USACE — Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 4.4.1 Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan Stormwater permit applications and associated Erosion and Sediment Control plans will be developed by the Project in winter of 2018, and applications will be submitted in early 2019. The Project team will develop a diffuse flow plan, where required, as part of the Erosion and Sediment Control plans that will be submitted to the appropriate local government and NCDWR responsible for review and approval of construction stormwater permitting. 4.4.1.1 Stormwater Management Plan Stormwater permit applications and associated Erosion and Sediment Control plans will be developed by the Project in winter of 2018, and applications will be submitted in early 2019. The Project team will develop a storm water management plan, where required, as part of the Erosion and Sediment Control plans that will be submitted to the NCDEMLR, as applicable, who is responsible for review and approval of construction stormwater permitting. 4.4.1.2 Certified Local Government Stormwater Review Stormwater permit applications and associated Erosion and Sediment Control plans will be developed by the Project team in winter of 2018, and applications will be submitted in early 2019. The Project will develop an Erosion and Sediment Control plan that will be submitted to the appropriate local government or NCDEMLR, as applicable, responsible for review and approval of construction stormwater permitting. 4-18 November 2018 M Mountain Valle PIPELINE Joint Permit Application USACE — Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 5.0 ADDITIONAL SUPPORTING INFORMATION 5.1 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION The Project will file an application with FERC for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity under Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act by September 2015. As a part of the FERC filing process Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements ("EIS") will be prepared by the FERC for the Southgate Project. The Environmental Impact Statements will be published for review and comment. (See Appendix J). Any additional documents will be filed as a supplemental that are required to support this joint permit application. 5.2 VIOLATIONS This section is not applicable to the Project as it consists of new construction. See Section F2 of the Joint Permit Application Form for additional information. 5.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The Southgate Project has potential to cause cumulative effects to the wetlands or waterbodies from the incremental consequences of the Project when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions. The scope of the cumulative effects analysis in this permit application is limited to direct or indirect effects on wetlands or waterbodies from projects having potential to affect surface waters within the same HUC 10 or 12 as the Southgate Project. An environmental impact statement is being prepared by the FERC that will include a comprehensive cumulative impact statement from the agency. Projects included in this assessment were limited to those with publicly available information pertaining the proposed undertaking and potential impacts. Sources of information used to collect data about relevant projects included federal, state, and local agencies permitting databases or websites. Projects with potential cumulative impacts on wetlands or waterbodies within the North Carolina portion of the Southgate Project area are listed in Table 6-1. The Southgate Project need originated from a forecasted growing demand in the region of the Project in North Carolina. This is an open access pipeline; therefore, other companies have the option to request gas service from the pipeline system. An increase in demand beyond the current scope would likely require modifications to the pipeline and/or its facilities. PSNC Energy solicited interest because it requires additional pipeline capacity to meet forecasted incremental demand on its distribution system. Over the past four years, PSNC Energy has experienced a 15 percent increase in peak daily throughput on its system. This trend will carry forward into the future, as PSNC Energy expects its design day requirements to increase an additional 11 percent over the next five years. This past, present, and future demand growth on PSNC Energy's system reflects, at least in part, the substantial population increase in North Carolina. North Carolina's population is expected to increase by nearly 2 million people between 2020 and 2035. In Alamance County, where the project terminates, the population is anticipated to grow approximately 11 percent from July 2020 to July 2029.9 Secondary impacts as a result of this Project are currently anticipated through new developments that will be serviced by PSNC (e.g., residential communities, industrial 9 See North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management population projections, available at: http s://files. nc. gov/nco sbm/demog/countytotals_populationoverview. html 5-1 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Joint Permit Application PIPELINE USACE —Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 