20171204 Ver 1_401 Application_20170917

A=COM
September 20, 2017
Ms. Rachel Capito
Regulatory Specialist
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District (SAW)
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
AECOM 919 854 6200 tel
701 Corporate Center Drive 919 854 6259 fax
Suite 475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
www.aecom.com
Re: PNG Line 434
Robeson, Scotland, and Richmond Counties, North Carolina
USACE ID: SAW -2016-02207
Dear Ms. Capito:
AECOM, on behalf of Piedmont Natural Gas (PNG) is submitting a Pre -construction Notification (PCN)
application for the PNG Line 434 Looping and Extension project for your review and approval. The
project is located in Robeson, Scotland, and Richmond counties, North Carolina. In accordance with
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344), we are requesting authorization for a Department of
the Army Nationwide Permit #12 to disturb Waters of the United States (WOUS) for the installation of a
30 -inch natural gas pipeline. The project would temporarily impact 43.87 acres of wetlands, 2,691 linear
feet of streams, and 0.15 acre of open water during construction activities. The project would convert
27.76 acres of forested wetlands to an emergent wetland condition to accommodate the permanently
cleared pipeline easement. No permanent fill within wetlands or streams is proposed.
Please find enclosed a supporting documentation package that includes a detailed project description and
WOUS impact plans. An electronic copy of the PCN package is included on the enclosed CD.
We would appreciate you issuing approval of the NWP #12 for the subject property at your earliest
convenience. If you would like to arrange a site visit or if you should have any questions regarding the
information submitted, please contact me at [phone] or by email at charles.benton(cbaecom.com.
Sincerely,
AECOM — North Carolina
I �
1
A Ur
Charles E. Benton, PWS
Senior Environmental Scientist
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Jason Brown, PNG
Ms. Alicia DePalma, PNG
Jennifer Burdette, NC DEQ-DWR

Page intentionally blank
Inserted for double sided printing

r611Piedmont
Natural Gas
January 12, 2017
RE: Authorization for AECOM to act as Agent on behalf of Owner
To whom it may concern:
This letter is to confirm that AECOM, 701 Corporate Center Drive, STE 475 Park Drive, Raleigh, North
Carolina, 27607, is acting as agent on behalf of Piedmont Natural Gas for the Line 434 Project
located in Robeson, Scotland and Richland counties, North Carolina. This authorization is for the
delineation of jurisdictional water resources, and processing of subsequent permit applications,
including:
• U.S. Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 404 Clean Water Act- Nationwide Permit 12; and
• N.C. Department of the Environmental Quality - Division of Water Resources (NCDEQ-DWR)
Section 401 Clean Water Act- Water Quality Certification
Any required written correspondence concerning the application process or other aspects of this
project should be jointly copied to AECOM and Piedmont Natural Gas at the address shown below:
Name: Jason A. Brown, PMP
Title: Engineering Project Manager
Organization: Piedmont Natural Gas
Address: 4720 Piedmont Row Drive, Charlotte, NC 28210
Please contact Charles Benton of AECOM with any questions at [phone].
Sincerely
Jason A. Brown
P.O. Box 33068 • Charlotte, North Carolina 28233
piedmontng.com

Page intentionally blank
Inserted for double sided printing

O�0� W ATF9OG
1 1 �_ �
. O Y
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.4 January 2009
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A.
Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1 a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
❑X Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permit
1 b.
Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 12 or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑X Yes ❑ No
1 d.
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
❑X 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e.
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ
401 Certification:
❑ Yes NX No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes NX No
1f.
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for
mitigation of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank
or in -lieu fee program.
NX Yes N No
1 g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
❑ Yes ❑X No
1 h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes NX No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
PNG Line 434 30 -inch Natural Gas Pipeline
2b.
County:
Robeson, Scotland, and Richmond Counties
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Laurinburg, NC
2d.
Subdivision name:
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no:
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
See Section A.1 and Appendix A in attached Supporting Documentation
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
3d.
Street address:
3e.
City, state, zip:
3f.
Telephone no.:
3g.
Fax no.:
3h.
Email address:
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4.
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a.
Applicant is:
❑ Agent ❑X Other, specify:
4b.
Name:
Jason A. Brown, PMP
4c.
Business name
(if applicable):
Piedmont Natural Gas
4d.
Street address:
4720 Piedmont Row Drive
4e.
City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC 28210
4f.
Telephone no.:
704-731-4681
4g.
Fax no.:
4h.
Email address:
Jason. [e-mail]
5.
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a.
Name:
Charles Benton
5b.
Business name
(if applicable):
AECOM
5c.
Street address:
701 Corporate Center Dr. STE 475
5d.
City, state, zip:
Raleigh, NC, 27607
5e.
Telephone no.:
919-854-6250
5f.
Fax no.:
5g.
Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 2 of 10

B.
Project Information and Prior Project History
1.
Property Identification
1a.
Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
See Appendix A in attached Supporting Documentation
1 b.
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 34.795747 Longitude: -79.459503
1 c.
Property size:
1,313 acres
2.
Surface Waters
2a.
Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
See B.2: Table 1 in attached Supporting Documentation
2b.
Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
See B.2: Table 1 in attached Supporting Documentation
2c.
River basin:
Lower Pee Dee - 03040201; 03040203; and 03040204
3.
Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
See Section B.3 - Project Description in attached Supporting Documentation
3b.
List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: 253
3c.
List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: 6,623
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
See Section B.3 - Project Description in attached Supporting Documentation
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
See Section B.3 - Project Description in attached Supporting Documentation
4.
Jurisdictional Determinations
4a.
Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (includingall prior phases)in the past?
❑X Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
Comments:
4b.
If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made?
❑X Preliminary ❑ Final
4c.
If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known):
Agency/Consultant Company: AECOM
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
July 21, 2017 (SAW -2016-02207). See Section BA - Jurisdictional Determinations in attached Supporting Documentation.
5.
Project History
5a.
Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑ Yes ❑X No ❑ Unknown
5b.
If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6.
Future Project Plans
6a.
Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ❑X No
6b.
If yes, explain.
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.4 January 2009

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
❑X Wetlands ❑X Streams —tributaries ❑ Buffers ❑X Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
Wetland impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
2b.
Type of impact
2c.
Type of wetland
2d.
Forested
2e.
Type of jurisdiction
Corps (404,10) or
DWQ (401, other)
2f.
Area of
impact
(acres)
W1
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
Corps
W2
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
W3
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
W4
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
W5
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
W6
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
2g. Total Wetland Impacts:
71.63
2h. Comments:
See Table 2, Wetland Impacts, in Section C.2 - in attached Supporting Documentation.
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
Stream impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
3b.
Type of impact
3c.
Stream name
3d.
Perennial (PER) or
intermittent (INT)?
3e.
Type of
jurisdiction
3f.
Average
stream
width
(feet)
3g.
Impact
length
(linear
feet)
S1
Choose one
S2
Choose one
S3
Choose one
S4
Choose one
S5
Choose one
S6
Choose one
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
2,691.1
3i. Comments:
See Table 3, Stream Impacts, in Section C.3 - in attached Supporting Documentation.
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then indivi ually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water
impact number
Permanent (P) or
Tem orar T
4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable)
4c.
Type of impact
4d.
Waterbody
type
4e.
Area of impact (acres)
01 T
Map ID - PE1
Excavation
Pond
0.11
O2 T
Map ID - PE3
Excavation
Pond
0.04
03
Choose one
Choose
04
Choose one
Choose
4f. Total open water impacts
0.15
4g. Comments: See Sheet 65 in the attached WOUS Plans. Both of these ponds are linear excavated features.
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, the complete the chart below.
5a.
Pond ID number
5b.
Proposed use or
purpose of pond
5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d.
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e.
Upland
(acres)
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
P1
Choose one
P2
Choose one
5f. Total:
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitiqlation, then vou MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a. Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar -Pamlico ❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman ❑ Other:
6b.
Buffer Impact
number-
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Stream name
6e.
Buffer
mitigation
required?
6f.
Zone 1
impact
(square
feet)
6g.
Zone 2
impact
(square
feet
61
Yes/No
132
Yes/No
B3
Yes/No
B4
Yes/No
B5
Yes/No
B6
Yes/No
6h. Total Buffer Impacts:
6i. Comments:
Page 5 of 10

D.
Impact Justification and Mitigation
1.
Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
See Section D.1 - Avoidance and Minimization in attached Supporting Documentation.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
See Section D.1 - Avoidance and Minimization in attached Supporting Documentation.
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?
❑X Yes ❑ No
2b.
If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑X DWQ ❑X Corps
2c.
If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
❑X Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3.
Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a.
Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b.
Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Quantity:
Quantity:
Quantity:
3c.
Comments:
4.
Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.X❑
Yes
4b.
Stream mitigation requested:
linear feet
4c.
If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
Choose one
4d.
Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e.
Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
20.09 acres
4f.
Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested:
7.67 acres
4g.
Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
0 acres
4h.
Comments: See Table 4 in Section D.2 - Wetland Compensatory Mitigation in the attached Supporting Documentation.
5.
Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a.
If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation?
❑ Yes ❑X No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 7 of 10

