20150994 Ver 4_PCN Form Submission_20200114

January 14, 2020
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Attention: Ms. Brandee Boggs
NC Division of Water Resources
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Attention: Ms. Karen Higgins
Reference: Pre -Construction Notification: NWP No. 12
DENC Permanent Stream Crossing
T01/M201 Pipeline Easement
Rutherford County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7335-19-059
Dear Ms. Boggs and Ms. Higgins:
On behalf of Dominion Energy North Carolina (DENC), S&ME, Inc. (S&ME) hereby submits this Pre -
Construction Notification (PCN) Application (PCN) for impacts to waters of the U.S. in accordance with
Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 12. DENC plans to construct a permanent, earthen access road and install a
48-inch diameter culvert within a stream that flows across their existing Line T01/M021 natural gas
transmission pipeline easement.
As proposed, the work will be performed in accordance with the applicable conditions of Nationwide
Permit (NWP) No. 12 and General Water Quality Certification (WQC) No. 4133. However, submission of
this PCN to the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is required because the project will involve
construction of a permanent access road in waters of the United States with impervious materials. Pre -
construction written approval from the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) is also
required because the project will result in permanent stream impacts.
In support of this application, the following accompanying information has been submitted through the
N.C. Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) On-line PCN website (httl2s://edocs.deq.nc.aov/Forms/Pre-
Construction Notification Form):
Figures
Delineation Information
Site Photographs
S&ME, INC. / 9751 Southern Pine Blvd / Charlotte, NC 28273 / p 704.523.4726 f 704.525.3953 / www.smeinc.com

=0
Pre -construction Notification
DENC Permanent Stream Crossing
III Rutherford County, NC
S&ME Project No. 7335-19-059
Completed Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) and Authorization to Act as Agent
Construction Drawings
NC Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) Database Report and US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) IPaC
Report
Restoration Plan
General Project Information
DENC is planning to construct a permanent crossing of a small stream located within their existing
T01/M201 natural gas transmission pipeline easement. The purpose of the project is to provide
permanent access to the portion of the easement located between the subject stream and the Broad River
to the east. Currently, there is no other way for a bush hog or other maintenance equipment to routinely
access this portion of the easement. The subject stream is located approximately 1,200 feet east of Ken
Miller Road in Rutherfordton, Rutherford County, NC (35.276271°N,-81.995146°W).
The general location of the project area is depicted on the attached Site Vicinity Exhibit (Figure 1). The
project area is also depicted on the appropriate portion of the Rutherfordton South, NC USGS
Topographic Map Exhibit (Figure 2), and Rutherford County Soils Exhibit (Figure 3), and an Approximate
Waters of the US Exhibit (Figure 4).
The project area is located in the Upper Broad River Basin (HUC 03050105). Review of the Rutherfordton
South, NC US Geological Survey (USGS) Topographic Map (Figure 2) depicts the project area as forested
land. A pond is located northwest of the project area, and the stream channel is depicted flowing
southeast towards Broad River. Soils mapped within the project area (Figure 3) are limited to Pacolet
sandy loam (Typic Kanhapludults). Pacolet soils are not classified as hydric.
The project area consists entirely of DENC's existing, maintained easement. The existing easement is
abutted on either side by undeveloped woodland with no other existing access points from which DENC
may get maintenance equipment to that portion of the easement.
Photographs of conditions at the site encountered during the site visit are included in the information
submitted with the online PCN.
Jurisdictional Areas
The subject stream and wetland located within the project area were previously delineated in 2016 by
S&ME in connection with the T01 B Replacement Project (SAW-2016-00773). The delineation was
conducted utilizing currently accepted methods for wetland determination, as set forth in the 1987 Corps
of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and the corresponding Eastern Mountain and Piedmont
Region USACE Regional Supplement Guide. A Request for Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (Pre -
JD) package was provided to the USACE on October 14, 2016. Representatives of the USACE (David Brown
and Steve Kichefski) and NCDWR (Kevin Mitchell) visited the project site on November 17, 2016 to
approve the delineation and verify the location/classification of affected features.

=0
Pre -construction Notification
DENC Permanent Stream Crossing
Rutherford County, NC
S&ME Project No. 7335-19-059
The project area was re -assessed by S&ME on August 6, 2019 to confirm the findings of the previous
delineation. The site visit confirmed that the jurisdictional features within the project area were consistent
with those identified in the original delineation and were limited to one stream (SA21) and one adjacent
wetland area (WA03). SA21 is an unnamed perennial tributary to Broad River (9-(25.5), Class WS-IV). A
small herbaceous headwater wetland (WA03) abuts the east side of SA21, but it should not be impacted
by the project. The limits of SA21 and WA03 are depicted on Figure 4, and updated Stream Assessment
and Wetland Data forms have been included with this submittal. No additional jurisdictional areas were
identified.
Description of the Proposed Work
Installation of the new pipe will occur in conjunction with a separate, nearby project that involves
replacement of an exposed portion of the M201 gas line beneath the Broad River by horizontal directional
drill (HDD). While replacement of the gas line beneath the river will not involve impacts to jurisdictional
areas, construction of the new permanent crossing that is the subject of this permit application will help
facilitate access for that project. Construction of the permanent stream crossing will first entail installation
of coffer dams upstream and downstream of the proposed crossing location. Appropriate erosion and
sediment control measures will first be employed as necessary to prevent sedimentation outside of the
work area. A dry workspace will then be established by pumping clean water from above the upstream
coffer dam and around the work area to below the downstream coffer dam. The water will be pumped
into a filter bag or dewatering structure sited in a vegetated area on the south side of the work area, and
the water will eventually back into the stream. Secondary containment will be utilized to prevent any
leakage associated with the pump.
Upon establishment of the dry work area, the new crossing will be constructed. The new culvert will
consist of a 40-foot long, 48-inch dimeter reinforced concrete pipe. The new pipe has been sized to pass
the average historical low flow and was sized to accommodate a 10-year storm event without adversely
altering normal flow velocity. The bottom 20 percent of the new culvert will be embedded to promote the
safe passage of fish and other aquatic organisms. The pipe will then be overtopped with clean earthen fill
material to establish the equipment access road at a grade sufficient to allow safe passage of equipment.
A 5-foot long, flexible revetment scour transition mat will be embedded in the streambed at the culvert
outlet. The crossing has been designed and should be constructed to maintain the normal dimension,
pattern, and profile of the stream by not widening or reducing the depth of the stream above and below
the crossing.
The new permanent crossing will result in approximately 45 If of stream impact. For purposes of this
permit, an additional 15 If of temporary stream impact has been included to account for construction of
the coffer dams and temporary disturbance and de -watering of the stream within and adjacent to the
work area.
Following installation of the crossing, all temporarily -affected streambanks will be restored to the
approximate pre -disturbance contours and conditions, seeded with a customized riparian seed mix, and
stabilized with coir matting. Construction drawings showing the proposed crossing including plan, cross-
section, and cofferdam detail drawings are included with the information submitted online..

=0
Protected Species
Pre -construction Notification
DENC Permanent Stream Crossing
Rutherford County, NC
SWE Project No. 7335-19-059
To assist you with determining compliance with applicable sections of the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
of 1973 (16 USC 1531-1543), S&ME submitted a request for information to the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program (NCNHP). The NCNHP responded with a September 6, 2019 report that listed natural
areas and protected species with documented occurrences within one mile of the project area. Although
several rare state -listed species have been historically recorded, the report identified no occurrences of
federally -protected species within one mile of the site.
The project site was also reviewed in 2016 as part of a larger area subject to a Protected Species
Assessment conducted by S&ME in connection with the T01 B Replacement Project. Results of the
assessment were provided to the FWS in an October 31, 2016 report that concluded the proposed project
was unlikely to adversely affect populations of federally -protected flora and fauna listed above or their
critical habitat. Following USFWS review report, the agency responded with a November 7, 2015 letter
stating that they concurred with S&ME's findings, and concluded that the requirements under section 7 of
the Act had been fulfilled. Both the aforementioned report and FWS concurrence letter for that project
can be provided upon your request.
As an update, S&ME conducted a search of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP)
database to identify element occurrences (EOs) of such species listed as potentially occurring near the
project area. The NCNHP provided a September 6, 2019 report that did not identify records of rare
federally -protected species within one mile of the site.
S&ME also consulted the FWS Information for Planning and Consulting (IPaQ system for a list of species
that are known or expected to be near the assessment area. The IPac report identified the following
species as having potential for direct or indirect affected by activities in the assessment area:
Indiana Bat
Status: Federally -listed Endangered
Biological Determination: No Effect
The Indiana bat is a small bat with a wingspan of about 9 to 11 inches and fur that is dark -brown to black.
During winter, the bat hibernates in humid caves or other similar structures (e.g., abandoned mines) that
provide stable temperatures between 32' F and 50' F. After hibernation, they migrate to their summer
habitat in wooded areas where they usually roost under the loose tree bark of dead or dying trees. During
summer, males roost alone or in small groups, while females roost in larger groups of up to 100 bats or
more. They also forage in or along the edges of forested areas.
Based on S&ME's previous experience, Indiana bat is listed as a current occurrence for Rutherford County,
but the only record of this species is at the town of Bat Cave, which is not proximate to the project site.
Accordingly, no further action for Indiana bat should be required.
C!