facilities). Construction of these developments could affect surface waters or wetlands that would not occur if the Project were not built as the result of a newly available natural gas supply. The potential water quality impacts from any induced new development in the Roanoke River Basin and Cape Fear River Basin will be mitigated by federal and state specific permitting requirements, and often including municipal stormwater management programs. If the Project were not constructed, it is likely that at least some of the forecasted growth would still occur without a new gas supply. Future expansion plans are not discussed because Mountain Valley has no plans to expand the pipeline beyond the terminus at the Haw River Interconnect in Graham, North Carolina. Cumulative effects on surface water resources affected by the Project would be limited to waterbodies that are affected by other projects located within the same major watersheds. No permanent diversions or dams are planned, so any impacts from construction on surface waters would be temporary. The greatest potential impacts of pipeline construction on surface waters would result from an increase in sediment loading to surface waters and an increase in internal sediment loading due to channel/floodplain instability as a result of a change in erosion deposition patterns. Each of the project proponents will minimize these effects by implementing wetland and waterbody construction and mitigation measures, including erosion control measures by complying with applicable federal and state permit requirements. Construction of the Project facilities will result in temporary impacts to wetlands. However, each proponent for the projects listed in Table 6-1 that affects wetlands will be required, by the terms and conditions of their respective Section 404 permits, to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts. The cumulative effect on water resources and wetlands will be temporary and minor. The primary factors associated with the Southgate Project that will minimize its contribution to cumulative impacts are as follows: • The impacts resulting from the Project pipeline facilities will primarily be short-term and constitute temporary impacts associated with construction; • Approximately 34 percent of the Project pipeline facilities will be parallel to existing utility corridors and other rights-of-way; thereby minimizing impacts associated with construction; and • The Project has been designed to avoid and minimize impacts to the extent practicable and will implement various plans and techniques to ensure potential impacts are further minimized (e.g., Project -specific E&SCP and SWMP). • The Project E&SCP and SWMP will address post -construction stormwater management associated with the permanent right-of-way. 5-2 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Joint Permit Application USACE — Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 Table 5-1 Projects with Potential Cumulative Impacts Shared Approximate Potential/ Project Description County Watershed (5th Level/ Distance Direction Status Anticipated Potential Permits HUC10) from Project Impacts Transportation Projects Future 1-73 / North Construction of a 9.4 -mile, four - Carolina lane interstate from Joseph M. Complete Wetlands and State and Department of Bryan Boulevard/Airport Guilford Reedy Fork 25 miles West October 2017 Waterbodies Local Transportation Parkway interchange to U.S. ("NCDOT) 220 near the Haw River Completion of the Greensboro Greensboro Urban Urban Loop to help relieve 1-40 Guilford Reedy Fork 10 miles West Under Wetlands and State and Loop / NCDOT congestion at 1-85 Business and Construction Waterbodies Local U.S. routes 29, 70, 220 and 421 No cumulative Macy Grove Road Proposed improvements and an Forsyth/ In effects given State and Improvements / extension to Macy Grove Road Guilford Reedy Fork 32 miles West Development unknown Local NCDOT in Forsyth and Guilford counties construction timeframe Proposed relocation of a portion No cumulative NC 119 Relocation of N.C. 119 in Mebane —from I- Back Creek- In effects givenState and / NCDOT 85 to existing the N.C. 119 near Alamance Haw River 5 miles East Development unknown Local Mrs. White Lane construction timeframe Proposed widening an No cumulative N.C. 62 Widening - approximately 1 -mile stretch of Back Creek- In effects given State and Ramada Road to N.C. 62 to improve traffic flow Alamance Haw Rive 4 miles West Development unknown Local U.S. 70 / NCDOT and safety construction timeframe U.S. 158 (Reidsville Proposed 18.8 -mile widening of No cumulative Road) U.S. 158 from U.S. Headwaters In effects given State and Improvements / 421 /Business 40 in Winston- Guilford Haw River 18 miles West Development unknown Local NCDOT Salem to U.S. 220 in Guilford construction County timeframe 5-3 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Joint Permit Application USACE — Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 Table 5-1 Projects with Potential Cumulative Impacts Shared Approximate Potential/ Project Description County Watershed (5th Level/ Distance Direction Status Anticipated Potential Permits HUC10) from Project Impacts Commercial, Industrial, Residential Projects No cumulative Oakwood Homes- New construction mobile home Cascade effects given Under State and Eden / Oakwood park at S Van Buren Rd. Eden, Rockingham Creek -Dan 2 miles West Construction unknown Local Homes NC; approx. 