E.
Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1.
Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a.
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ❑X No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b.
If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
The project is not located in one of the watersheds where the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules are in
❑ Yes ❑ No
place.
2.
Stormwater Management Plan
2a.
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
0
2b.
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ❑X No
2c.
If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
The proposed project involves a natural gas pipeline installation and will not increase the area of impervious land surface.
2d.
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
2e.
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a.
In which localgovernment's jurisdiction is thisproject?
❑ Phase II
❑ NSW
3b.
Which of the following locally -implemented stormwater management programs
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
El Yes ❑ No
attached?
4.
DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑Coastal counties
❑HQW
4a.
Which of the following state -implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ORW
(check all that apply):
❑Session Law 2006-246
❑ Other:
4b.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
5.
DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a.
Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b.
Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 8 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

F.
Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1a.
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
❑ Yes
❑X No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
El Yes
❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c.
If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
❑ Yes
❑ No
letter.)
Comments:
2.
Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a.
Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑ Yes
❑X No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b.
Is this an after -the -fact permit application?
❑Yes
❑X No
2c.
If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3.
Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a.
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑Yes
❑X No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
The
proposed project involves a natural gas pipeline installation, and will not increase the area of impervious land surface. No additional
development
will occur as a result of the project.
4.
Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a.
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non -discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
❑X Yes ❑ No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
❑X Yes ❑ No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Raleigh
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Element Occurrences and field surveys. See Section F.5 - Endangered Species and Designated Critical
Habitat in attached Supporting Documentation for a full discussion of Endangered Species issues associated with this project.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ❑X No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NOAA Essential Fish Habitat Mapper
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
❑ Yes ❑X No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
The North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office GIS Web Service and field surveys. See Section F.7 - Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources
in attached Supporting Documentation for a full discussion.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA -designated 100 -year floodplain?
❑X Yes ❑ No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Maps Service Center, several 100 -year floodplains occur within the project
area. No above ground structures are proposed within the floodplain areas. No impacts to floodplains are anticipated. All floodplain areas excavated
for the installation of the pipeline will be restored to their existing condition. See Figure 5 in Appendix B in attached Supporting Documentation.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
FEMA Flood Map Service Center
Charles Benton - AECOM
09-14-2017
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Date
Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization
letter from the applicant is provided.
Page 10 of 10

PNG Line 434 30 -inch Natural Gas Pipeline
r6,11 Piedmont
Natural Gas
September 2017

Page intentionally blank
Inserted for double sided printing

0111 Piedmont
Natural Gas Supporting Documentation for PCN Application
Table of Contents
A. Applicant Information..................................................................................................................................1
A.1 Owner Information.....................................................................................................................................1
B. Project Information and General Project History..........................................................................................1
B.1 Property Identification................................................................................................................................1
B.2 Nearest Body of Water and Water Quality Classification..........................................................................1
B.3 Project Description......................................................................................................................................2
B.4 Jurisdictional Determinations.....................................................................................................................3
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory.........................................................................................................................3
C.1 Impacts Summary............................................................................................................................................3
C.1.1 Temporary Impacts................................................................................................................................3
C.1.2 Permanent Impacts................................................................................................................................3
C.2 Wetland Impacts.............................................................................................................................................3
C.3 Stream Impacts...............................................................................................................................................9
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation............................................................................................................10
D.1 Avoidance and Minimization....................................................................................................................10
D.2 Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State...............................10
F. Supplementary Information.......................................................................................................................11
F.S Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat...................................................................................11
F.5.1 Wild and Scenic Rivers.........................................................................................................................12
F.7 Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources......................................................................................................12
List of Tables
Table 1. Water Quality Classification of Named Streams within the Project Vicinity..............................................1
Table2. Wetland Impacts......................................................................................................................................3
Table3. Stream Impacts........................................................................................................................................9
Table 4. Wetland Compensatory Mitigation........................................................................................................11
Appendices
Appendix A: Property Owners List.........................................................................................................................A
AppendixB: Figures...............................................................................................................................................B
Appendix C: USACE Preliminary JD.........................................................................................................................0
Appendix D: RIBITs Report and NCDEQ DMS Mitigation Acceptance Letter.......................................................... D
AppendixE: USFWS Coordination.......................................................................................................................... E
Appendix F: NPS Coordination Letter..................................................................................................................... F
AppendixG: NC HPO Coordination....................................................................................................................... G
PNU Line 4A Extension Project

Page intentionally blank
Inserted for double sided printing

r6111Piedmont
Natural Gas Supporting Documentation for PCN Application
The following sections correspond to the sections located in the Pre -Construction Notification (PCN)
Form that require additional space to provide a full response.
A. Applicant Information
A 2 Owner Information
A list of owner properties is provided in Appendix A. Piedmont Natural Gas (PNG) will have an easement
agreement with each property owner prior to construction activities.
_ Project Information and General Project History
^ 7 Property Identification
A list of owner properties is provided in Appendix A. Figure 1 in Appendix B depicts the project location.
2 Nearest Body of Water and Water Qualitv Classification
The project area is located in the Lower Pee Dee River Basin (HUCs 03040201, 03040203, and 03040204)
(Figure 1 in Appendix B). Named streams within the vicinity of project area and their Water Quality
Classifications are listed in Table 1.
Table 1. Water Quality Classification of Named Streams within the Project Vicinity
Label
Stream Name n�llndex
Number
QualityWatershed
Water
C; Sw
SA
Bear Swamp
14-9-(0.5)
SB
Mill Branch
14-6
C
SC
Little Juniper Branch
14-5-2
C
SD
Gum Swamp
14-5
C
SE
Lumber River
14-(4.5)
B, Sw, HQW
SF
Maxton Branch
14-34-7
C, Sw
SG
Shoe Heel Creek (Big Shoe Heel
Creek/Maxton Pond)
14-34
C, Sw
SH
McCormick Pond
14-34-6
C, Sw
SI
Leith Creek (Johns Pond)
14-33
C Sw
Si
McNair Fishpond
14-33-1
C, Sw
SK
Gum Swamp Creek (Richmond
Mill Lake)
14-32-(7)
B
SL
UpperBeaverdam Creek
14-32-9
B
SM
Lower Beaverdam Creek
14-32-13
C; Sw
SN
McNeil Pond
14-32-14-3
C; Sw
SO
Joes Creek (Guinns Mill Pond)
14-32-14
C, Sw
SP
Crooked Creek
13-48
B
PNG Line 434 Extension Project 1

r6111Piedmont
Natural Gas Supporting Documentation for PCN Application
B.3 Project Description
The proposed project is located in the Southeastern Plains Ecoregion of southeastern North Carolina
(MLRA 133A) within Richmond, Scotland, and Robeson counties. Land use within the area consists of
rural housing, agriculture, commercial businesses and military installations. The Laurinburg-Maxton
Airport, Gryphon Group Military Training Center, large solar power facilities, and a 400 -acre certified
megasite are all located within a mile of the proposed pipeline. Cities and towns within the vicinity
include Maxton, Prospect, Laurel Hill, and Laurinburg.
Rolling hills capped with sandy soils characterize the topography of the Sandhills region, which
comprises approximately one-third of the study area. The remaining project study area is within the
coastal plain, which contains unique oval depression features known as Carolina Bays and very little
other topographic variation. The Sandhills region is comprised of a very specific forest system adapted
to live within its harsh environment that is dominated by turkey oak and longleaf pine with a wiregrass
understory. Upland soils in the study area are dominated by Autryville sand and Norfolk loamy sand,
while Wakulla and Candor soils and Rains sandy loam are often found in the wetter areas. Elevations in
the project area range from about 180 to 340 feet above mean sea level. Upland vegetative
communities in the project area are predominantly agriculture, loblolly pine plantation, and
undeveloped forestland. Vegetative communities in the lower and wetter areas of the project area are
mostly Carolina Bays.
In order to meet customer demand, PNG is proposing the Line 434 Looping and Extension Project to
expand their existing system. PNG will be installing approximately 28 miles of 30 -inch new pipeline that
will loop the existing 20 -inch Line 175 (Sutton Line), collocated with the existing line.. This new line will
begin at Junction A near the intersection of Prospect Road and Highway 710 in Robeson County (Figure 1
in Appendix B), and will run west for approximately 28 miles to reconnect with Line 175. An additional 7
miles of 30 -inch pipeline will begin at the western tie-in of the 28 mile line, and extend to Duke Energy's
Smith Energy Center near Hamlet in Richmond County.
Standard pipeline construction equipment will be used to install the new pipeline. Horizontal Directional
Drilling (HDD) will be used to cross wide wetlands and streams within the project easement. The project
would maintain a permanently cleared easement ranging from 20 feet to 70 feet within the pipeline
corridor. Temporary Work Space (TWS) and Extra Work Space (EWS), typically ranging from 20 to 110
feet, will be required to install the new pipeline. Post -construction, the TWS and EWS will be seeded
with a native grass mix and allowed to revert back to a forested condition via natural seed recruitment
from the adjacent canopy. Detailed construction methods are presented on the enclosed Line 434
Pipeline Project WOUS Plans.
PNG is requesting a Department of the Army Nationwide #12 permit for the proposed project for
unavoidable impacts to Waters of the US (WOUS) from temporary construction activities, and the
PNG Line 434 Extension Project 2