=0
Northern Long-eared Bat
Pre -construction Notification
DENC Permanent Stream Crossing
Rutherford County, NC
SWE Project No. 7335-19-059
Status: Federally -Listed Threatened
Biological Determination: No Effect
The northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentriona(is) is a medium-sized bat about three to 3.7 inches in
length but with a wingspan of 9 to 10 inches. This bat generally is associated with old -growth forests
composed of trees 100 years old or older. It relies on intact interior forest habitat, with low edge -to -
interior ratios. Relevant late -successional forest features include a high percentage of old trees, uneven
forest structure (resulting in multilayered vertical structure), single and multiple tree -fall gaps, standing
snags, and woody debris.
Foraging occurs within forests, along forest edges, over forest clearings, and occasionally over ponds.
Eleven individuals (10 males, 1 female) tagged with chemical lights observed during the summer in
Missouri, foraged almost exclusively among the trees of hillside and ridge forests, rather than utilizing
floodplain and riparian forests; frequently foraging occurred within one to three meters of the ground.
Foraging bats doubled back frequently and only slowly moved out of the observation area. In Iowa,
females were found primarily foraging in mature deciduous uplands with adjacent deep ravines and in a
disturbed riparian area with an adjacent floodplain and agricultural lands.
Hibernation occurs primarily in caves, mines, and tunnels, typically those with large passages and
entrances, relatively constant and cool temperatures, high humidity, and no air currents. Hibernators
frequently roost in crevices, drill holes, and similar sites where they may be overlooked during surveys, but
roosting in the open is not uncommon. A lack of suitable hibernacula may prevent occupancy of areas
that otherwise have adequate habitat.
The project as proposed should not have a significant effect on northern long-eared bat because the
crossing will be installed within an existing utility corridor that is already cleared of woody vegetation.
Dwarf Flowered Heartleaf
Status: Federally -Listed Threatened
Biological Determination: May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Dwarf -flowered heartleaf is an evergreen, perennial herb in the birthwort family. It is distinguished from
other members in the genus by the small size of the flowers. Varying flowering periods are provided in the
available literature; Radford et al. (1968) indicate April to early May (1968), Weakley indicates March to
June (2006), and the USFWS indicates the optimal survey window to be March to May (2006). The leaves
are dark green, sometimes with silvery or gray mottling. Frequently, the tip of the leaf has a small
indentation. The flowers are borne near the ground surface, often under leaf litter, and are brownish to
greenish in color. The habitat of dwarf -flowered heartleaf is open deciduous woods, along streambanks,
often on Pacolet, Madison, or Musella soils.
The wooded, streamside area adjacent to the project corridor contains potentially -suitable habitat for this
species. However, no individuals of this species were previously observed in this area, and the proposed

=0
Pre -construction Notification
DENC Permanent Stream Crossing
Rutherford County, NC
S&ME Project No. 7335-19-059
project will take place entirely within an existing utility easement. As such, this project it is not anticipated
that this project will adversely affect populations of this species.
Small Whorled Pogonia
Status: Federally -Listed Threatened
Biological Determination: May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) is a member of the orchid family. According to the USFWS
species description, it usually has a single grayish -green stem that grows about 10 inches tall when in
flower and about 14 inches when bearing fruit. The leaves are arranged in a whorl near the top of the
stem and beneath the flower. The leaves are grayish -green, somewhat oblong and one to 3.5 inches long.
The greenish -yellow flowers are about 0.5 to one inch long and appear in May or June. The fruit, an
upright ellipsoid capsule, appears later in the year.
This species grows in older hardwood stands of beech, birch, maple, oak, and hickory that have an open
understory. Sometimes it grows in stands of softwoods such as hemlock. It prefers acidic soils with a thick
layer of dead leaves, often on slopes near small streams, and often occurs on flats or slope bases near
canopy breaks. Other orchids such as Cypripedium acaule, Goodyera tesselata, G. pubescens, Corallorhiza
maculata, C. odontorhiza, and Triphora trianthophora frequently occur with 1. medeoloides. Although most
of the above -mentioned herbaceous species are quite common in a variety of habitats, they can serve as
indicators of 1. medeoloides when they occur together in abundance. These ferns, clubmosses, evergreen
forbs, and orchids characterize the plant community found on acidic, sloping, fragipan soils.
The wooded, streamside area adjacent to the project corridor contains potentially -suitable habitat for this
species. However, no individuals of this species were previously observed in this area, and the proposed
project will take place entirely within an existing utility easement. As such, this project it is not anticipated
that this project will adversely affect populations of this species.
White Irisette
Status: Federally -Listed Endangered
Biological Determination: May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect
White irisette (Sisyrinchium dichotomum) is a perennial herb with winged, branching stems, four to eight
inches tall, rising above basal clumps of blue-green, grass -like leaves. Tiny white flowers bloom at the
ends of the stems from late May through July. The white flowers and dichotomous branching pattern
distinguish it from similar species. The plant flowers and fruits from late May to July, and a relatively small
number of seeds are produced.
This species inhabits rich, basic soils in clearings and near the edges of upland woods where the canopy
cover is thin, often in places where the humus or mineral soil layers have been exposed by downslope
runoff, which has removed the litter layer from the soil's surface. In the past, the thin canopy cover (and
possibly the thin litter layer as well) was maintained by periodic fires and by native grazing animals. Now,
most populations are in artificially disturbed areas, such as power line and road easements.
I.

=0
Pre -construction Notification
DENC Permanent Stream Crossing
Rutherford County, NC
S&ME Project No. 7335-19-059
The wooded, streamside area adjacent to the project corridor contains potentially -suitable habitat for this
species. However, no individuals of this species were previously observed in this area, and the proposed
project will take place entirely within an existing utility easement. As such, this project it is not anticipated
that this project will adversely affect populations of this species.
Rock Gnome Lichen
Status: Federally -Listed Endangered
Biological Determination: No Effect
Rock gnome lichen (Gymnoderma (ineare) is one of two lichens on the federal list of threatened and
endangered species, and the only member of the genus Gymnoderma to live in North America. Rock
gnome lichen occurs in dense colonies of narrow strap -like lobes that are about 0.04 inch across and
generally one to two centimeters (cm) long. These lobes are blue gray on the terminal upper surface, and
generally shiny white on the lower surface, grading to black near the base. The fruiting bodies are born on
the tips of these lobes, are black, and have been found from July through September. The primary means
of propagation appears to be asexual, with colonies spreading clonally.
This species occurs on shady or moss -covered rock. Further, it is found in areas of high humidity, either on
high -elevation cliffs, where it is frequently bathed in fog, or in deep river gorges at lower elevations. It is
primarily limited to vertical rock faces, where seepage water from forest soils above flows at (and only at)
very wet times, and large stream side boulders, where it receives a moderate amount of light, but not
high -intensity solar radiation. It is threatened by habitat change, especially due to loss of Fraser fir forests
and by heavy recreational use of its habitat.
Suitable habitat for rock gnome lichen was not observed in the project area, and the project is unlikely to
affect populations of this species.
Copies of the NCNHP and IPac reports are included with the information submitted online.
Historic and Archaeological Resources
Review of the National Historic Preservation Act GIS database indicated that the boundary of the
Hillsborough Historic District is located approximately 1,100 feet northwest of the assessment area. The
only other site within 2,000 feet of the assessment area is identified as the Occoneechi Gate (HPO Site ID
OR0996), which is located approximately 1,200 feet northwest. We understand that you will complete
coordination with the NC State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).
The project site was assessed in 2016 as part of a larger area subject to a Phase I Archaeological
Assessment conducted by S&ME in connection with the T01 B Replacement Project (NC State Historic
Preservation Office [SHPO] Project No. ER 16-0551). Results of the assessment were provided to SHPO in
an October 2016 report. The closest site identified during the assessment (Site 31 PL102/102**) was a small
nineteenth through twentieth century artifact scatter and prehistoric lithic scatter located approximately
230 feet west of Ken Miller Road and approximately 1,500 feet west of the current project site. This site
was recommended ineligible for inclusion on the National Historic Registry. SHPO concurred with the
findings of S&ME's report in a January 17, 2017 letter. Accordingly, this project should not affect historic,

=0
Pre -construction Notification
DENC Permanent Stream Crossing
Rutherford County, NC
SWE Project No. 7335-19-059
cultural or archaeological resources. Both the aforementioned Phase I report and SHPO concurrence
letter for that project can be provided upon your request.
Avoidance and Minimization
To minimize impacts to waters of the U.S., DENC has proposed to limit the space within which the work
will be conducted to the existing easement. Additionally, construction equipment operating near the
stream will be limited to that necessary for culvert installation activities. If necessary, vegetation near the
stream will be cut at ground level, leaving existing root systems in place to promote re -growth.
The project has designed to incorporate appropriate erosion and sediment control practices outlined in
the most recent version of the "North Carolina Erosion and Sedimentation Control Planning and Design
Manual" and approved by NCDENR prior to construction.
As proposed, the project will comply with applicable conditions of NWP No. 12 and WQC No. 4133.
Following the repair work, any affected stream banks outside of the crossing footprint will be restored to
their original grade and contour. As proposed, the project will not result in permanent changes in pre -
construction elevation contours or affect dimension, pattern or profile of the affected stream beyond the
proposed crossing footprint. Any temporarily affected areas are proposed to be restored in accordance
with the attached Restoration Plan following completion of the work.
Because the total permanent stream impacts do not exceed 150 If, compensatory stream mitigation
should not be required.
Closing
By copy of this correspondence and completed PCN, we are requesting your written concurrence with this
permit application. If you have questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact us at
704.523.4726.
Sincerely,
S&ME
Joey Lawler, PWS
Project Manager
Senior Review by Jason Reeves, PE, Principal Engineer
cc. Robert Schwartz, PE — DENC