18 new homes River construction timeframe Clayton Homes- New construction housing Burlington /Clayton development single family Alamance Back Creek- 2.5 miles West Under Wetlands and State and Homes homes off S Graham Hopedale Haw River Construction waterbodies Local Rd, Burlington LGI Homes- New construction housing Bedford Hills /LGI development single family Alamance Back Creek- 1.5 miles East Under Wetlands and State and Homes homes near 111 Pillow Ln., Haw River Construction Waterbodies Local Burlington, NC Forest Creek /True New construction housing Back Creek- Under Wetlands and State and Homes development 5 new homes in Alamance Haw River 3.5 miles Southwest Construction Waterbodies Local development 5-4 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Ir PIPELINE 5.4 SEWAGE DISPOSAL Joint Permit Application USACE — Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 The Project does not include a wastewater disposal system; therefore, this section is not applicable. 5.5 ENDANGERED SPECIES AND DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 United States Code A-1535-1543, P.L. 93-205) provides for the listing, conservation, and recovery of endangered and threatened species of plants and wildlife. Under the ESA, plants and animals provide aesthetic, ecological, educational, historic, and scientific value to the United States. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is mandated to monitor and protect all federally listed freshwater and terrestrial species, whereas the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is responsible for marine species. A federally listed endangered species is any species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A federally listed threatened species is any species likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The ESA also provides protection for "critical habitat" that, as defined by the USFWS, are (1) specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time of listing, on which are found those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and which may require special management considerations or protections; and (2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed and are determined to be areas essential for the conservation of the species. Under provisions of the ESA, all states were granted the authority to enact their own endangered species protection policies. The North Carolina Endangered Species Act (G.S. 113-331 to 113-337 Act 25) states that the NCWRC is the regulatory authority over state -listed endangered, threatened, or species of special of concern. The regulation allows the NCWRC to adopt the federal list of endangered and threatened species and develop a list of state "protected species." State protected species are separated into three separate categories; North Carolina Endangered, North Carolina Threatened, and North Carolina Special Concern. The definitions are as follows: North Carolina Endangered: "Any native or once -native species of wild animal whose continued existence as a viable component of the State's fauna is determined by the Wildlife Resources Commission to be in jeopardy or any wild animal determined to be an "endangered species" pursuant to the Endangered Species Act." North Carolina Threatened: "Any native or once -native species of wild animal that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range or one that is designated as a threatened species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. North Carolina Special Concern: "Any species of wild animal native or once native to North Carolina that is determined by the Wildlife Resources Commission to require monitoring but that may be taken under regulations adopted under the provisions of Article 25." 5.5.1 Consultation The Southgate Project reviewed USFWS online Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) system and requested records of any known federally listed, state -listed, rare or special concern species within the Project area from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), North Carolina Wildlife Resource 5-5 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Joint Permit Application T PIPELINE USACE —Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 Commission (NCWRC), and North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). The Project submitted listed bat, plant, and freshwater mussel survey plans detailing locations and methods to the applicable agencies for approval. Similar study plans for other taxonomic groups may be developed as necessary, following further coordination with federal and state agencies. Concerns regarding nesting eagle and colonial nesting birds are also addressed herein. 