r6111Piedmont
Natural Gas Supporting Documentation for PCN Application
permanent conversion of forested wetlands to emergent wetlands for the permanent pipeline
easement. No permanent fill in wetlands or streams is proposed.
13.4 Jurisdictional Determinations
AECOM conducted a field delineation of jurisdictional water resources within the project study area in
November and December of 2016, and in March, April, and June of 2017. A preliminary Jurisdictional
Determination (JD) request was submitted to the USACE on June 21, 2017. A preliminary JD for the
project was issued on July 21, 2017 (SAW -2016-02207) (Appendix C).
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
C.1 Impacts Summary
Below, Table 2 lists the proposed project wetland impacts, and Table 3 lists the proposed project stream
impacts. Table 4 in the PCN form lists the proposed project open water impacts. Detailed impacts are
depicted on the enclosed Line 434 Pipeline Project WOUS Plans.
C.1.1 Temporary Impacts
Temporary wetland impacts (43.87 acres) would be associated with construction activities, including the
excavation of the pipeline trench through non -forested wetlands and the clearing of forested wetlands
within the TWS and EWS areas and five access roads. Post construction, the TWS and EWS will be
seeded with a native grass mix and allowed to revert back to a forested condition via natural seed
recruitment from the adjacent canopy.
Temporary stream impacts (2,691.1 linear feet) and pond impacts (0.15 acre) would occur for the open
cut of the pipeline excavation trench and by construction equipment crossings. During construction,
bridges, mats, and temporary culverts will be used for construction vehicle crossings. Post construction,
stream beds and banks will be restored to pre -construction condition.
C.1.2 Permanent Impacts
Per safety protocols, and to accommodate the utility line maintenance easement, the permanent
easement will permanently convert forested wetlands (27.76 acres) to an emergent wetland condition.
No permanent fill in wetlands or streams is proposed.
C.2 Wetland Impacts
Table 2. Wetland Impacts
1
WR1
P Land Clearing
Headwater Forest
Yes
Corps
0.42
Non -Tidal
1
WR1
T Land Clearing
No
Corps
0.20
Freshwater Marsh
PNG Line 434 Extension Project 3

ONPiedmont
Natural Gas Supporting Documentation for PCN Application
PNG Line 434 Extension Project
Type
W Ir
Wetland
mpact numb
2c.
2d.
2f.
Plan
Sheet #
Permanent P
Type of
impac
ype
of wetland
Foreste
Corps
404110).
im pact
Temporaryor
. -�
5
WQ3
P
Excavation
Headwater Forest
Yes
Corps
0.07
5
WQ3
T
Excavation
Headwater Forest
Yes
Corps
0.66
7
WQ2
P
Excavation
Headwater Forest
Yes
Corps
0.08
7
WQ2
T
Excavation
Headwater Forest
Yes
Corps
0.23
7/8
WQ1
P
Excavation
Headwater Forest
Yes
Corps
0.03
7/8
WQ1
T
Excavation
Headwater Forest
Yes
Corps
1.46
RPWQ
Non -Tidal
8
T
Excavation
No
Corps
0.04
1
Freshwater Marsh
gottomland
9/10
WP3
P
Excavation
Yes
Corps
0.12
Hardwood Forest
gottomland
9/10
WP3
T
Excavation
Yes
Corps
1.04
Hardwood Forest
11
W131
T
Excavation
Seep
No
Corps
0.46
11
WP2
P
Excavation
Headwater Forest
Yes
Corps
0.23
11
W132
T
Excavation
Headwater Forest
Yes
Corps
0.58
13
WO5
P
Excavation
Headwater Forest
Yes
Corps
0.09
13
WO5
T
Excavation
Headwater Forest
Yes
Corps
0.12
13/14
WO4
P
Excavation
Headwater Forest
Yes
Corps
0.04
13/14
WO4
T
Excavation
Headwater Forest
Yes
Corps
0.55
15
WO3
P
Excavation
Headwater Forest
Yes
Corps
0.05
15
WO3
T
Excavation
Headwater Forest
Yes
Corps
0.32
16
WO2
T
Excavation
Hardwood Flat
Yes
Corps
0.14
gottomland
20
WO1
P
Excavation
Yes
Corps
0.46
Hardwood Forest
gottomland
20
WO1
T
Excavation
Yes
Corps
1.02
Hardwood Forest
20
WN3
P
Excavation
Headwater Forest
Yes
Corps
0.07
20
WN3
T
Excavation
Headwater Forest
Yes
Corps
0.29
23
WM2
P
Excavation
Hardwood Flat
Yes
Corps
0.17
23
WM2
T
Excavation
Hardwood Flat
Yes
Corps
0.27
24
WM3
P
Excavation
Pocosin
Yes
Corps
1.48
24
WM3
T
Excavation
Pocosin
Yes
Corps
1.94
Non-Riverine
25
WM5
P
Excavation
Yes
Corps
0.32
Swamp Forest
Non-Riverine
25
WM5
T
Excavation
Yes
Corps
0.30
Swamp Forest
PNG Line 434 Extension Project

ONPiedmont
Natural Gas Supporting Documentation for PCN Application
PNG Line 434 Extension Project
Type
IrPermanent
Wetland
iml
mpact numnlbe
2c.
2d.
2f.
rea of
Plan
Sheet #
(P
(P
Type of
..40410.
Corps
..
or
Temporaryor
. -� 1
(mai
Bottomland
29
WL2
P
Excavation
Yes
Corps
1.05
Hardwood Forest
Bottomland
29
WL2
T
Excavation
Yes
Corps
0.65
Hardwood Forest
Bottomland
30/31
WK9
P
Land Clearing
Yes
Corps
2.07
Hardwood Forest
Bottomland
30/31
WK9
T
Land Clearing
Yes
Corps
1.12
Hardwood Forest
WK9
Bottomland
30/31
P
Land Clearing
Yes
Corps
0.08
PSS
Hardwood Forest
Bottomland
32
WK10
P
Land Clearing
Yes
Corps
1.55
Hardwood Forest
Bottomland
32
WK10
T
Land Clearing
Yes
Corps
0.61
Hardwood Forest
Non -Tidal
37
WK8
T
Excavation
No
Corps
6.35
Freshwater Marsh
41
RPW13
T
Excavation
Headwater Forest
Yes
Corps
0.03
Bottomland
41
W15
P
Excavation
Yes
Corps
0.05
Hardwood Forest
Bottomland
41
W15
T
Excavation
Yes
Corps
0.09
Hardwood Forest
Bottomland
42
W14
P
Excavation
Yes
Corps
0.02
Hardwood Forest
Bottomland
42
W14
T
Excavation
Yes
Corps
1.54
Hardwood Forest
Bottomland
42/43
W13
P
Excavation
Yes
Corps
0.03
Hardwood Forest
Bottomland
42/43
W13
T
Excavation
Yes
Corps
0.05
Hardwood Forest
Non -Tidal
43
RPW12
T
Excavation
No
Corps
0.01
Freshwater Marsh
Bottomland
44
W12
P
Excavation
Yes
Corps
0.65
Hardwood Forest
Bottomland
44
W12
T
Excavation
Yes
Corps
0.98
Hardwood Forest
45
W11
P
Excavation
Headwater Forest
Yes
Corps
0.14
45
W11
T
Excavation
Headwater Forest
Yes
Corps
0.10
47
WA
T
Excavation
Seep
No
Corps
0.02
47/48
WJ2
P
Excavation
Hardwood Flat
Yes
Corps
0.01
PNG Line 434 Extension Project

r6111Piedmont
Natural Gas Supporting Documentation for PCN Application
PNG Line 434 Extension Project
Type
IrPermanent
Wetland
iml ..
2f.
Plan
Sheet #
(P
(P
Type of
..
Corps
�- �.
..ct
Temporaryor
Yes
. -� 1
Corps
(mai
0.54
47/48
WJ2
T
Excavation
Hardwood Flat
48/49
WJ1
P
Excavation
Pocosin
Yes
Corps
1.11
48/49
WJ1
T
Excavation
Pocosin
Yes
Corps
4.33
Non -Tidal
50
RPW11
T
Excavation
No
Corps
0.04
Freshwater Marsh
Non -Tidal
51
RPWH5
T
Excavation
No
Corps
0.02
Freshwater Marsh
Non -Tidal
51
RPWH6
T
Excavation
No
Corps
0.06
Freshwater Marsh
Non -Tidal
51/52
RPWH4
T
Excavation
No
Corps
0.02
Freshwater Marsh
Non -Tidal
52
RPWH1
T
Excavation
No
Corps
0.03
Freshwater Marsh
Non -Tidal
52
RPWH2
T
Excavation
No
Corps
0.02
Freshwater Marsh
Non -Tidal
52
RPWH3
T
Excavation
No
Corps
0.02
Freshwater Marsh
Non -Tidal
54
RPWH8
T
Excavation
No
Corps
0.04
Freshwater Marsh
Non -Tidal
54
RPWH9
T
Excavation
No
Corps
0.04
Freshwater Marsh
Non -Tidal
55
RPWG1
T
Excavation
No
Corps
0.03
Freshwater Marsh
Non -Tidal
55/56
RPWG2
T
Excavation
No
Corps
0.08
Freshwater Marsh
56
WG4
T
Excavation
Seep
No
Corps
0.14
56/57/58
WG2
P
Land Clearing
Riverine Swamp
Yes
Corps
3.72
Forest
59
WF2
P
Excavation
Hardwood Flat
Yes
Corps
0.02
59
WF2
T
Excavation
Hardwood Flat
Yes
Corps
0.20
61
WE3
P
Excavation
Hardwood Flat
Yes
Corps
0.10
61
WE3
T
Excavation
Hardwood Flat
Yes
Corps
0.14
Non -Tidal
63
RPWE1
T
Excavation
No
Corps
0.04
Freshwater Marsh
64/65
WE2
P
Land Clearing
Riverine Swamp
Yes
Corps
2.63
Forest
64/65
WE2
T
Land Clearing
Riverine Swamp
Yes
Corps
0.10
Forest
65/66
WE1
P
Excavation
Headwater Forest
Yes
Corps
2.38
PNG Line 434 Extension Project