Figures

i
r
REFERENCE:
GIS BASE LAVERS WEREOBTAINED FROM ESRI/COUNTY SOURCES. THIS MAP IS FOR
INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. ALL FEATURE LOCATIONS DISPLAYEDARE _
APPROXIMATED.THEYARE NOTBASED ON CIVIL SURVEY INFORMATION, UNLESSSTATED 100 200
OTHERWISE.
m m
(PROPOSED CROSSING LOCATION
J<�
1 •
+ O +
M201 Pipe Centerline
=0
III
SCALE:
As Shawn
DATE:
12-9-19
PROJECT NUMBER
7335-19-059
FIGURE NO
2

Delineation Information

Site Photographs

wnm
III-
_
i
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
DENC Permanent Stream Crossing
T01/M201 Pipeline Easement
Rutherford County, NC
S&ME Project No. 7335-19-059
PHOTOGRAPH1
VIEWING DIRECTION: East
DESCRIPTION/COMMENT: View of
proposed stream crossing location
from west side of Stream S1.
PHOTOGRAPH 2
VIEWING DIRECTION: Southeast
;=
y' w
DESCRIPTION/COMMENT: Second
=
view of proposed stream crossing
=
location from east side of Stream S1.
,,q
;

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
DENC Permanent Stream Crossing
T01/M201 Pipeline Easement
Rutherford County, NC
S&ME Project No. 7335-19-059
PHOTOGRAPH
VIEWING DIRECTION: North
DESCRIPTION/COMMENT: View of'�
stream S1 and adjacent wetland
(WA).
?y4
V
PHOTOGRAPH 4
VIEWING DIRECTION: South
DESCRIPTION/COMMENT: View of
% .,, ..- �'
K
Stream S1 facing downstream.
•, F '�i'a. �Av �l Sr r lit dip. ��' � (��, AI / 1 ��Y�
51
/
r•+���
�i L. �
9��i/� e Y r i q 'i �l '
1� �� �,Y6
i��
�`��V�, Yl��,\
�:A1� ���
IMN
_:
� � �4�
/.fi' !y'�f��
�, R e � �>
. °fir -;,� ► � ,fa��4s�.sr
��

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
DENC Permanent Stream Crossing
T01/M201 Pipeline Easement
Rutherford County, NC
S&ME Project No. 7335-19-059
PHOTOGRAPH
VIEWING DIRECTION: South
's
DESCRIPTION/COMMENT: Second
may•1:: ,. - .
.� �, - +.
k: '. _
view of Stream S1 facing south.
PHOTOGRAPH 6
VIEWING DIRECTION: West
DESCRIPTION/COMMENT: View of
r
easement from east side of Stream
1
3

Completed Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) and
Authorization to Act as Agent

DWR
mrlslon of Water Resources
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
September 29, 2018 Ver 3
Initial Review
Has this project met the requirements for acceptance in to the review process?*
r Yes
r No
Is this project a public transportation project?*
G Yes r No
Change only if needed.
BIMS # Assigned * Version#*
20150994 4
Is a payment required for this project?*
r No payment required What amout is owed?*
r Fee received
r $240.00
r Fee needed - send electronic notification
r $570.00
Reviewing Office *
Select Project Reviewer*
Asheville Regional Office - [phone]
Amy Annino:eads\amannino
Information for Initial Review
1a. Name of project:
DENC Permanent Stream Crossing
1a. Who is the Primary Contact?*
Robert Schwartz PE
1b. Primary Contact Email:*
[e-mail]
Date Submitted
1/14/2020
Nearest Body of Water
UT to Broad River
Basin
Broad
Water Classification
WS-IV
Site Coordinates
Latitude:
35.2766271
A. Processing Information
County (or Counties) where the project is located:
Rutherford
Is this project a public transportation project?*
r Yes r No
Longitude:
-81.995146
1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
W Section 404 Permit (wetlands, streams and waters, Clean Water Act)
r Section 10 Permit (navigable waters, tidal waters, Rivers and Harbors Act)
1b. What type(s) of permit(s) do you wish to seek authorization?
* Nationwide Permit (NWP)
* Regional General Permit (RGP)
7 Standard (IP)
1c. Primary Contact Phone:*
[phone]
U

1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
r Yes r No
Nationwide Permit (NWP) Number:
NWP Numbers (for multiple NWPS):
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWR:
W 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular
r Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
F Individual Permit
12 - Utility Lines
le. Is this notification solely for the record because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWR401 Certification:
For the record only for Corps Permit:
F 401 Water Quality Certification - E)iress
F Riparian Buffer Authorization
1f. Is this an after -the -fact permit application?*
r Yes r No
1g. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
r Yes r No
1g. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?
r Yes r No
Acceptance Letter Attachment
1h. lathe project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties?
r Yes r No
1j. Is the project located in a designated trout watershed?
r Yes r No
B. Applicant Information
1d. Who is applying for the permit?
r Owner W Applicant (other than owner)
le. Is there an Agent/Consultant for this project?*
r Yes r No
2. Owner Information
2a. Name(s) on recorded deed:
Green River Farm, LLC
2b. Deed book and page no.:
Book 792, Page 62
2c. Responsible party:
Dominion Energy North Carolina (easement only)
2d.Address
Street Address
220 Operations Way
Address tine 2
MC C221
City
Cayce
Fbstal / Zip Code
29033
2e. Telephone Number:
[phone]
2g. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
3. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
State / Rmince / Region
South Carolina
Country
USA
2f. Fax Number:
r Yes r No
r Yes r No
3a. Name:
Robert Schwartz, PE

3b. Business Name:
Dominion Energy North Carolina
3c.Address
Street Address
220 Operations Way
Address Line 2
MC C221
City
Cayce
Postal / Zip Code
29033
3d. Telephone Number:
[phone]
3f. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
4. Agent/Consultant (if applicable)
4a. Name:
Joey Lawler, PWS
4b. Business Name:
S&ME, Inc.
4c.Address
Street Address
9751 Southern Pine Blvd.
Address Une 2
aty
Charlotte
Postal / Zip Code
28273
4d. Telephone Number:
[phone]
4f. Email Address:*
[e-mail]
State / Rovince / Region
South Carolina
Country
USA
3e. Fax Number:
State / Province / Region
North Carolina
Country
USA
4e. Fax Number:
Agent Authorization Letter*
Agent Authorization Form - Culvert Replacement_Signed.pdf 452.72KB
C. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Project Information
1b. Subdivision name:
(d appropriate)
NIA
1c. Nearest municipality/ town:
Tryon
2. Project Identification
2a. Property Identification Number:
2b. Property size:
1402051
549
2c. Project Address
Street Address
Ebsting natural gas pipeline easement east of Ken Miller Road
Address Line 2
city
State / Province / Region
Rutherfordton
North Carolina
Postal / Zip Code
Country
28139
USA
3. Surface Waters
3a. Name of the nearest body of water to proposed project:*
UT to Broad River

3b. Water Resources Classification of nearest receiving water:*
WS-IV
3c. What river basin(s) is your project located in?*
Broad
3d. Please provide the 12-digit HUC in which the project is located.
030501050309
4. Project Description and History
4a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinityof the project at the time of this application:*
DENC is planning to construct a permanent crossing of a small stream located within their existing T01/M201 natural gas transmission pipeline easement. The subject stream is located
within the existing maintained easement, approximately 1,200 feet east of Ken Miller Road. The vicinity consists largely of undeveloped woodland and scattered residential development.
See cover letter for additional details.
4b. Have Corps permits or DWR certifications been obtained for this project (including all prior phases) in the past?*
r Yes r No r Unknown
4c. If yes, please give the DWR Certification number or the Corps Action ID (exp. SAW-0000-00000).
DWR #15-0994 V3 and SAW-2016-00773
Project History Upload
4d. Attach an 8 1/2 X 11 excerpt from the most recent version of the USGS topographic map indicating the location of the project site. (for DWR)
Fig 2 - USGS.pdf
224.67KB
4e. Attach an 8 1/2 X 11 excerpt from the most recent version of the published County NRCS Soil Survey map depicting the project site. (for DWR)
Fig 3 - Soils.pdf 236.95KB
4f. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0.10
4g. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams on the property:
75
4h. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:*
The purpose of the project is to provide permanent access to the portion of the easement located between the subject stream and the Broad River to the east. Currently, there is no
other way for a bush hog or other maintenance equipment to routinely access this portion of the easement. See cover letter for additional details.
41. Describe the overall project in detail, including indirect impacts and the type of equipment to be used:*
Installation of the new pipe will occur in conjunction with a separate, nearby project that involves replacement of an exposed portion of the M201 gas line beneath the Broad River by
horizontal directional drill. While replacement of the gas line beneath the river will not involve impacts to jurisdictional areas, construction of the new permanent crossing that is the
subject of this permit application will help facilitate access for that project. Construction of the permanent stream crossing will first entail installation of coffer dams upstream and
downstream of the proposed crossing location. Appropriate erosion and sediment control measures will first be employed as necessary to prevent sedimentation outside of the work
area. A dry workspace will then be established by pumping clean water from above the upstream coffer dam and around the work area to belowthe downstream coffer dam. The water
will be pumped into a filter bag or dewatering structure sited in a vegetated area on the south side of the work area, and the water will eventually back into the stream. Secondary
containment will be utilized to prevent any leakage associated with the pump.
Upon establishment of the dry work area, the new crossing will be constructed. The new culvert wall consist of a 40-foot long, 48-inch dimeter reinforced concrete pipe. The new pipe has
been sized to pass the average historical low flow and was sized to accommodate a 10-year storm event without adversely altering normal flow velocity. The bottom 20 percent of the
new culvert will be embedded to promote the safe passage of fish and other aquatic organisms. The pipe will then be overtopped oath clean earthen fill material to establish the
equipment access road at a grade sufficient to allow safe passage of equipment. A 5-foot long, flexible revetment scour transition mat will be embedded in the streambed at the culvert
outlet. The crossing has been designed and should be constructed to maintain the normal dimension, pattern, and profile of the stream by not widening or reducing the depth of the
stream above and below the crossing.
4j. Please upload project drawings for the proposed project.
5. Jurisdictional Determinations
5a. Have the wetlands or streams been delineated on the property or proposed impact areas?*
r Yes
r No
Comments:
The project area was previously delineated in 2016 for the T01 B Replacement Project.
5b. If the Corps made a jurisdictional determination, what type of determination was made?*
r Preliminary r Approved r Not Verified r Unknown r N/A
Corps AID Number:
SAW-2016-00773
5c. If 5a is yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): Joey Lawler, PWS; Walter Cole, LSS ; Ashley Bentz, PWS
O Unknown
Agency/Consultant Company: S&ME, Inc.