5.5.2 Findings Based on initial consultation with the USFWS, NCWRC, and NCNHP and review of spatial data provided by NCNHP, a total of 10 federally listed (8 endangered and 2 threatened), 14 state listed (4 state endangered, 2 state threatened, and 8 special concern); and 4 state rare species were identified that could potentially occur within 2 miles of the Project area. 5.5.3 Wildlife Species Based on coordination with the USFWS Raleigh and Gloucester Field Offices and NCWRC, nine species of bats are of concern in North Carolina, including three federally endangered bat species: Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), gray bat (Myotis grisescens), Virginia big -eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus), and one threatened species, northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis); one state threatened species, Rafinesque's big -eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii rafinesquii); and four state special concern species, including eastern big -eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii macrotis), eastern small -footed bat (Myotis leibii), Florida yellow bat (Lasiurus intermedius floridanus), and southeastern bat (Myotis austroriparius). None of these is known to occur in Rockingham or Alamance counties. Based on lack of bat survey data available within the Project area, the Project proposed targeted mist netting and acoustic surveys in accordance with 2018 Range -wide Indiana Bat Survey Guidelines (USFWS 2018) as a voluntary conservation measure. In consultation with USFWS and NCWRC, the Project submitted a revised study plan detailing survey type, effort, and locations to the USFWS, NCWRC and VDGIF on July 24, 2018 with a request for concurrence and site-specific authorization. Written study plan concurrence was received from the USFWS Raleigh Field Office and NCWRC on July 24, 2018 and August 3, 2018, respectively. Fifty-two mist net sites (minimum of 6 net nights per site) and 11 acoustic survey sites (minimum of 2 detector nights per site) were completed between July 13 and August 14, 2018. Three hundred and twenty complete and 114 partial net nights resulted in the capture of 551 bats, including 344 eastern red (Lasiurus borealis), 153 big brown (Eptesicus fuscus), 37 evening (Nycticeius humeralis), 11 Seminole (Lasirus seminolus), 3 tri -colored (Perimyotis subflavus), 2 hoary (Lasiurus cincereus), and 1 Mexican free -tailed (Tadarida brasiliensis). Winter habitat (e.g., portals) was assessed concurrently with other environmental surveys from June 1 through August 7, 2018 and was not found within the Project study corridor. Based on the lack of species occurrence during summer sampling, all federally listed species are assumed absent or present in such low density as for impacts to be inconsequential and Federal requirements for the Project under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA are met. The Project is within geographic ranges of the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), which are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 U.S. Code 668-688d). A review of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database for bald and golden eagles did not identify element occurrences in Rockingham or Alamance counties. Prior to construction, the Project intends to conduct an aerial survey in the winter of 2019-2020 for nesting eagles and colonial nesting bird rookeries within 1 mile of the Project. If eagle nests are identified within 0.5 mile of Project activities, the Project will implement the USFWS Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (USFWS 2007). If 5-6 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Joint Permit Application PIPELINE USACE —Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 colonial nesting birds are observed during survey, the Project will cease all activities within a buffer of 0.5 - mile around each rookery between February 15 and July 30. Implementation of these measures will avoid impacts on eagles and colonial nesting birds. Two state rare invertebrates were identified by NCNHP, including helicta satyr (Neonympha helicta) and coppery emerald (Somatochlora georgiana). Surveys for these species were not requested; however, implementation of the FERC Plan & Procedures and the Project's Invasive Species Control Plan will minimize impacts to these species. Five federally listed aquatic species were identified during consultation and review of the NCNHP database, including the endangered Roanoke logperch (Percina rex), Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas), and James spinymussel (Parvaspina collina) and the threatened yellow lance (Elliptio lanceolata). On October 11, 2018 the Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) was listed as threatened with a 4(d) designation. In addition, critical habitat for the Atlantic pigtoe was proposed in the Dan River drainage; however, the Project does not cross the proposed critical habitat. 