ONPiedmont
Natural Gas Supporting Documentation for PCN Application
PNG Line 434 Extension Project
Type
Ir
Wetland
mpact numb
2c.
2d.
2f.
Plan
Sheet #
Permanent P
If
Type of
impac
ype
of wetland
Foreste
Corps
404110).
im pact
Temporaryor
. -�
65/66
WE1
T
Excavation
Headwater Forest
Yes
Corps
4.03
Non -Tidal
68
RPWD2
T
Excavation
No
Corps
0.02
Freshwater Marsh
68/69
WD2
P
Excavation
Pine Flat
Yes
Corps
3.05
68/69
WD2
T
Excavation
Pine Flat
Yes
Corps
5.82
Non -Tidal
69
RPWD1
T
Excavation
No
Corps
0.03
Freshwater Marsh
Non -Tidal
70
RPWD3
T
Excavation
No
Corps
0.01
Freshwater Marsh
70
WD3
P
Excavation
Pocosin
Yes
Corps
0.62
70
WD3
T
Excavation
Pocosin
Yes
Corps
0.90
71/72/73
WD1
P
Land Clearing
Headwater Forest
Yes
Corps
3.62
71/72/73
WD1
T
Excavation
Headwater Forest
Yes
Corps
1.28
73/74
WC2
P
Excavation
Hardwood Flat
Yes
Corps
0.55
73/74
WC2
T
Excavation
Hardwood Flat
Yes
Corps
0.53
Non -Tidal
74
RPWC4
T
Excavation
No
Corps
0.02
Freshwater Marsh
Non -Tidal
75
RPWC3
T
Excavation
No
Corps
0.01
Freshwater Marsh
Non -Tidal
75
RPWC2
T
Excavation
No
Corps
0.03
Freshwater Marsh
Bottomland
75/76
WC1
P
Excavation
Yes
Corps
0.21
Hardwood Forest
Bottomland
75/76
WC1
T
Excavation
Yes
Corps
0.79
Hardwood Forest
Non -Tidal
76
RPWC1
T
Excavation
No
Corps
0.02
Freshwater Marsh
77/78
W134
P
Excavation
Pine Flat
Yes
Corps
0.37
77/78
W134
T
Excavation
Pine Flat
Yes
Corps
1.78
Non -Tidal
78
RPWB5
T
Excavation
No
Corps
0.01
Freshwater Marsh
Non -Tidal
78
RPWB6
T
Excavation
No
Corps
0.02
Freshwater Marsh
Non -Tidal
78
RPWB7
T
Excavation
No
Corps
0.01
Freshwater Marsh
Non -Tidal
80
RPWB2
T
Excavation
No
Corps
0.02
Freshwater Marsh
80
W132
P
Excavation
Headwater Forest
Yes
Corps
0.05
PNG Line 434 Extension Project

ONPiedmont
Natural Gas Supporting Documentation for PCN Application
PNG Line 434 Extension Project
I
Type
IrPermanent
Wetland
mpact numnIbe
2c. 2d.
2.f.
Plan
Sheet #
or ..
Type of
..
Corps
�- �.
..
. -0
Corps
Excavation
Headwater Forest Yes
80
W132
T
0.36
80
W133
P
Excavation
Headwater Forest Yes
Corps
0.05
80
W133
T
Excavation
Headwater Forest Yes
Corps
0.37
Non -Tidal
81
RPWB1
T
Excavation
No
Corps
0.04
Freshwater Marsh
81
W131
T
Excavation
Hardwood Flat Yes
Corps
0.33
L434 -W-
WR1
T
Land Clearing
Headwater Forest Yes
Corps
0.23
AR -1
L434 -W-
WQ2
T
Land Clearing
Headwater Forest Yes
Corps
0.01
AR -5B
L434 -W-
WO5
T
Land Clearing
Headwater Forest Yes
Corps
0.06
AR -8
L434 -W-
WN3
T
Land Clearing
Headwater Forest Yes
Corps
0.07
AR -15
L434 -W-
Non -Tidal
RPWD3
T
Land Clearing
No
Corps
0.01
AR -46B
Freshwater Marsh
2g. Total Wetland Impacts:
71.63
PNG Line 434 Extension Project

r6111Piedmont
Natural Gas Supporting Documentation for PCN Application
C.3 Stream Impacts
Table 3. Stream Impacts
PNG Line 434 Extension Project
hO
ou
Ian
Stream impact
number
Permanent (P)
TemporaryStream
or
(T)
.
..
ri
Name
.m
f
Ig
streal
feet
f t
length
near feet)
(INT)
UT to
8
SQ1
T
Excavation
Lightwood
PER
Corps
5
176.8
Knot Creek
Crooked
9
SP4
T
Excavation
PER
Corps
6
142.1
Creek
UT to Crooked
11
SP1
T
Excavation
PER
Corps
1
147.1
Creek
UT to Joes
11
SP3
T
Excavation
PER
Corps
5
143.5
Creek
UT to Joes
13
SO4
T
Excavation
PER
Corps
3
208.7
Creek
UT to Joes
14
503
T
Excavation
PER
Corps
5
199.9
Creek
UT to Joes
15
SO2
T
Excavation
PER
Corps
4
143.7
Creek
20
SO1
T
Excavation
Joes Creek
PER
Corps
18
236.8
UT to Leith
41
S12
T
Excavation
PER
Corps
4
150.9
Creek
UT to LeithCreek
43
S11
T
Excavation
PER
Corps
6
132.9
UT to Lumber
65
SEI
T
Excavation
PER
Corps
6
212.7
River
UT to GumSwamp
68
SD2
T
Excavation
PER
Corps
7
223.1
Little Juniper
75
SC2
T
Excavation
PER
Corps
7
167.6
Branch
UT to Little
76
SC1
T
Excavation
Juniper
PER
Corps
6
136.9
Branch
UT to Mill
78
SB2
T
Excavation
PER
Corps
13
136.7
Branch
79
SBI
T
Excavation
Mill Branch
PER
Corps
16
131.7
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
2,691.1
PNG Line 434 Extension Project

r6111Piedmont
Natural Gas Supporting Documentation for PCN Application
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
D.1 Avoidance and Minimization
Throughout the project development and preliminary engineering design process, efforts have been
made to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands and streams. To minimize the amount of vegetative
clearing and ground disturbance, the proposed pipeline corridor runs parallel to existing pipeline and
transmission line easements to the greatest extent practicable. In this way, the new permanent
easement can use a portion of existing easements that have already been cleared of vegetation.
However, divergence from the existing pipeline and transmission line easements occurs in various
locations due to construction constraints. In addition, the HDD technique would be used to avoid
impacting the stream bed and banks of the Lumber River crossing (WE2), and several other wide
wetland/stream crossings (WR1, WK9, WK10, WG2, and WD1). Access roads were selected using
existing dirt roads (e.g., farm roads) requiring minimal improvements, which already have culverts in
place that do not need to be expanded to accommodate the construction equipment.
Throughout the approximately 35 -mile pipeline easement, there are many Waters of the US that flow
perpendicular to the proposed easement, which makes total avoidance not practicable. Construction
activities would be conducted in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations, as well as best
management practices (BMPs), including the NCDEQ Manual of Stormwater Best Management
Practices, the North Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual, and the Design
Standards in Sensitive Watersheds (15A NCAC 04B.0124). Construction staging areas would be located
away from wetlands, and preserved wetland areas would be demarcated prior to construction.
All work in or adjacent to stream waters would be conducted so that the flowing stream does not come
in contact with the disturbed area. Wetlands anticipated to be temporarily affected by construction
would be crossed using mats and restored to their original condition post construction. Wetlands would
be seeded with a native grass mix and allowed to revert back to a forested condition via natural seed
recruitment from the adjacent canopy. All streams crossed using open -cut techniques will be restored to
their original condition. All unavoidable stream crossings will be bridged, and erosion control measures
will be installed to keep sediment out of streams.
D.2 Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
In accordance with the Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources Final Rule (33 CFR Part
332), the USACE 2008 Regulatory Guidance Letter 08-03, and North Carolina G.S. § 143-214.11 and 143-
214.20, PNG first tried to obtain all of the required wetland credits from a private mitigation bank
located within the proposed project's service area. According to the Regulatory In -Lieu Fee and Bank
Information Tracking System (RIBITS) report, run on September 6, 2017, no private commercial
mitigation banks service the projects area (Appendix D).
As such, to compensate for the unavoidable 27.76 acres of conversion impacts (27.68 acres of forest -to -
emergent wetland conversion impacts and 0.08 acre of scrub/shrub-to-emergent wetland conversion
impacts), PNG proposes to make payment to the in -lieu fee mitigation program administered by the NC
Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) (Table 4, below).
Piedmont proposes a 1:1 mitigation ratio for the conversion impacts. The DMS acceptance letter is
located in Appendix D. No mitigation is proposed for the temporary wetland and stream impacts, as
they would be restored to their original condition.
PNG Line 434 Extension Project 10