Other:
5d. List the dates of the Corp jurisdiction determination or State determination if a determination was made by the Corps or DWR
In connection with the T01 B Replacement project, representatives of the USACE (David Brown and Steve Kichefski) and NCDWR (Kevin Mitchell) visited the project site on November
17, 2016 to approve the delineation and verify the location/classification of affected features. The project area was re -assessed by S&ME on August 6, 2019 to confirm the findings of
the previous delineation.
5dl. Jurisdictional determination upload
T01 B Replacement Pre -JD Approval.pdf 1.37MB
Data Forms.pdf 232.96KB
Stream Form.pdf 120.94KB
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?*
r Yes r No
Are any other NWP(s), regional general permit(s), or individual permits(s) used, or intended to be used, to authorize any part of the proposed project or related activity?
No. For efficiency purposes, the stream crossing will likely be constructed in conjunction with a separate but nearby pipe replacement project that will not impact any other jurisdictional
areas.
D. Proposed Impacts Inventory V
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Where are the impacts associated with your project? (check all that apply):
r Wetlands W Streams -tributaries ❑ Buffers
r Open Waters F Pond Construction
3. Stream Impacts
❑ 3a. Reason for impact (?) 3b.lmpact type * 3c. Type of impact* ��name * 3e. Stream Type * 3f. Type of 3g. S. width * 3h. Impact
(?) Jurisdiction* length*
S1
Permanent Access
Permanent
Culvert
UT to Broad River
Perennial
Both
4
Average (feet)
45
(linearfeet)
S2
Temporary Dewatering
Temporary
Dewatering
UT to Broad River
Perennial
Both
4
Average (feet)
15
(lir�rfeet)
3i. Total jurisdictional ditch impact in square feet:
3i. Total permanent stream impacts:
45
31. Total stream and ditch impacts:
60
3j. Comments:
3i. Total temporary stream impacts:
15
The new permanent crossing will result in approbmately 45 If of stream impact. For purposes of this permit, an additional 15 If of temporary stream
impact has been included to account for construction of the coffer dams and temporary disturbance and de -watering of the stream within and adjacent
to the work area.
E. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing the project:
To minimize impacts to waters of the U.S., DENC has proposed to limit the space within which the work will be conducted to the epsting easement and
avoided a nearby wetland.
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques:
Construction equipment operating near the stream vAll be limited to that necessary for culvert installation activities. If necessary, vegetation near the
stream will be cut at ground level, leaving eAsting root systems in place to promote re -growth.
The project has designed to incorporate appropriate erosion and sediment control practices outlined in the most recent version of the "North Carolina
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Planning and Design Manual' and approved by NCDENR prior to construction.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
r Yes
r No
2b. If this project DOES NOT require Compensatory Mitigation, explain why:
Project does not impact more than 150 LF of stream.

F. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWR)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
r Yes r No
If no, explain why:
Project is not located within a basin subject to riparian buffers.
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. Is this a NCDOT project subject to compliance with NCDOT's Individual NPDES permit NCS000250?*
r Yes r No
2b. Does this project meet the requirements for low density projects as defined in 15ANCAC 02H .1003(2)?
r Yes r No
Comments:
WA
G. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation
1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of public (federal/state) land?*
r Yes r No
2. Violations (DWR Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWR Water Quality Certification Rules (15ANCAC 2H .0500), Isolated Wetland Rules (15ANCAC 2H .1300), or DWR Surface Water or Wetland Standards or
Riparian Buffer Rules (15ANCAC 2B .0200)?*
r Yes r No
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWR Requirement)
3a. Will this project result in additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?*
r Yes r No
3b. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
Project is not considered growth -inducing.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWR Requirement)
4a. Is sewage disposal required by DWR for this project?*
r Yes r Nor WA
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or habitat?*
r Yes r No
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act impacts?*
r Yes r No
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Asheville
5d. Is another Federal agency involved?*
r Yes r No r Unknown
5e. Is this a DOT project located within Division's 1-8?
r Yes r No
5f. Will you cut any trees in order to conduct the work in waters of the U.S.?
r Yes r No
5g. Does this project involve bridge maintenance or removal?
r Yes r No
5h. Does this project involve the construction/installation of a wind turbine(s)?*
r Yes r No

51. Does this project involve (1) blasting, and/or (2) other percussive activities that will be conducted by machines, such as jackhammers, mechanized pile drivers, etc.?
r Yes r No
5j. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical Habitat?
NCNHP and FWS IPaC. The project site was originally reviewed in 2016 as part of the T01 B Replacement Project. Results of the assessment were
provided to the FWS in an October 31, 2016 report that concluded the proposed project was unlikely to adversely affect populations of federally -
protected flora and fauna listed above or their critical habitat. Following USFWS review report, the agency responded with a November 7, 2015 letter
stating that they concurred with S&ME's findings, and concluded that the requirements under section 7 of the Act had been fulfilled.
Consultation Documentation Upload
17-065 sec 7 PSNC T-01A Gas Pipeline Replacement Phase Il.pdf 51.02KB
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as an Essential Fish Habitat?*
r Yes r No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact an Essential Fish Habitat?*
https://www.fisheries. noaa. gov/resou rce/ma p/esse ntial-fish-habitat-ma ppe r
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation status?*
r Yes r No
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?*
The project site was assessed in 2016 as part of the T01 B Replacement Project (NC State Historic Preservation Office [SHPO] Project No. ER 16-
0551). Results of the assessment were provided to SHPO in an October 2016 report. The closest site identified during the assessment (Site
31 PL102/102**) was a small nineteenth through twentieth century artifact scatter and prehistoric lithic scatter located approximately 230 feet west of
Ken Miller Road and approximately 1,500 feet west of the current project site. This site was recommended ineligible for inclusion on the National
Historic Registry. SHPO concurred with the findings of S&ME's report. Accordingly, this project should not affect historic, cultural or archaeological
resources.
7c. Historic or Prehistoric Information Upload
T-001 Phase II SHPO Response 1-20-17.pdf 107.33KB
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain?*
r Yes
r No
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?*
hftps://msc.fema.gov/portal/search
Miscellaneous
Comments
Miscellaneous attachments not previously requested.
Fig 1 - Vcinity.pdf
Fig 4 - Approx Waters.pdf
Cover Letter.pdf
Restoration Plan.pdf
Site Photos.pdf
Coffer Dam Detail.pdf
Cross-Section.pdf
Plan View.pdf
Signature
*
W By checking the box and signing below, I certify that:
581.46KB
560.73KB
222.2KB
125.94KB
470.94KB
419.04KB
1.2MB
2.12MB
• I have given true, accurate, and complete information on this form;
• I agree that submission of this PCN form is a "transaction" subject to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act");
• I agree to conduct this transaction by electronic means pursuant to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act");
• I understand that an electronic signature has the same legal effect and can be enforced in the same way as a written signature; AND
• I intend to electronically sign and submit the PCN form.
Full Name:
Joey Lawler
Signature
v