5.5.4 Aquatic Species Five state listed species were identified, including four state endangered freshwater mussels: yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa), green floater (Lasmigona subviridis), Carolina creekshell (Villosa vaughaniana), Savannah lilliput (Toxolasma pullus); and one state threatened freshwater mussel: eastern lampmussel (Lampsilis radiata). Four special concern species include the notched rainbow (Villosa constricta), Greensboro burrowing crayfish (Cambarus catagius), mole salamander (Ambystoma talpoideum), and four -toed salamander (Hemidactylium scutatum). Three state rare species include: riverweed darter (Etheostoma podostemone), eastern creekshell (Villosa delumbi), and Carolina ladle crayfish (Cambarus davidi). Early coordination with USFWS and NCWRC identified three waterbodies known or likely to harbor Roanoke logperch and rare mussel species, including the Dan River, Cascade Creek, and Wolf Island Creek. The Project is proposing to use HDD or conventional bore methods to cross these waterbodies to avoid instream impacts on federal and state listed fish and mussel species. During consultation, NCWRC also requested HDD or conventional bore of Deep Creek to avoid impacts on eastern lampmussel. The Project is proposing to use of HDD or conventional bore at the Deep Creek crossing. NCWRC requested surveys for mussel streams and identified 17 streams (21 crossings) for survey. NCWRC and USFWS reviewed the Project's mussel study plan and provided comments on September 20, 2018. Surveys were authorized to commence as soon as possible; however, surveys were cancelled for the fall 2018 due to hurricane Florence and restricted access to survey sites. Freshwater mussel surveys are scheduled for April -May 2019, and results of these surveys will be submitted to USFWS and NCWRC for review and comment. The Project will implement and strictly adhere to applicable federal and state erosion and sediment control/storm water management laws and regulations. If live native freshwater species are observed during surveys, mussels will be relocated prior to construction in coordination with NCWRC. If federal species are observed during survey, the Project will notify USFWS and evaluate appropriate avoidance and minimization measures. Measures taken to avoid and minimize impacts on federal listed species also benefit state species and unlisted species. The Project is committed to working with the agencies to determine applicable avoidance, minimization or mitigation strategies to minimize impacts to these species. 5-7 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Joint Permit Application 'T PIPELINE USACE —Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 NCWRC requested surveys for the Greensboro burrowing crayfish within 200 feet of any mapped stream, both intermittent and perennial in the Haw River basin; and requested surveys for Carolina ladle crayfish in all first to third order streams in the Dan and Haw river basins. The Project is evaluating potential habitats and continues to coordinate with NCWRC. Implementation of the FERC Plan & Procedures and strict adherence to applicable federal and state erosion and sediment control/storm water management laws and regulations will minimize impacts to these species. NWCRC requested a desktop habitat evaluation of potential habitats of the four -toed and mole salamanders. The Project is evaluating potential habitats and continues to coordinate with NCWRC. Implementation of the FERC Plan & Procedures and strict adherence to applicable federal and state erosion and sediment control/storm water management laws and regulations will minimize impacts to these species, including abiding by applicable time of year construction restrictions. 5.5.5 Plant Species Consultation identified two federally endangered plants, including small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) and smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata). A study plan was submitted to USFWS and NCWRC on July 17, 2018, and concurrence was received from USFWS on August 21. A desktop assessment identified 261 acres of potential habitat of federal listed plants along the Project. Small whorled pogonia is best surveyed May -July when in flower; smooth coneflower can be surveyed between June - October. Surveys were conducted between July and September 2018.No individuals of the target species were observed; but several small whorled pogonia potential habitats were flagged for re -survey in summer 2019. Due to limited access, surveys in 2018 ended before all potential habitats could be completed. Approximately 47.5 acres of potential small whorled pogonia habitat and 25 acres of potential smooth coneflower habitat are planned for survey in summer 2019. Upon completion of 2019 field surveys, results will be submitted to USFWS and NCWRC for review and comment and filed with FERC. If listed species are identified, the Project will develop a relocation plan in coordination with USFWS Raleigh Field Office and NCWRC. The final plan will be submitted to USFWS and NCWRC for review and approval. The Project is committed to working with the agencies to determine applicable avoidance, minimization or mitigation strategies to minimize impacts to these species. One additional plant, the state rare cliff stonecrop (Sedum glaucophyllum), was identified during review of the NCNHP database. Surveys for this species were not requested; however, implementation of the FERC Plan & Procedures and the Project's Invasive Species Plan will minimize impacts to this species should it be encountered during construction. 5.5.6 Conclusions The Project will provide Section 7 clearance as soon as it is obtained. 