r6111Piedmont
Natural Gas Supporting Documentation for PCN Application
Table 4. Wetland Compensatory Mitigation
F. Supplementary Information
F.5 Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat
No project impacts to federally listed threatened or endangered species are anticipated. The proposed
project has received a "May affect, not likely to adversely affect" or "No effect" determination from the
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for all of the listed species in Robeson, Scotland, and Richmond
counties (Appendix E). A discussion of the background research, field studies, and coordination with the
USFWS follows.
Prior to conducting field surveys, federally listed endangered and threatened species data were
obtained from online database searches of the USFWS and NC Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP).
There are seven threatened or endangered species listed in Robeson, Scotland, and/or Richmond
counties. These include two animal species, American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) and red -
cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis). Five plant species are also listed in these counties,
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii), rough -leaf loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia),
Canby's dropwort (Oxypolis canbyi), Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii), and American chaffseed
(Schwalbea americana). According to the NCNHP database, only red -cockaded woodpecker (RCW) is
known to occur within one mile of the project area.
A habitat assessment of each of the seven listed species was conducted during the initial field
investigations of the project study area in November and December 2016. In addition, species-specific
surveys were conducted for RCW and the five plant species. For this project, plant surveys were not
conducted during optimal survey windows; however, plant surveys were conducted during optimal
PNG Line 434 Extension Project 11
WM2, WM3,
WMS, W.11, WD2,
7.67
WD3, WC2, W64
WR1, WQ3, WQ2,
WQ1, WP3, WP2,
WOS, WO4,
WO3, WN3,
WO1, WL2, WK9-
PFO, WK9-PSS,
20.09
WK10, W15, W14,
W13, W12, W11,
W.12, WG2, WF2,
WE3, WE2 WE1,
WD1, WC1, W132,
WB3
Total
27.76
F.5 Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat
No project impacts to federally listed threatened or endangered species are anticipated. The proposed
project has received a "May affect, not likely to adversely affect" or "No effect" determination from the
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for all of the listed species in Robeson, Scotland, and Richmond
counties (Appendix E). A discussion of the background research, field studies, and coordination with the
USFWS follows.
Prior to conducting field surveys, federally listed endangered and threatened species data were
obtained from online database searches of the USFWS and NC Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP).
There are seven threatened or endangered species listed in Robeson, Scotland, and/or Richmond
counties. These include two animal species, American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) and red -
cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis). Five plant species are also listed in these counties,
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii), rough -leaf loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia),
Canby's dropwort (Oxypolis canbyi), Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii), and American chaffseed
(Schwalbea americana). According to the NCNHP database, only red -cockaded woodpecker (RCW) is
known to occur within one mile of the project area.
A habitat assessment of each of the seven listed species was conducted during the initial field
investigations of the project study area in November and December 2016. In addition, species-specific
surveys were conducted for RCW and the five plant species. For this project, plant surveys were not
conducted during optimal survey windows; however, plant surveys were conducted during optimal
PNG Line 434 Extension Project 11

r6111Piedmont
Natural Gas Supporting Documentation for PCN Application
survey windows in 2010 for the directly adjacent Sutton pipeline. Although suitable habitat was present
for all five plant species along the proposed Line 434 alignment, no individuals or populations of any
threatened or endangered species were observed during any of the field investigations. Based on these
results, the plant species were assigned a "May affect, not likely to adversely affect" determination,
RCW was assigned a "No effect" determination, and Section 7 consultation was not required for the
American alligator. These determinations were sent to the USFWS in a letter dated January 25, 2017
(Appendix E), and the USFWS sent their concurrence in an email dated March 28, 2017 (Appendix E).
Subsequent to this initial correspondence, an approximately 5 -mile reroute for the Line 434 pipeline was
planned near Richmond Mill Lake, a Safe Harbor Agreement property, in Scotland County. This area was
surveyed for occurrences of protected plant species on April 25 and 26, 2017. A habitat assessment was
also conducted at this time, and suitable RCW nesting and foraging habitat was observed within the
proposed impact area. The USFWS was notified of the planned reroute and the presence of RCW habitat
in an email dated May 2, 2017 (Appendix Q. In an email reply on June 2, 2017 (Appendix E), the USFWS
requested that RCW surveys be conducted within a half -mile radius of any pines 10 inches diameter at
breast height (DBH) in the proposed impact area.
Surveys were conducted on June 7 and 8, 2017 for RCW within a half -mile radius of all areas of suitable
RCW habitat along the Richmond Mill Lake reroute. No individuals or nest cavities were observed during
this investigation. Based on this information, a "No effect" determination was proposed for RCW, and a
summary of the survey results was emailed to the USFWS on June 16, 2017 (Appendix Q. The USFWS
concurred with this determination in an email dated July 5, 2017 (Appendix E).
F.5.1 Wild and Scenic Rivers
No project impacts to designated Wild and Scenic Rivers are anticipated. The project will cross the
Lumber River near Maxton, NC. This portion of the river has been designated as a Wild and Scenic River
by both the federal and state governments. PNG proposes to cross the Lumber River using a horizontal
directional drill (HDD). The length of the HDD would be approximately 2,100 linear feet from the drill
entry to the drill exit points, both of which would be located in adjacent upland agricultural fields. Hand
clearing would be required to provide a line -of -sight for the HDD. No grubbing or soil disturbance would
occur to establish the 70 -foot -wide permanent easement for this crossing.
Coordination with the National Park Service (NPS) was initiated on May 31, 2017. After their review of
the proposed crossing, the NPS issued a letter stating "... the proposed project does not trigger a formal
Section 7 determination ... in accordance with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA)." A copy of the NPS
letter is located in Appendix F.
F.7 Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources
The proposed project has been designed to avoid all known cultural resources, and no impacts to these
resources are anticipated. The NC Historic Preservation Office (NC HPO) has assigned environmental
review tracking number ER 17-0077 to this project. A discussion of the background research, field
studies, and NC HPO coordination follows.
The Line 434 project is largely colocated with the existing PNG Sutton Pipeline. The existing Sutton
Pipeline was subjected to cultural resources studies in 2010-2011 by S&ME, Inc. During this work, 60
archaeological sites and four historic structures were identified and evaluated. All 64 cultural resources
were evaluated as not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP).
Consultation with the NC HPO was initiated in early 2017 for the Line 434 project. In a letter dated
January 27, 2017, the NC HPO commented that no historic architectural studies were required
PNG Line 434 Extension Project 12

r6111Piedmont
Natural Gas Supporting Documentation for PCN Application
(Appendix G). Further, they indicated no archaeological survey was required along parts of the Line 434
project co -located with the Sutton Pipeline. However, at that time, four locations of the proposed route
diverged from the existing Sutton line. The NC HPO requested archaeological surveys in one of the four
areas where Line 434 diverged from the Sutton Pipeline. Subsequent to that consultation, PNG altered
the alignment of Line 434, resulting in six additional areas of divergence. AECOM performed
archaeological field studies on these seven areas. One of the areas, the Richmond Mill Lake crossing,
was further re-routed along a different preferred route, which required additional survey. The current
archaeological study covered roughly 29 kilometers (18 miles) of corridor that is approximately 583
acres (236 hectares). The field studies were performed between March and June 2017.
Nineteen archaeological sites (including two cemeteries) were identified. Site numbers assigned to these
resources are 31RB576 through 31RB579, 31SC253 through 31SC265, and 31SC267 to 31SC268. Of these
sites, only two are recommended as potentially eligible for the NRHP-31SC264 and 31RB579. Both of
these resources have been avoided by alterations to the design of Line 434 so that no adverse impacts
will occur to the sites. Further, two cemeteries-31SC262 and 31SC263—have been avoided. These
resources are not considered eligible for the NRHP, but are governed by applicable cemetery laws in
North Carolina (North Carolina General Statutes 65-106 and 70-29 through 70-33).
Because archaeological sites potentially eligible for the NRHP and all cemeteries have been avoided by
route and/or design modifications, it is recommended the Line 434 project as currently planned will
have no adverse impact to significant cultural resources. It is further recommended no additional
cultural resources studies be required in conjunction with the Line 434 project as currently planned. The
archaeological report detailing the work and findings, and offering these recommendations is currently
being reviewed by the NC HPO. Correspondences from the NC HPO are included in Appendix G of this
document.
PING Line 434 Extension Project 13