J6r,Y 4.4W
Date
1/14/2020

AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
Daa ee
nrgssn unmvmayon
S&ME Project Name:
Type of Project:
Location:
roperty Owner/Rep
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
City, State, Zip Code:
Telephone No.
Contact:
Onfopmation
business iVame:
Street Address:
City, State, Zip:
Telephone No.
Contact:
DENC Permanent Stream Crossing
Culvert Installation Project
Rutherford County, NC
Information
Dominion Energy Southeast Services, Corporate Environmental
220 Operations Way, MC 221 1
Cayce, SC 29033
803.217.7112
Robert Schwartz, PE
S&ME, Inc.
9751 Southern Pine Blvd
Charlotte, NC 28273
704.523.4726
Joey Lawler, PWS / Walter Cole, LSS
�€ ore�aLior�° I, Ko ck k 1 " k `, D ' T� hereby authorize S&ME, Inc. to
SllbrTlll: Iflfort nation to and coordinate to with LIIC VJ NI(Ily LUI ps UI Engineers
(USACE) and/or the NC Division of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) and other
relevant Federal/State/Local agencies pursuant to obtaining necessary
environmental permits for the project referenced above. If applicable, this also
authorizes the USACE/NCDEQ to access the proposed easement for the
purposes of conducting site assessment/confirming the accuracy of delineated
boundaries.
S&ME, INC. / 9751 Southern Pine Blvd / p 704.523.4726 f 704.525.3953 / www.smeinc.com

Construction Drawings

SAN
A'
III --- -- -- ----- - - _ '- - --
=1 _�
HB HB
HC HC
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — _— — — — —
DBAGS (TYP.) -III I I I I 30 MIL HDPE LINER —III', ;111111
A
COFFER DAM SECTION VIEW
=I o
oI LL
I �
I w
K
I
I
I
I
I
---I-- — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-- --------- 7
I
I
30 MIL HDPE LINER
e
1!
u
I
I
I
I
z
z
m
m
I
I
O
ip O
TOP OF BANK
30 MIL HDPE LINER
OHWM V
rSTREAM FLOW
CROSS-SECTION A -A'
COFFER DAM NOTES
1. CONSTRUCT TEMPORARY COFFER DAMS WITHIN
EDGES OF CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT. CONSTRUCT
DAMS USING SANDBAGS COVERED WITH CLEAN 30
MIL HDPE LINER OR CLEAN STEEL PLATE DRIVEN
INTO THE STREAM BANKS AND STREAM BED. USE
SANDBAGS TO SHORE STEEL PLATE IF NEEDED.
2. THE HEIGHT OF THE COFFER (HC) DAM SHALL BE
CALCULATED USING BOTH OF THE FOLLOWING
METHODS.
A. HC = HB/4 + 1-FT. (HB = HEIGHT OF STREAM BANK
IN FEET) WITH A 2-FT. MINIMUM DAM HEIGHT
B. HC = BASE FLOW + 1-FT. (BASE FLOW TO BE
IDENTIFIED IN THE FIELD PRIOR TO
CONSTRUCTION)
THE GREATER OF THE TWO RESULTING HEIGHTS
SHALL BE USED FOR THE COFFER DAM.
ADDITIONAL HEIGHT MAY BE REQUIRED BASED ON
FLOW CONDITIONS AT THE TIME OF
CONSTRUCTION.
3. CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE TIGHT SEAL OF
SANDBAG COFFER DAM.
4. SAND BAGS SHOULD BE PLACED ALONG THE EDGES
OF THE COFFER DAM TO KEEP WATER FROM
CUTTING AROUND THE COFFER DAM.
SCALE
N.T.S.
DATE:
1-7-20
PROJECT NUMBER
7335-19-059
FIGURE NO.

.N
2
V
0
M
M
N
820
818
816
814
812
810
W
w
808
806
0
804
802
800
W
798
796
794
792
790
•
9751 SOUTHERN PINE BLVD
CHARLOTTE, NC 28273
[phone]
STATION ENGINEERING FIRM
LICENSE NUMBER: F-0176
810 810
4-IN. OF ABC CRUSHED
808 - STONE SURFACING 808
PROPOSED FINAL GRADES
806 - APPROXIMATE EXISTING GROUND SURFACE 806
W W
w 804 ROAD EL. 8 3-FT. 804 w
2.5
802 - 1 �1 802
0 800 - 800 O Dominion
798 798 Energy
gy�
796 796
W W
�l 48-IN. HDPE PIPE INLET �l
W 794 - (STA. 0+02.5, INVERT EL. 797') 794 W
48-IN. HDPE PIPE OUTLET
792 - (STA. 0+37.8, INVERT ELEVATION 796') 792
790 790
0+00 0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+45
STATION
a
U Q
� 2
J u
_ >
� m
PROFILE A — Al
J
Q
O
d
d
Q
0
w Z
Q
w a
l7 �
z vui
STATION °
w
-I r
PROPOSED
CUT
II
4-IN. OF ABC C
USHED
-_
PROPOSED FINAL GRADES
STONE SU
FACING
EL.803-FT.
-
TOP
OF PIPE 2.25' CLEARANCE
-
=1
EL.
00.75-FT.I-
APPROXIMATE
EXISTING GROUND SURFACE
c�l__
IM
Sew
I--
_ I STREAM FLOW
-
-
-
��-�-
(VARIES)
-
PROPOSED FILL
-I
PROPOSED 4
-IN. HDPE (54-IN. O.D.)
STREAMBED MATERIAL
INVERT 796.5-FT.
L L L
L L L L
L L L
L Lj
L L
820
0-
ccl
818
11
0
w
D
816
n
0
814
o
W
0
812
o
p
0
810
W
a
°z
W
808
w
806
0
804
0
~
(7
z
[�
u
L
O
802
W
U
_
800
1.4
V)
w
0
Q
0
O
798
1:4
Lu
z
u
N
796
Z
z
Z
w
=)
OU
794
W
Q
792
w
a
O
O
U
�
790
w
Lu
�
0+00 0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50 0+60 0+70 0+80 0+90 1+00 1+10 1+20 1+26 =)
STATION
GENERAL NOTES:
PROJECT NUMBER
1. S&ME HAS NOT VERIFIED THE LOCATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR FIELD VERIFYING
THE LOCATION OF ALL UTILITIES IN THE WORK AREA PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR SITE CONSTRUCTION 0 5 10 15 7335-19-059
SAFETY. DRAWING NUMBER
2. UTILITIES NOT SHOWN ON THIS PLAN MAY BE PRESENT DUE TO ONGOING CONSTRUCTION IN THE PROJECT VICINITY. PROFILE B - B' GRAPHIC SCALE (IN FEET) 02 O�
CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE WITH SITE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTORS ON UTILITY LOCATIONS AND WORKSPACE AVAILABILITY.

rn
O
G)
Lr)
M
M
r-
J

NCNHP Database Report and FWS IPac Report

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper
January 19, 2017
Kimberly Nagle
S&ME, Inc.
134 Suber Road
Columbia, SC 29210
Re: T-001A Phase 2 Pipeline Replacement, S&ME 7435-16-013,
Cleveland, Polk, and Rutherford Counties, ER 16-0551
Dear Ms. Nagle:
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Thank you for your letter of November 8, 2016, transmitting the archaeological survey report by S&ME for
the above project. The report meets our guidelines as well as those of the Secretary of the Interior. We
apologize for the delay in our response.
During the course of the survey, 23 archaeological sites were located within the project area. For purposes
of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that archaeological
sites 31CL129-133, 31CL135-137, 31CL139, 31PL101-105, and 31RF243-244 are not eligible for listing
in the National Register of Historic Places. These sites do not retain sufficient subsurface integrity or
artifact density to yield information important to history or prehistory.
31CL138 was not fully delineated or evaluated, but will be unaffected by project construction as currently
planned. If there are design changes in this area, additional consultation is necessary.
Cemetery site 31CL134 is evaluated as eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under
Criteria B and C. We do not concur with this evaluation. However, in accordance with North Carolina state
laws, the cemetery is protected from disturbance and it is our understanding that a 100-foot buffer has been
established for avoidance during construction activities.
S&ME has recommended that no further archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this
project. We concur with this recommendation since the project will not involve significant archaeological
resources. We look forward to further consultation if any alterations to the current plan are proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fas: [phone]/807-6599

Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
environmental.review2ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona M. Bartos

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
December 7, 2016
Mr. Joey Lawler
S&ME, Inc.
9751 Southern Pine Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
Dear Mr. Lawler:
Subject: Federally Listed Species Assessment, PSNC Energy's (PSNC) Proposed 48-Mile
T-01A Gas Pipeline Replacement Project — Phase II, located in Polk, Rutherford, and
Cleveland Counties, North Carolina (S&ME Project No. 7335-16-013)
Dear Mr. Lawler:
On May 31, 2016, Mr. Bryan Tompkins of this office met with you and representatives from the
US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), North Carolina Division of Water Resources, and PSNC
at a pre -application meeting held at the NCDENR office. In that meeting Mr. Tompkins
informed you of the potential impacts that the project could have on federally listed species. He
requested that surveys for federally listed species be conducted within suitable habitat areas
along the pipeline corridor. On November 10, 2016, we received a copy of your Protected
Species Assessment for the subject project. We have reviewed the information you presented
and are providing the following comments in accordance with the provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.§4321 et seq.) (NEPA); the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
According to the information that you presented, PSNC is proposing to replace about 48-miles of
existing 8-inch natural gas pipeline with a 24-inch pipeline. The pipeline replacement will extend
from Mill Spring in Polk County to Kings Mountain in Cleveland County. About 40 miles of the
pipeline replacement will occur within the existing, maintained pipeline easement. Installation of