5-8 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Ir PIPELINE 5.6 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT Joint Permit Application USACE — Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 According to the NMFS online Essential Fish Habitat Mapper tool (NMFS, 2017), the Project does not cross any waterbodies identified as Essential Fish Habitat. Because the Project is located well inland of saltwater and tidal waters and does not cross known anadromous or diadromous fish migration routes, none of the waterbodies crossed by the Project contain, or have the potential to support, species managed by the NMFS. 5.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES INFORMATION MVP Southgate is currently conducting archaeological surveys of the direct area of potential effect for Project facilities, including the pipeline corridor and all ancillary facilities such as access roads, contractor yards, and ATWS. As of September 20, 2018, archaeological survey has been completed for approximately 77.4 percent of the pipeline route. Survey for aboveground historic resources is also being conducted, and as of September 20, 2018 has been completed for an estimated 90.0 percent of the pipeline route. Detailed reports on cultural resource surveys were submitted to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office, applicable federally -recognized tribes as requested and the FERC along with the FERC Certificate Application. The Project is currently assessing avoidance or assessment options for those properties that may be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and will develop treatment plans for any such properties that may be affected by the Project. If necessary, the FERC will develop a Programmatic Agreement (PA) to provide a process for completing surveys on no access properties and implementation of the treatment plans, if any. A draft unanticipated cultural resources discovery plan is included in Appendix P. The Project will provide Section 106 concurrence once it is obtained. 5.8 FLOOD ZONE DESIGNATION The Southgate Project has reviewed Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA") Flood Insurance Rate Mapping for areas crossed by the Project and recorded the location of 100 -year flood zones (FEMA, 2018). A summary of 100 -year flood zones crossed by the Project is listed below in Table 5-2, and shown in the FEMA Figure set in Appendix Q. There are four permanent access roads and two interconnects located within the FEMA 100 -year flood zone. Temporary access roads located within floodplains may have a temporary effect on flood storage but will be restored after construction unless requested to be maintained by the landowner or agency. All applicable floodplain permits will be obtained from the relevant issuing authorities. 5-9 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Ir PIPELINE Joint Permit Application USACE - Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 5-10 November 2018 Table 5-2 100 -Year Floodplain areas crossed State/County Flood Zone a/ Entry Mile Post Exit Mile Post Length Crossed (feet) North Carolina Rockingham AE 27.1 27.8 3,665 AE 27.8 27.8 32 AE 27.9 28.0 668 AE 28.0 28.1 97 AE 28.3 28.4 204 AE 29.6 29.6 22 AE 29.6 30.5 4,741 AE 30.5 30.6 315 AE 30.7 30.7 150 AE 30.7 30.9 941 AE 32.1 32.2 37 AE 32.2 32.2 196 AE 32.2 32.2 10 AE 32.6 32.7 526 AE 33.0 33.1 470 AE 33.1 33.1 32 AE 38.6 38.8 886 AE 41.1 41.2 320 AE 43.2 43.3 551 AE 46.4 46.5 88 AE 46.9 47.0 341 AE 48.6 48.7 353 AE 50.8 50.8 95 AE 27.1 27.8 3,665 AE 27.8 27.8 32 Alamance AE 53.6 53.7 198 AE 54.6 54.6 125 AE 56.4 56.4 26 AE 56.6 56.6 281 AE 57.0 57.0 304 AE 57.9 57.9 8 AE 58.6 58.7 322 AE 60.7 60.7 76 AE 60.7 60.8 47 AE 63.6 63.6 350 AE 63.6 63.6 4 AE 63.8 63.9 100 AE 64.0 64.0 377 AE 65.6 65.6 115 AE 67.6 67.6 153 AE 69.1 69.1 222 AE 69.1 69.3 894 5-10 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Joint Permit Application USACE —Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 5-11 November 2018 Table 5-2 100 -Year Floodplain areas crossed State/County Flood Zone a/ Entry Mile Post Exit Mile Post Length Crossed (feet) AE 70.2 70.3 320 AE 70.7 70.8 254 AE 70.9 70.9 253 AE 70.9 71.0 115 AE 71.3 71.3 328 AE 71.3 71.8 2,536 AE 72.5 72.7 1,279 AE 72.9 73.1 832 AE 69.1 69.3 894 AE 70.2 70.3 320 a/ Flood Zone A — Areas subject to inundation by the 1 -percent annual chance flood event determined using approximate methodologies. Flood Zone AE —Areas subject to inundation by the 1 -percent annual chance flood event determined by detailed methods. 5-11 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Joint Permit Application PIPELINE USACE — Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 6.0 REFERENCES Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter V., F.C. Golet, E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report No. FWS/OBS/- 79/3 LWashington, D.C. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2018. Flood Map Service Center. Available online at: http://msc.fema.goy/portal. Accessed July 2018. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) 2013. Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan. Available online at: http://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/2lan.pdf. Accessed August 2, 2018. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) 2013. Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures. Available online at: http://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/procedures.pdf. Accessed August 2, 2018. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2013. Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan. May 2013. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2013. Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures. May 2013. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2017. Guidance Manual for Environmental Report Preparation. February. Gulf Interstate Engineering. 1999. Temporary Right -of -Way Width Requirements for Pipeline Construction. Prepared for the INGAA Foundation, Inc. Available online at: hqp://www.in ag armor File.aspx?id=19105. National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 2018. Explore Designated Rivers. Available online at: http://www.rivers. og v/map.php. Accessed July 2018. NCWRC. 2018. Response to project review request on the MVP Southgate Project. Letter dated August 10, 2018, addressed to Ms. Megan Stahl of EQT, from Mr. Vann Stancil, of NCWRC. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Health (NCDENR). 1999. Source Water Assessment Program Plan. Available online at: https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Resources/files/swap/FullText.pdf. Accessed Jules North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NC DEQ). 2018. Reidsville Energy Center Permit #NC0089699. https://deq.nc.gov/reidsville-energy-center-permit-nc0089699. Accessed October 3, 2018. North Carolina Division of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ). 2018b. Digital information regarding watersheds. Available online at: http://data-ncdenr.opendata.arc isg com/. Accessed July 2018. 6-1 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Joint Permit Application PIPELINE USACE — Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 North Carolina Division of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ). 2018d. Surface Water Classifications. Available online at: https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/classification- standards/classifications#DWRPrimaryClassification. Accessed July 2018. North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2018. Jordan lake Nutrient Strategy. Available online at: https:Hdeq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-plannin nonpoint-source- planning/jordan-lake-nutrient. Accessed August 2018. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). 2018. Trout Fishing Maps. Available online at: http://ncwildlife.org/Fishing/Trout-Fishing-Mqps. Accessed July 2018. NSF International. 2018. NSF / ANSI 60. Available online at: http://www.nsf.org/services/by- industry/water-wastewater/water-treatment-chemicals/nsf-ansi-standard-60. Accessed October 2018. Town of Chapel Hill (TCH). 2018. Jordan Lake Watershed. Available online at: http://www.townofchgpelhill.orfz/town-hall/departments-services/public-works/stormwater- management/local-watersheds-water-qualiiy/jordan-lake-watershed. Accessed August 2018. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2012. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Version 2.0, ed. J. F. Berkowitz, J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR -12-9. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA). 2017a. State Profile and Energy Estimates — Virginia. Available online at: https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=VA Accessed June 3, 2018. U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA). 2017b. State Profile and Energy Estimates — North Carolina. Available online at: https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=NC. Accessed June 3, 2018. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009. National Wetlands Inventory website. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Available online at: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/. Accessed July 2018. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2018. Critical Habitat Portal. Available online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/crithab/flex/crithabMapper. Accessed July 2018. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2018b. Endangered and Threatened Species and Species of Concern by County for North Carolina. Available online at: https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cptylist/nc_counties.html Accessed on July 31, 2018. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2018b. National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). Available online at: http://nhd.usgs.%zov/data.html. Accessed July 2018. USFWS. 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. Available online at https://www.fws.gov/northeast/ecological services/pdf/NationalBaldEagleManagementGuidelines.pdf. USFWS. 2016. Final rule: Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: 4(d) Rule for the northern long- eared bat. Pages 1900-1922 in Federal Register Volume 81, No. 9. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 6-2 November 2018 M Mountain Valley Joint Permit Application USACE —Wilmington District and NCDEQ SAW -2018-008887 USFWS. 2018. Range -wide Indiana bat survey guidelines - April 2018. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 61 pp. 6-3 November 2018