Page intentionally blank
Inserted for double sided printing

0111 Piedmont
Natural Gas Supporting Documentation for PCN Application
Appendix A: Property Owners List
PNG Line 434 Extension Project Appendix A

Page intentionally blank
Inserted for double sided printing

PNG
Line 434 Property Owners List
Appendix A
Parcel ID
Owner Name
Mailing Address
830900245551
Elbert F & Margarita Williams
166 Rodney Drive Hamlet, NC 28345
830900330949
Elbert F. Williams, II
166 Rodney Drive Hamlet, NC 28345
040156 01017
Lawrence A Williams
6269 Peels Chapel Road Laurel Hill, NC 28351
020306 01001
Robert Snodgrass
2533 Doby Bridge Rd Ft Mill, SC 29715
930638842100
Jane James, Mary Hilliard & John Marshall Crowe
301 N Florence St Maxton, NC 28364
040157 01016
5-D Land Company
6361 Peele's Chapel Road Laurel Hill, NC 28351
932595240946
Allison Locklear
241 Elias Rd Maxton, NC 28364
931579338100
Amy Locklear
181 Kirk Dr Maxton, NC 28364
932567137400
Aubrey Lee Bullard & Normie L Bullard
PO Box 2141 Pembroke, NC 28372
932567706900
Betty Jo Hunt
PO Box 384 Pembroke, NC 28372
839678998000
Betty U Hasty
2200 Elm Ave #1111 Laurinburg, NC 28352
932509622700
Bobby Dean Locklear
2323 Missouri Rd Maxton, NC 28364
931650258500
Bruce Locklear
PO Box 3973 Pembroke, NC 28372
738900637398
Bruce Scott Bowersock
1002 Rainwater Lane Rockingham, NC 28379
930616100100
CA Brown, Jr
215 Old Red Springs Rd Maxton, NC 28364
933504673800
Carlton Cummings & Andrea Cummings
83 Sparkle Road Pembroke, NC 28372
932595837999
Chrissie Ann Oxendine
1621 Philadelphia Road Pembroke, NC 28372
839688424500
Christine D Monroe
304 Lane St Maxton, NC 28364
830900561861
Connie R Quick
347 Mt Moriah Church Rd Hamlet, NC 28345
839683235200
Craig Locklear
854 Bryant Circle Maxton, NC 28364
932576433700
Dale Locklear
350 Pappy Boy Dr Maxton, NC 28364
932594875000
Danford Dial, Jr, and Dorothy Dial
10355 NC HWY 711 Pembroke, NC 28372
930617826600
David Leach
307 West 139Th Street Apt 5 New York, NY10030
040157 02013
David McDougald
6785 Peeles Chapel Rd. Laurel Hill, NC 28351
040157AO1021
David Ray Burns & Cynthia Diana Burns
5591 Seven Lakes West Seven Lakes, NC 27376
933535207600
Dennis R Moore & Marlita D Moore
468 W L Moore Rd Maxton, NC 28364
930675820300
Dexderal Chavis and wife, Cleopatra Chavis
3319 Red Hill Road Maxton, NC 28364
931670504307
Dorothy Jacobs Locklear/Deceased
67 Kirk Dr Preston Rd Maxton, NC 28364
737900864001
Duke Energy Progress, Inc. / CP&L
830900047818
Duke Energy Progress, Inc. / CP&L
932528129600
Eddie Jones & Adriana Maria R Plata
150 Office Jones Rd Lumberton, NC 28360
020306 01002
Edgar Stewart Trust ATTN: John Stewart
16541 McFarland Rd. Laurinburg, NC 28352
020305 01001
Edgar Stewart Trust ATTN: John Stewart
16541 McFarland Rd. Laurinburg, NC 28352
932575320400
Emma Jean Lowery
639 Onnie Joe Rd Maxton, NC 28364
930675858200
Fitzgerald Chavis, Diane Chavis Anderson
111 Chav An Dr Maxton, NC 28364
930676373700
Fitzgerald Chavis, Diane Chavis Anderson
526 S Hilltop Rd Red Springs, NC 28377
930675585846
Fitzgerald Chavis, Diane Chavis Anderson
526 S Hilltop Rd Red Springs, NC 28377
739900931593
Gary W Steen & Linda Effie
780 NC Hwy 381 Hamlet, NC 28345
932595948254
Gregory Dial
427 Sherrill Rd Pembroke, NC 28372
933555341700
Harold M Thrower, Jr.
PO Box 1164 Raeford, NC 28376
932519303400
Helen Locklear (Life Estate) Timothy, Mark/Gina, Brett Locklear
691 Faith Rd Pembroke, NC 28372
Richmond. Scotland. & Robeson Counties 1

PNG
Line 434 Property Owners List
Appendix A
830900027496
Helen Scholl
117 Tarheel Street Hamlet, NC 28345
932566357000
HUD/Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Washington D.C.
7105 Corporate Drive Plano TX 75024
020306 01003
J3 Real Estate Investments
2533 Doby Bridge Rd Ft Mill, SC 29715
932527680022
James Canston Baker
276 Ashley Road Red Springs, NC 28377
739900522690
James D Jenkins & Adi Jo Jenkins
206 Adele St Hamlet, NC 28345
830900254960
James Dawkins & Myrtle Dawkins
309 Entwistle St Hamlet, NC 28345
933534373200
James Robert Moore
PO Box 2738 Pembroke, NC 28372
931611729700
James Thomas Oxendine & Jo Ann Oxendine
146 Zadie Dr Maxton, NC 28364
040157 01041
James W. Laster - C/O Sally Laster
PO Box 1129 Hamlet, NC 28345
933535701200
Jerry Moore, HEIRS
3541 Prospect Rd Pembroke, NC 28372
932575802200
Joe Locklear -Deceased -Kenneth Locklear
578 Onnie Joe Rd Maxton, NC 28364
738900548017
John Henry Leviner
226 Leviner Stables Rd Hamlet, NC 28345
932509929200
Joseph Locklear/Deceased & Shirley M Locklear
PO Box 863 Pembroke, NC 28372
932519114000
Joseph Locklear/Deceased & Shirley M Locklear
PO Box 863 Pembroke, NC 28372
932556255245
Junious Bullard
PO Box 381 Maxton, NC 28364
932556687916
Junious Bullard
PO Box 381 Maxton, NC 28364
010250 01026
Kenneth Carpenter
21387 Charles Craft Lane Maxton, NC 28364
930694360939
Kirmet Locklear & Sylvia Locklear & Kris Locklear & Vinia Locklear
3601 Red Hill Rd Maxton, NC 28364
932509851200
Lathan Bullard & Danielle Bullard
2238 Missouri Rd Maxton, NC 28364
010252 01001
Laurinburg/Max Airport
16701 Airport Rd Maxton, NC 28364
933505133027
Leana Barton
P 0 Box 1133 Maxton, NC 28364
931599728111
Lee Grady Lowery
2702 Preston Road Maxton, NC 28364
932508396400
Lee Grady Lowery
2702 Preston Road Maxton, NC 28364
931599001600
Lee Grady Lowry
2702 Preston Road Maxton, NC 28364
932509258500
Lee Grady Lowry
2702 Preston Road Maxton, NC 28364
830900047595
Lelia 0 Jones
774 NC 381 Hwy Hamlet, NC 28345
932595420100
Locklear Heirs
578 Onnie Joe Rd Maxton, NC 28364
93251776100
Lois W. Bullard
2460 Hezekiah Rd. Maxton, NC 28364
932536435600
Lois W. Bullard, Widow
PO Box 246 Maxton, NC 28364
040157 01055
Loretta Norton
6442 Pleeles Chapel Rd. Laurel Hill, NC 28351
932518592200
Lowell Harris & Thelma L Harris
2474 Missouri Rd Maxton, NC 28364
932518897300
Lowell Harris & Thelma L Harris
2474 Missouri Rd Maxton, NC 28364
932528064400
Lowell Harris & Thelma L Harris
2474 Missouri Rd Maxton, NC 28364
830900143507
Mamie Bullard
785 NC Hwy 381 Hamlet, NC 28345
932576061400
Marland Locklear & Lucille B Locklear
PO Box 871 Maxton, NC 28364
932585210200
Mary Lee Locklear
179 Elmore Dr. Maxton, NC 28364
040156 01020
Mary Lynn Livingston Raley
PO Box 7 Laurel Hill, NC 28351
933535513400
Melissa Freeman & Ronnie Freeman
3575 Prospect Rd Pembroke, NC 28372
738900830227
Michael Monroe & Bridget Monroe
9012 Doris Dr Ft Washington, MD 20744
930687054300
Millicent B. Locklear
4204 Red Hill Rd. Maxton, NC 28364
839697578500
Nathan T Colbert
100 Bryants Circle Maxton, NC 28364
010262 01003 A
Mountaire Farms Inc.
16701 Airport Rd Maxton, NC 28364
Richmond. Scotland. & Robeson Counties 2