the new pipeline will deviate from the existing corridor at several locations totaling about 8 miles
in length. The areas adjacent to the existing pipeline corridor consists of wooded areas, open
fields, agricultural areas, and commercial/residential/light industrial development. The pipeline
replacement will require numerous stream and wetland crossings and PSNC will be applying for a
Nationwide Permit from the Corps to authorize the impacts. The project will result in about
605.10 acres of disturbance. About 402.86 acres of the project disturbance area consists of non -
forested areas and existing pipeline corridor and about 202.24 acres of forested land occurs within
the land disturbance area associated with the project.
Federally Listed Species — According to the information provided, S&ME personnel conducted
surveys for federally listed species known to occur within Polk, Rutherford, and Cleveland
Counties throughout the proposed project area (existing pipeline corridor and proposed areas of
new disturbance). Surveys and assessments were conducted over a period ranging from May
2016 to August 2016. Surveys were conducted for dwarf -flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis
naniflora) which is currently federally listed as a threatened species; as well as small -whorled
pogonia (Isotria medeoloides), rock gnome lichen (Gymnoderma lineare), and white irisette
(Sisyrinchium dichotomum) which are all currently federally listed as endangered species.
Although suitable habitat for rock gnome lichen, white irisette, and small -whorled pogonia was
found to occur within the project area, no individuals of these species were found. S&ME
determined the project "may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect" these species. We
concur with S&ME's "not likely to adversely affect" determination for rock gnome lichen, white
irisette, and small -whorled pogonia.
S&ME conducted surveys for dwarf -flowered heartleaf in areas of suitable habitat within the
project area. Twelve populations (totaling about 1,588 individual plants) of dwarf -flowered
heartleaf were found during surveys. S&ME positively identified seven of the twelve
populations of dwarf -flowered heartleaf. The other five populations were found outside of the
flowering period (April -May) so positive identification was not possible. Although these
populations could not be positively identified, S&ME is treating these populations as dwarf -
flowered heartleaf and they have been included in Table 1: Summary of Dwarf -Flowered
Heartleaf Locations found on page 9 of the Protected Species Assessment. S&ME indicates that
no dwarf -flowered heartleaf populations will be directly impacted by the proposed project;
however, land clearing operations associated with the project could result in indirect effects to
some individuals that occur within 15-feet of the existing easement or proposed temporary
workspace. Of the 1,588 dwarf -flowered heartleaf plants that occur within the project area, only
13 (less than 0.01%) plants were found to occur within 15-feet of the existing easement or
proposed temporary workspace. PSNC has eliminated temporary workspaces at locations where
the plants were identified and a section of the proposed permanent and temporary easements
were re-routed to avoid direct and indirect impacts to the dwarf -flowered heartleaf populations.
Additionally, PSNC has agreed to the following measures to further minimize potential indirect
effects associated with the project: 1) Identified plant locations will be depicted on the project
alignment sheets and notes regarding their avoidance will be included in the property line list of
special conditions; 2) Strict boundary control of project easements will be followed. Brightly
colored barricade fencing (construction fence) will be installed along the edge the temporary
2

work space closest to the population prior to construction; and 3) A pre -construction meeting
with clearing and construction contractors will be conducted to review the reason for the
construction fencing and reiterate the importance of limiting the work areas to the bounds of the
fencing. All trees to be cut will be felled into construction/disturbed areas and away from dwarf -
flowered heartleaf populations. S&ME has determined that the proposed project "may affect,
but is not likely to adversely affect" dwarf -flowered heartleaf. We commend PSNC for taking
steps to avoid direct impacts to this species. If the above listed minimization measures are
included in the permit and implemented into the project plans, we can concur with S&ME's "not
likely to adversely affect" determination for the proposed project.
Habitat for the federally threatened northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrianalis) and Indiana
bat (Myotis sodalis), which is currently federally listed as an endangered species, was also found
to be present within the project area. S&ME concluded that the project is "not likely to
adversely affect" Indiana bat because the only occurrence record for this species is at Bat Cave in
Rutherford County and is not near the project area. We concur with the "not likely to adversely
affect" determination for Indiana bat. In regards to northern -long eared bat, no known roost trees
occur within 150-feet of the proposed pipeline corridor and no know hibernacula occur within
0.25-mile of the pipeline corridor. The nearest known occurrence of northern -long eared bat is
about 5-miles from the pipeline corridor. As indicated, the proposed project will require the
clearing of about 202-acres of forested land although most of the tree clearing activities will be
conducted outside of the recommended maternity roosting moratorium of May 15-August 15.
Further S&ME conducted an assessment of forested area affected by the project compared to the
surrounding area. S&ME established a one kilometer corridor along the proposed pipe centerline
with a land area of about 19,120 acres. Using the 2011 National Land Cover Database, S&ME
found that about 46.3% (8,853-acres of the 19,120-acres) were forested. Therefore, the 202.24-
acres of proposed clearing will result in a 2.3% reduction of forested land within the one
kilometer corridor. Because: 1) the project site is over 5-miles away from the nearest known
occurrence; 2) there is a large amount of suitable habitat adjacent to the site and in the
surrounding area; 3) the project will result in a relatively small amount of loss of forested habitat;
and 4) a majority of the forest clearing associated with the project will be conducted outside of
the summer maternity roost season, S&ME has determined that the project "may affect, not
likely to adversely affect" northern long-eared bat. For these reasons, and because the
probability of "take" that could occur from this project is discountable, we concur with S&ME's
"may affect, not likely to adversely affect" determination for northern long-eared bat.
We concur with the determinations made by S&ME for the above listed species. Further, we
believe that a "no effect" determination is warranted for all other federally listed species known
to occur in Polk, Rutherford, and Cleveland Counties. Therefore, we believe the requirements
under section 7 of the Act are fulfilled. However, obligations under section 7 of the Act must be
reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect
listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) this action is
subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review, or (3) a new species is
listed or critical habitat is determined that may be affected by the identified action.
3

Utility Line Crossings. In the interest of reducing impacts to natural resources, utility crossings
(i.e., sewer, gas, and water lines) should be kept to a minimum, and all utility infrastructure
(including manholes) should be kept out of riparian buffer areas. If a utility crossing is
necessary, we recommend that you first consider the use of directional boring. Directional
boring under streams significantly minimizes impacts to aquatic resources and riparian buffers.
If directional boring cannot be used and trenching is determined to be the only viable method,
every effort should be made to ensure that impacts to in -stream features are minimized and stable
upon completion of the project. Our past experiences with open -trench crossings indicate that
this technique increases the likelihood for future lateral movement of the stream (which could
undercut or erode around the utility line), and the correction of such problems could result in
costly future maintenance and devastating impacts to natural resources. Therefore, as much
work as possible should be accomplished in the dry, and the amount of disturbance should not
exceed what can be successfully stabilized by the end of the workday. In -stream work should
avoid the spring fish -spawning season and should consider forecasted high -flow events.
Regardless of the crossing method, all utility lines should cross streams perpendicularly. We
strongly encourage that a qualified biologist monitor the work area until the work is complete in
order to identify any additional on -site impact -minimization measures. The Service may be
available to assist you in this effort.
To determine if any maintenance is required, the work site should be monitored at least every
3 months during the first 24 months and annually thereafter. Moreover, we recommend the
development of a riparian monitoring and maintenance program that would outline procedures
for the prompt stabilization of streambanks near the utility crossing (should any streambank
erosion or destabilization occur) throughout the life of this project.
Project Recommendations - We are concerned about the introduction and spread of invasive
exotic species in association with the proposed project. Without active management, including
the revegetation of disturbed areas with native species, project corridors will likely be sources of
(and corridors for) the movement of invasive exotic plant species. Exotic species are a major
contributor to species depletion and extinction, second only to habitat loss. Exotics are a factor
contributing to the endangered or threatened status of more than 40 percent of the animals and
plants on the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.a It is estimated
that at least 4,000 exotic plant species and 2,300 exotic animal species are now established in the
United States, costing more than $130 billion a year to control.b Additionally, the
U.S. Government has many programs and laws in place to combat invasive species (see
www.invasivespecies.gov). Specifically, Section 2(a)(3) of Executive Order 13112 - Invasive
Species (February 3, 1999) directs federal agencies to "not authorize, fund, or carry out actions
that it believes are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species in the
aD.S. Wilcove, D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Phillips, and E. Losos. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in
the United States. BioScience 48:607-615.
bD. Pimentel, L. Lach, R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison. 2000. Environmental and economic costs of nonindigenous
species in the United States. BioScience 50:53-65.
4