PNG
Line 434 Property Owners List
Appendix A
010253 01002
Smithfield Purchase Corporation
PO Box 856 Warsaw, NC 28398
839688818300
Oral Lagrand Dial
281 Bryant Circle Maxton, NC 28364
930657921100
Oris Bullard
4352 Red Hill Rd Maxton, NC 28364
930667025100
Oris Bullard
4352 Red Hill Rd Maxton, NC 28364
930677208100
Pasty C. Locklear
15964 Frances Rd Gibson, NC 28343
010253 01001
Patten Seed Company
158 Sod Farm Road Ft. Valley, GA 31030
839678316900
Patten Seed Company
158 Sod Farm Road Ft. Valley, GA 31030
932585679800
Paul D. Locklear
641 Onnie Joe Rd Maxton, NC 28364
931672363500
Paul M. White & Benjamin A White Jr.
P 0 Box 771 Carthage, NC 28327
040157AO102101
Peggy Ann Hildreth
339 Pleasant Cross Rd. Asheboro, NC 27203
040157AO102102
Peggy Ann Hildreth
339 Pleasant Cross Rd. Asheboro, NC 27203
931588483600
Peggy Sweat, Sybil L. Collins, Ronnie Lowery
2755 Preston Rd Maxton, NC 28364
020304 01011
Philip H Futrell & Ellen W Futrell
PO Box 840 Wagram, NC 28396
020310 0100101
Philip H Futrell & Ellen W Futrell
PO Box 841 Wagram, NC 28397
020309 0100801
Philip H Futrell & Ellen W Futrell
PO Box 842 Wagram, NC 28398
933554838035
Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc
4700 Piedmont Row Dr Suite 100 Charlotte, NC 28210
010252 01002
Pioneer Hi- Bred
P.O. Box 1039 Wilmington, DE
932566994100
Rebecca Ann Lowry
PO Box 2878 Pembroke, NC 28372
932575585900
Redell Collins
905 Water Street Lumberton, NC 28358
738900635867
Richard K Hogan
198 Hannah Pickett Ave Rockingham, NC 28379
020310 01001
Richmond Mill Pond Prop LLC -David Buhler
PO Box 1167 Laurel Hill, NC 28351
040155 01002
Richmond Mill Pond Prop LLC -David Buhler
PO Box 1167 Laurel Hill, NC 28351
040155 01004
Richmond Mill Pond Prop LLC -David Buhler
PO Box 1167 Laurel Hill, NC 28351
040155 01006
Richmond Mill Pond Prop LLC -David Buhler
PO Box 1167 Laurel Hill, NC 28351
738900455374
Rickey M Cassidy & Rebecca L Cassidy
285 Dirt Rd Hamlet, NC 28345
739900743421
Robert B Jantz
217 Redbud Street Moundridge, KS 67107
739900219867
Robert Gardner
170 Heavenly Acres Ln Hamlet, NC 28345
930656560000
Robert R Collins & Magnolia Collins
PO Box 561 Maxton, NC 28364
020305 01002
Robert Snead & Minnie Snead
179 Briarwood Dr Boone, NC 28607
933515237522
Robert Wayne Bullard
337 Will Rd Pembroke, NC 28372
040157 01028
Robert Williams & wife Betty Lou N.
6220 Pleeles Chapel Rd. Laurel Hill, NC 28351
930683847726
Ron Anderson
111 Chav An Drive Maxton, NC 28364
738900728975
Ronald Piwowarczyk
968 Louis Breedan Blvd. Hamlet, NC 28345
931642201900
Rosie L Locklear & Renee Oxendine
1009.1i Rd Maxton, NC 28364
020302 01018
Sinclair Corporation/HEW FULTON
PO Box 159 Laurel Hill, NC 28351
020302 01032
Sinclair Corporation/HEW FULTON
PO Box 159 Laurel Hill, NC 28351
020308 01007
Sinclair Corporation/HEW FULTON
PO Box 159 Laurel Hill, NC 28351
020309 01008
Sinclair Corporation/HEW FULTON
PO Box 159 Laurel Hill, NC 28351
738900541417
Stanly Richmond & Co LLC
PO Box 1267 Rockingham, NC 28380
738900541967
Stanly Richmond & Co LLC
PO Box 1267 Rockingham, NC 28380
931641534600
Sylvia Locklear
PO Box 876 Pembroke, NC 28372
933525072900
Talford Dial
2216 Red Bank Rd Pembroke, NC 28372
Richmond. Scotland. & Robeson Counties 3

PNG
Line 434 Property Owners List
Appendix A
933525515900
Talford Dial
2216 Red Bank Rd Pembroke, NC 28372
933544015204
Talford Dial
2216 Red Bank Rd Pembroke, NC 28372
933544018300
Talford Dial and wife, Betty D. Dial
2216 Red Bank Rd Pembroke, NC 28372
933524864300
Talford Ray Dial
2216 Red Banks Rd Pembroke, NC 28372
933525018300
Talford Ray Dial
2216 Red Banks Rd Pembroke, NC 28372
932537197050
Terry B Langley & Debra B Beasley & James C. Baker
2626 Missouri Rd Maxton, NC 28364
931589209930
Terry Patrick Locklear
25 Kirk Dr Maxton, NC 28364
739900849688
Thomas E White & Dena White
PO Box 264 Norman, NC 28367
040157 01039
Thomas Michell Sessoms
6460 Pleeles Chapel Rd. Laurel Hill, NC 28351
738900720922
TRB Rentals of North Carolina
101 Juanita Ave Rockingham, NC 28379
738900732225
TRB Rentals of North Carolina
101 Juanita Ave Rockingham, NC 28379
930636957200
Tuscarora
1349 Modest Rd Maxton, NC 28364
933515119760
Venus Maynor & Cecily P Maynor
PO Box 2400 Pembroke, NC 28372
020302 01019
Wade McMillan Maness III
PO Box 2068 Conway, SC 29528
020308 01020
Wade McMillan Maness III
PO Box 2068 Conway, SC 29528
010259 01003
Walker Farms Inc (Hew Fulton, Mgr)
PO Box 666 Laurinburg, NC 28353
010256 01017
Walker Farms Inc (Hew Fulton, Mgr)
PO Box 666 Laurinburg, NC 28353
020302 01044
Walker Farms Inc (Hew Fulton, Mgr)
PO Box 666 Laurinburg, NC 28353
020304 01040
Walker Farms Inc (Hew Fulton, Mgr)
PO Box 666 Laurinburg, NC 28353
739900327200
Walter Matthew Gordon
708 Hylan Ave Hamlet, NC 28345
020305 01059
Walter McRae & Gail M McRae
17601 Aberdeen Rd Laurinburg, NC 28352
830900256371
Willard Mark Dixon & Kay Dixon
217 Minturn Avenue Hamlet, NC 28345
020302 0101901
William H Harper III & Karen A Harper & Amy Harper
17708 Laurel Hill Church Rd Laurel Hill, NC 28351
010256 01038
William P. Carmichael & Courtney L. Carmichael
18105 Old Lumberton Rd Laurinburg, NC 28352
839697794200
Willie McGirt
1420 Hwy 71 North Maxton, NC 28364
738900911590
Z V Pate, Inc (Hew Fulton, Mgr)
PO Box 159 Laurel Hill, NC 28351
830900674251
Z V Pate, Inc (Hew Fulton, Mgr)
PO Box 159 Laurel Hill, NC 28351
830900780713
Z V Pate, Inc (Hew Fulton, Mgr)
PO Box 159 Laurel Hill, NC 28351
830900796480
Z V Pate, Inc (Hew Fulton, Mgr)
PO Box 159 Laurel Hill, NC 28351
830900981801
Z V Pate, Inc (Hew Fulton, Mgr)
PO Box 159 Laurel Hill, NC 28351
830900988601
Z V Pate, Inc (Hew Fulton, Mgr)
PO Box 159 Laurel Hill, NC 28351
831900092567
Z V Pate, Inc (Hew Fulton, Mgr)
PO Box 159 Laurel Hill, NC 28351
831900171019
Z V Pate, Inc (Hew Fulton, Mgr)
PO Box 159 Laurel Hill, NC 28351
831900274097
Z V Pate, Inc (Hew Fulton, Mgr)
PO Box 159 Laurel Hill, NC 28351
831900365521
Z V Pate, Inc (Hew Fulton, Mgr)
PO Box 159 Laurel Hill, NC 28351
841000252803
Z V Pate, Inc (Hew Fulton, Mgr)
PO Box 159 Laurel Hill, NC 28351
7389000256448
Z V Pate, Inc (Hew Fulton, Mgr)
PO Box 159 Laurel Hill, NC 28351
040157 01014
Z V Pate, Inc (Hew Fulton, Mgr)
PO Box 159 Laurel Hill, NC 28351
830900895207
Z V Pate, Inc (Hew Fulton, Mgr)
PO Box 159 Laurel Hill, NC 28351
040153 01001
Z V Pate, Inc (Hew Fulton, Mgr)
PO Box 159 Laurel Hill, NC 28351
930666811300
Ziatta Bullard
1496 Hezekiah Rd. Maxton, NC 28364
Richmond. Scotland. & Robeson Counties 4