United States or elsewhere." Despite their short-term erosion -control benefits, many exotic
species used in soil stabilization seed mixes are persistent once they are established, thereby
preventing the reestablishment of native vegetation. Many of these exotic plants' are also
aggressive invaders of nearby natural areas, where they are capable of displacing
already -established native species. Therefore, we strongly recommend that only species native
to the natural communities within the project area be used in association with all aspects of this
proj ect.
We also recommend that seeds for native plants that are beneficial to pollinators be included in
the seed mixes. Pollinators, such as most bees, some birds and bats, or other insects, including
moths and butterflies, play a crucial role in the reproduction of flowering plants and in the
production of most fruits and vegetables. Over 75 percent of flowering plants and about
75 percent of crops are pollinated by these pollinators. A recent study of the status of pollinators
in North America by the National Academy of Sciences found that populations of honey bees
(which are not native to North America) and many wild pollinators are declining. Declines in
wild pollinators are a result of loss, degradation, and fragmentation of habitat and disease; while
declines in honey bees has also been linked to disease. Because loss of habitat and diminished
native food sources have decreased the populations and diversity of pollinators throughout the
country, we recommend that development projects be sited in areas that are previously disturbed
(fallow fields, closed industrial sites, etc.) or sites that do not impact mature forests, streams, or
wetlands. To offset the overall impacts of development and/or to increase the habitat and species
diversity within the project area, we further recommend the following measures be implemented
into project design:
1. Throughout the site, sow native seed mixes with plant species that are beneficial to
pollinators. Taller -growing pollinator plant species should be planted around the
periphery of the site and anywhere on the site where mowing can be restricted during
the summer months. Taller plants, not mowed during the summer, would provide
benefits to pollinators, habitat to ground-nesting/feeding birds, and cover for small
mammals. Low-growing/groundcover native species should be planted in areas that
need to be maintained. This would provide benefits to pollinators while also
minimizing the amount of maintenance, such as mowing and herbicide treatment.
Using a seed mix that includes milkweed species (milkweed is an important host plant
for monarch butterflies) is especially beneficial. The following Web site provides a
comprehensive list of native plant species that benefit pollinators:
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#advanced-search/subject pollinator&subset=
all&has anita&within Id&sizeoperator s sl&sizeunit s smb/14J0366dba7d3bda?
projector].
Additional information regarding plant species, seed mixes, and pollinator habitat
requirements can be provided upon request. Attachment 1 of this letter includes a
Lists of invasive exotic plants can be found at http://www.tneppc.org/and http:/hvww.invasive.org/eastern/srs/
(exotic wildlife links) on the Internet.
5

sample upland mix that can be used in conjunction with a fast growing erosion control
seed mix for overall soil stability and pollinator benefits.
2. Provide nesting sites for pollinator species. Different pollinators have different
needs for nesting sites. Therefore, we recommend designing the solar facility to
maintain a diverse array of habitats to accommodate varied pollinators, from
hummingbirds to butterflies to bees. Hummingbirds typically nest in trees or shrubs
while many butterflies lay eggs on specific host plants. Most bees nest in the ground
and in wood or dry plant stems. For additional information and actions that can be
taken to benefit pollinators please visit the following Web site:
http: //www.fws.govlpollinatorslpollinatorpageslyourhelp. html.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. If we can be of assistance or if you
have any questions, please contact Mr. Bryan Tompkins of our staff at 828/258-3939, Ext. 240.
In any future correspondence concerning this project, please reference our Log Number
4-2-17-065.
Sincerely,
- - original signed - -
Janet Mizzi
Field Supervisor
E-copy:
Mr. David Brown, US Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Regulatory Field Office
0

Attachment 1— Sample Upland Meadow Seed Mix for NC Piedmont
This is an example upland pollinator seed mix that is suitable for the project site. This list is not
an all-inclusive list nor does a pollinator planting project need to include all of these species. I
can help to customize a seed mix for the project area which could decrease costs if requested.
20% Indiangrass, NC Ecotype (Sorghastrum nutans, NC Ecotype)
18% Beaked Panicgrass, SC Ecotype (Panicum anceps, SC Ecotype)
14% Little Bluestem, Piedmont NC Ecotype (Schizachyrium scoparium, Piedmont NC
Ecotype)
10% Virginia Wildae, PA Ecotype (Elymus virginicus, PA Ecotype)
6% Purpletop, Southeastern VA Ecotype (Tridens flavus, Southeastern VA Ecotype)
3% Bigtop Lovegrass, VA Ecotype (Eragrostis hirsuta, VA Ecotype)
3% Blackeyed Susan, Coastal Plain NC Ecotype (Rudbeckia hirta, Coastal Plain NC
Ecot e
2.5% Sensitive Pea, NC Ecotype (Chamaecrista nictitans, NC Ecotype)
2% Lanceleaf Coreopsis, Coastal Plain NC Ecotype (Coreopsis lanceolata, Coastal Plain
NC Ecotype)
2% Spiked Wild Indigo, NC Ecotype (Baptisia albescens, NC Ecotype)
2% Winter Bentgrass, NC Ecotype (A org stir hyemalis, NC Ecotype)
2% Slender Bushclover, VA Ecotype (Lespedeza virginica, VA Ecotype)
2% Scaly Blazing Star, VA Ecotype (Liatris squarrosa, VA Ecotype)
2% Appalachian Beardtongue, SC Ecotype (Penstemon laevigatus, SC Ecotype)
2% Wild Quinine, NC Ecotype (Parthenium integrifolium, NC Ecotype)
2% Slender Indiangrass, NC Ecotype (Sorghastrum elliottii, NC Ecotype)
1% Grassleaf Blazing Star, NC Ecotype (Liatris graminifolia (L. pilosa), NC Ecotype)
1% Mistflower, VA Ecotype (Eupatorium coelestinum (Conoclinium c.), VA Ecotype)
1% Splitbeard Bluestem, VA Ecotype (Andropogon ternarius, VA Ecotype)
1% Spotted Beebalm, Coastal Plain SC Ecotype (Monarda punctata, Coastal Plain SC
Ecotype)
1% Orange Coneflower, Northern VA Ecotype (Rudbeckia fulgida var. fulgida, Northern
VA Ecotype)
0.5% Late Purple Aster, NC Ecotype (Aster patens, NC Ecotype)
0.5% Wild Indigo, Coastal Plain SC Ecotype (Baptisia tinctoria, Coastal Plain SC
Ecot e
0.5% Anise Goldenrod, GA Ecotype (Solidago odora, GA Ecotype)
0.5% Gray Goldenrod, VA Ecotype (Solidago nemoralis, VA Ecotype)
0.5% Swamp (Narrowleaf) Sunflower, Coastal Plain NC Ecotype (Helianthus
angustifolius, Coastal Plain NC Ecotype)
Total: 100%
7

Restoration Plan

RESTORATION PLAN
DENC Permanent Stream Crossing
Rutherford County, North Carolina
The proposed project has been designed to avoid and minimize jurisdictional impacts where practicable.
As part of mitigation for unavoidable impacts, the following plan shall be implemented to restore
temporarily -affected portions of the stream. This plan entails restoration of temporarily -disturbed areas to
their original contours and conditions to the degree practicable upon project completion. Aside from that
necessary to install the pipe, no additional fills or spoils of any kind will be permanently placed within or
along the stream banks. Further, disturbed areas and streambanks will be permanently stabilized with a
native vegetative cover. The measures outlined below will incorporated into the project plans.
Proposed restoration activities will include removal of placed fill material (coffer dams) and restoration of
original pre -disturbance contours. The native seed mix identified in Table 1 below will be utilized at
affected portions of the streambank.
Table 1: Riparian Seed Mix*
. • -
EI mus vir inicus
Virginia wild rye
20
A rostis perennans
Autumn bentgrass
15
Panicum vir atum
Switchgrass
15
Rudbeckia hirta
Black-eyed Susan
10
Coreo sis lanceolata
Lanceleaf Coreo sis
10
Andro 0 on gerardii
Big bluestem
10
Juncus effusus
Soft rush
5
Schizach rium sco arium
Little bluestem
5
Sorghastrum nutans
Indian grass
5
Tri sacum dact loides
Eastern Gamma
5
100
* Riparian Seed Mix to be applied to any temporarily -disturbed streambanks, extending 50 feet landward and within high ground
portions of the buffer. Recommended application rate: 20-25 lbs. per acre
To provide quicker cover, the mix specified in Table 1 should also be augmented with the appropriate
cover/companion species, as identified in Table 2.
Table 2: Cover/Companion Crops
Seca(e cerea(e
Cereal or
Early Spring
30 Ibs/acre
Grows 3-4' tall, but not a strong a
Winter rye
or Fall
competitor.
Lo(ium perenne
Perennial rye
Early Fall or
15 Ibs/acre
Shorter rye; lasts about 2 years, then dies
Spring
out.
Uroc(oo ramose
Brown Top
Spring,
15 Ibs/acre
Good germination; dies off with frost;
Millet
Summer
does not tolerate mowing.
Restoration Plan Prepared By:
S&ME, Inc.
9711 Southern Pine Blvd.
Charlotte, N.C. 28273
704.523.4726
[e-mail]
NC Suppliers of native seed and plant material:
Mellow Marsh Farm
1312 Woody Store Road
Siler City, N.C. 27334
919.742.1200 phone
www.mellowmarshfarm.com

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: DENC Access Crossing City/County: Rutherford Sampling Date: 06-Aug-19
Applicant/Owner: Dominion Energy North Carolina State: NC Sampling Point: WA
Investigator(s): J. Lawler Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Toeslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope: 5.0% / 2.9
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 in LRR P Lat.: 35.2763000 Long.: -81.9951610 Datum:
Soil Map unit Name: Pacolet sandy loam (Typic Kanhapludults) NWI classification:
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes O No O (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes * No O
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes O No O
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No O Is the Sampled Area
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes NO O
within a Wetland? Yes O No O
Remarks:
Taken in easement near stream.
Hydrology
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reouired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required;
check all that apply) _
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
0 Saturation (A3)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (Bl)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift deposits (B3)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (Dl)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
FAC-neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes O No
Depth (inches): 0
Water Table Present? Yes No O
Depth (inches): 12
Yes O No O
Saturation Present?
Yes No O
Wetland Hydrology
Depth (inches): 8
Present?
includes capillary fringe
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
WETS Data - Lake Lure 2 NC
Remarks:
Precipitation in prior three months has been normal.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata)- Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant
Sampling Point: WA
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Sapling-Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' )
1. Iuncus effusus
2. Panicum virgatum
3. Carex lurida
4. Scirpus cvperinus
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Absolute
�r .__.
Rel.Strat.
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Cover
Cover
Status
Number of Dominant Species
0
❑
0.0%
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
o
❑
o.o°ro
❑
Total Number of Dominant
0
0.0%
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
0
❑
o.o%
0
❑
o.o%
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/B)
0
❑
0.0%
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index worksheet:
0
❑
o.o%
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
0
= Total Cover
OBL species 25 x 1 = 25
0
El
0.0%
FACW species 50 x 2 = 100
0
❑
0.0%
FAC species 30 x 3 = 90
0
❑
0.0%
FACU species 0 x 4= 0
0
❑
0.0%
UPL species 0 x 5= 0
0
❑
0.0%
Column Totals: 105 (A) 215 (B)
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.048
0
❑
0.0°ro
-
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
❑
0.0%
❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0
❑
0.o%
❑ Dominance Test is > 50%
0
❑
0.o%
d❑ Prevalence Index is :53.0 1
0
= Total Cover
❑ Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
0
❑
0.00%
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
0
❑
0.0%
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
0
❑
0.0%
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
0
❑
0.0%
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
0 ❑ o.o% _
0
❑
0.0%
Four Vegetation Strata:
0
❑
0.0%
_
Tree stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in.
-
(7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH),
0
= Total Cover
regardless of height.
d❑
Sapling/shrub stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding
40
38.10%
FACW
vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
30❑
28.60%
FAC
Herb stratum - Consists of all herbaceous (non -woody) plants,
25❑
23.80%
OBL
regardless of size, and all other plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
10
❑
9.5%
FACW
Woody vines - Consists of all woody vines greater than 3.28 ft
❑
-
in height.
0
0.0%
_
0
❑
o.o%
-
Five Vegetation Strata:
0
❑
0.0°ro
❑
-
Tree -Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20
0
0.0%
ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
0
❑
0.0%
diameter at breast height (DBH).
El
-
Sapling stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
0
0.0%
vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
0
❑
0.0%
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
0
❑
0.0%
Shrub stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
-
vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
105
=Total Cover
Herb stratum - Consists of all herbaceous (non -woody) plants,
0
❑
0.00%
including herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
-
species, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1
0
❑
0.0%
m) in height.
0
❑
0.0%
Woody vines - Consists of all woody vines, regardless of
0
❑
0.0%
height.
0 ❑ 0.0%
_
Hydrophytic
0
❑
0.0%
Vegetation
Yes * No ❑
0
=Total Cover
Present?
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
*Indicator suffm = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

.Q
Sampling Point: WA
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Redox Features
(inches)
Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % TVDe 1 Locz
Texture Remarks
0-9
10YR 54/2 95
7.5YR 4/6 5 C PL
Sandy Loam
9-12
10YR 5/2 95
7.5YR 4/6 5 C M
Fine Sandy Loam
1Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains zLocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148)
El Black Histic (A3)
El Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
El Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
(MLRA 147,148)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
0 Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (Sl) (LRR N,
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (1`12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Umbric Surface (1`13) (MLRA 136, 122)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
3 Indicators of vegetation and
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
mushydrophytict
wetland hydrology must be present,
hydrology
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes * No ❑
Remarks:
Soil is hydric
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: DENC Access Crossing City/County: Rutherford Sampling Date: 06-Aug-19
Applicant/Owner: Dominion Energy North Carolina State: NC Sampling Point: WA -UP
Investigator(s): J. Lawler Section, Township, Range: S T R
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Hillside Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope: 6.0% / 3.4 °
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLRA 136 in LRR P Lat.: 35.2763000 Long.: -81.9951610 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Pacolet sandy loam (Typic Kanhapludults) NWI classification:
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes O No O (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes * No O
Are Vegetation ❑ , Soil ❑ , or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes O No O
Hydric Soil Present? Yes O No Is the Sampled Area
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes O NO 0
within a Wetland? Yes O No O
Remarks:
Taken on slope near WA
Hydrology
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reouired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required;
check all that apply) _
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (0)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑ Water Marks (Bl)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (B2)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift deposits (B3)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (Dl)
❑ Iron Deposits (B5)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
❑ FAC-neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes O No
Depth (inches): 0
Water Table Present? Yes O No
Depth (inches): 24
Yes O No O
Saturation Present?
Yes O No OO
Wetland Hydrology
Depth (inches): 24
Present?
includes capillary fringe
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
WETS Data - Lake Lure 2 NC
Remarks:
Precipitation in prior three months has been normal.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata)- Use scientific names of plants.
Dominant
Sampling Point: WA -UP
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Sapling-Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' )
1. Liquidambar styraciflua
2. Oxydendrum arboreum
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' )
1. Festuca arundinacea
2. Panicum anceps
3. Kummerowia striata
4. Sorghastrum nutans
5. Eupatorium capillifolium
6. Solidago canadensis
7. Trifolium repens
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Absolute
�r .__.
Rel.Strat.
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Cover
Cover
Status
Number of Dominant Species
0
❑
o.o%
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
o
❑
o.o°ro
❑
Total Number of Dominant
0
o.o%
Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
0
❑
o.o%
0
❑
o.o%
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50.0% (A/B)
0
❑
o.o%
0
❑
o.o%
Prevalence Index worksheet:
0
❑
o.o%
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
0
= Total Cover
OBL species 0 x 1= 0
5
�/❑
71.4%
FAC
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
2
0
28.6%
UPL
FAC species 25 x 3 = 75
0
❑
0.0%
FACU species 77 x 4 = 308
0
❑
0.0%
UPL species 2 x 5 = 10
0
❑
0.0%
column Totals: 104 (A) 393 (B)
0
❑
0.0%
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.779
0
❑
0.0°ro
-
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
❑
0.0%
❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0
❑
o.o%
❑ Dominance Test is > 50%
0
❑
o.o%
❑ Prevalence Index is :53.0 1
7
= Total Cover
❑ Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
0
❑
0.0%
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
0
❑
0.0%
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
0
❑
0.0%
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
0
❑
0.0%
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
0 ❑ o.o% _
0
❑
0.0%
Four Vegetation Strata:
0
❑
0.0%
_
Tree stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in.
-
(7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH),
0
= Total Cover
regardless of height.
d❑
Sapling/shrub stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding
40
41.2%
FACU
vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
20❑
20.6%
FAC
Herb stratum - Consists of all herbaceous (non -woody) plants,
10
❑
10.3%
FACU
regardless of size, and all other plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
10
❑
10.3%
FACU
Woody vines - Consists of all woody vines greater than 3.28 ft
in height.
10
El10.3%
FACU
5
❑
5.2%
FACU
Five Vegetation Strata:
2
❑
2.1%
FACU
❑
Tree -Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20
0
0.0%
ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
0
❑
0.0%
diameter at breast height (DBH).
El
-
Sapling stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
0
O.o%
vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
0
❑
0.0%
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
0
❑
0.0%
Shrub stratum - Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
-
vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
97
=Total Cover
Herb stratum - Consists of all herbaceous (non -woody) plants,
0
❑
0.0%
including herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
-
species, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1
0
❑
0.0%
m) in height.
0
❑
0.0%
Woody vines - Consists of all woody vines, regardless of
0
❑
0.0%
height.
0 ❑ 0.0%
_
Hydrophytic
0
❑
0.0%
Vegetation
Yes ❑ No
0
=Total Cover
Present?
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
*Indicator suffm = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

.Q
Sampling Point: WA -UP
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % TVDe 1 Locz Texture Remarks
0-12 7.5YR 4/6 90 2.5YR 4/6 10 Sandy Loam
1Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains zLocation: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148)
El Black Histic (A3)
El Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
El Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
(MLRA 147,148)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Sandy Muck Mineral (Sl) (LRR N,
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (1`12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Umbric Surface (1`13) (MLRA 136, 122)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
3 Indicators of vegetation and
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
❑ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
mushydrophytict
wetland hydrology must be present,
hydrology
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No
Remarks:
Soil is not hydric
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

NC Division of Water Quality -Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and
Perennial Streams and Their Origins v. 4.11
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 08.06.2019
Project/Site: TO B
Latitude: 35.2762700
Evaluator: J. Lawler
County: Rutherford
Longitude: _81.9951460
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent 31.25
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other
Rutherfordton South
if>_ 19 or perennial if>_ 30"
Perennial
e. Quad Name:
5
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 14.5 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1 0
2 0
30
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1 •
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0 0
10
2 0
30
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0 0
10
2 0
30
5. Active/relict floodplain
0 0
1
2
30
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1 •
2 n
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1 0
2 •
3
8. Headcuts
0 •
1
2
3
9. Grade control
00
0.50
1 •
1.50
10. Natural valley
0 0
1 0.5
1 0
1 1.50
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0 •
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 9.5 )
12. Presence of Baseflow
00
10
20
30
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1 •
20
3
14. Leaf litter
1. •
1 Q
0.50
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5 •
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
00
0.5
1 U
1 1.5 •
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = 7.25 )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
30
2 •
in
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3 •
20
10
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1R
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0 •
1
2
3
22. Fish
0 •
0.50
in
1.5
23. Crayfish
0 •
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5 •
1
1.5
25. Algae
0 •
0.5 U
10
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
10
FACW = 0.75(•)OBL =
1.500ther = 00
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
41