ONPiedmont
Natural Gas Supporting Documentation for PCN Application
Appendix B: Figures
PNG Line 434 Extension Project Appendix B

Page intentionally blank
Inserted for double sided printing

fr States
��� United
Hinson
Game Land
Rockingham
y
Project Start
34.840049,
-79.735642 Ha
1
.bbins
eights
'` eSti9
pl �dy
A !y
United State
I 7
SR
SQ S
1'a
Local Watersheds
SA
SJ
SB
SK
C SC
', SL
C SD
SM
SE
SN
-SF
So
SG
SP
-SH
-SQ
SI
- SR
Sandhills
Game Land
+� r
�L f
Sandhills J�,f�J •'
GO/GoJ� /
O r�
J
0r 5
AgriculturaFDevelopment "
d Farmland Preservation =
Trust Fund Easement a 4)
Q
fills
i
t"DNP
Lumber River
Conservancy
Easement
NC Clean
Nagram Borrow�Pit Manageme
Conservation Site Fund Eas
Big hoe
Heel Creek
Preserve ti
Wag
Watershed Index !Yater Qu
J Nature Stream Name
Label Stream Classifica
Conservancy
Easement i�
'Lumber National Upper Beaverdam
Sandhills Area Wild and Scenic SL creek 14-32-13 e
Land Trust River
Easement SM Creek Lower 9eaverdam 14-3213 C, sw
Upper Lumber
River Swamp 14-32-14
SN McNeil Pond 3 C, Sw
McIntosh Conservation 50 1neSCreek (Gu inns 14-32-14 C' 5w
Complex McIntosh Bay Trust of North %a Mill Pond)
Preserve y%� !Preserve DNP Carolina ement '1` /1 5P Crnnked Crock 73-dR B
j ,umber sUShtwood RnoLCrrrk 13-48-1 s
cc Q
a r LBR/La HOKE COUNTY IKrinshaw Pond)
Old Wire Little Juniper moo; River/Bear Swamp=---�-�_�_�_�____
Creek Bay RHA S� Aquatic Habitat ROBESON COUNTY marks Creeklaoyds
Y7 Sft Lake, City Lake, 1345-(2) C
Everetts Lake
sl S J o o NC Division
c 0 of Mitigation
r -Services Easement
SH 0 W HWY f _ Red=.
Springs
SG , 9 �G� - 9
Lumber State
Natal and
t Scenic River
East
)or
rnt Richmond Mill
e Natural Area
SL
_I \
SN ghareu- SM
m
Gibson Rd
0 777771 Miles
0 5 10
SK
*��
Lau'r
Prairie Bay
Preserve DNP
State I i n eS
Prairie
Bay Preserve
irinburg
US -74 (Bypass! $F
Maxtor
` Shoe
1 Heel Creek ff
Floodplain
US Fish and !f
- Wildlife Service
U% Easement
SE
Project End
34.722535,
SD -79.213014
y SC
= er f
II''9✓r ,1 '
�r INorth Carolina
Indian Cultural
NC Department o. � � `. SB
Transportation '-' Center
Mitigation Site �� /1
Lumber •"'
River P
State Park ti
SA I
031 Piedmont
Natural Gas
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 434 30 -inch
Robeson, Scotland &
Richmond Counties
Legend
Proposed
Centerline
Laydown Yard
Eight -digit HUC
Boundaries
NC NHP
Managed Areas
NC NHP
Natural Areas
N
C�gdw
-Robeson, Scotland, &
Richmond Counties
Lower Pee Dee River Basin
HUCs 03040201,
03040203,& 03040204
Figure 1
Vicinity Map
September 2017
NAD83 NC StatePlane
This map is for reference only.
Shoe Heel Geek [Big
SG
Shoe Heel
14.34
C' SW
Creek[Niaxton Fund
SH
I McCormick Pond
14-34-6
Cr SW
Leith Creek Ilohns
sl
Pond)
14-33
Cr SW
Sl
McNair fishpond
14-33-1
C,Sw
Gum Swamp Creek
SK
(Richmorxl Mill Lakei
14-32-(7)
B
'Lumber National Upper Beaverdam
Sandhills Area Wild and Scenic SL creek 14-32-13 e
Land Trust River
Easement SM Creek Lower 9eaverdam 14-3213 C, sw
Upper Lumber
River Swamp 14-32-14
SN McNeil Pond 3 C, Sw
McIntosh Conservation 50 1neSCreek (Gu inns 14-32-14 C' 5w
Complex McIntosh Bay Trust of North %a Mill Pond)
Preserve y%� !Preserve DNP Carolina ement '1` /1 5P Crnnked Crock 73-dR B
j ,umber sUShtwood RnoLCrrrk 13-48-1 s
cc Q
a r LBR/La HOKE COUNTY IKrinshaw Pond)
Old Wire Little Juniper moo; River/Bear Swamp=---�-�_�_�_�____
Creek Bay RHA S� Aquatic Habitat ROBESON COUNTY marks Creeklaoyds
Y7 Sft Lake, City Lake, 1345-(2) C
Everetts Lake
sl S J o o NC Division
c 0 of Mitigation
r -Services Easement
SH 0 W HWY f _ Red=.
Springs
SG , 9 �G� - 9
Lumber State
Natal and
t Scenic River
East
)or
rnt Richmond Mill
e Natural Area
SL
_I \
SN ghareu- SM
m
Gibson Rd
0 777771 Miles
0 5 10
SK
*��
Lau'r
Prairie Bay
Preserve DNP
State I i n eS
Prairie
Bay Preserve
irinburg
US -74 (Bypass! $F
Maxtor
` Shoe
1 Heel Creek ff
Floodplain
US Fish and !f
- Wildlife Service
U% Easement
SE
Project End
34.722535,
SD -79.213014
y SC
= er f
II''9✓r ,1 '
�r INorth Carolina
Indian Cultural
NC Department o. � � `. SB
Transportation '-' Center
Mitigation Site �� /1
Lumber •"'
River P
State Park ti
SA I
031 Piedmont
Natural Gas
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 434 30 -inch
Robeson, Scotland &
Richmond Counties
Legend
Proposed
Centerline
Laydown Yard
Eight -digit HUC
Boundaries
NC NHP
Managed Areas
NC NHP
Natural Areas
N
C�gdw
-Robeson, Scotland, &
Richmond Counties
Lower Pee Dee River Basin
HUCs 03040201,
03040203,& 03040204
Figure 1
Vicinity Map
September 2017
NAD83 NC StatePlane
This map is for reference only.

Page intentionally blank
Inserted for double sided printing

r
Q
AR-11�
ENER Y\WAY
C�
3501 Hpp�L RD
AYM°�
I
0
�1L /
0 _ Nebo Cem
1
I - • l i
1- �
�� r `
Wa ,
J
d
D
/50---
/ BRYSON DR `
I/ 1
'�-( P,o t
AR -3
AR -
Q: ..i�
smi
L y Cerr
BLu�BR�LN
AR -5
'7-3a
o - 0
D�
-
1 l Ja es ,)
,�. Po d
W�
V �
!i
r
r631Piedmont
Natural Gas
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 434 30 -inch
Robeson, Scotland &
Richmond Counties
Legend
Study Area
Access roads
Laydown Yard
Flood Hazard Zones
. 1%Annual Chance Flood
Hazard
Regulatory Floodway
Special Floodway
Area of Undetermined Flood
Hazard
i02% Annual Chance Flood
Hazard
Future Conditions 1%
Annual Chance Flood
Hazard
Area with Reduced Risk Due
to Levee
N
Feet
0 1,000
RICHMOND i HOKE
COUNTY ii COUNTY
` SCOTLAND
COUNTY
ROBESON
COUNTY
�J
Lower Pee Dee River Basin
HUCs 03040201,
03040203,& 03040204
Figure 5-1
Flood Hazard Zones
June 2017
NAD83 NC StatePlane
This map is for reference only.

cy
G
t'7
Smith
L
Cern
Moria
Cem
-ff,
L _y
$1 "RpINp,L
L
BRE)kI'll
AR_g i
H -
sl
r111
350
.S1 L
1.L
�J
HpYES ET'`'',O Barring
f Cem
-44
DR
0
JJ �
Ghio S_cholf
-Stat o' n
Piedmont
Natural Gas
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 434 30 -inch
Robeson, Scotland &
Richmond Counties
Legend
M :Study Area
Access roads
Laydown Yard
Flood Hazard Zones
■1%Annual Chance Flood
Hazard
■ Regulatory Floodway
i Special Floodway
Area of Undetermined Flood
Hazard
0.2% Annual Chance Flood
.
Hazard
Future Conditions 1%
Annual Chance Flood
Hazard
Area with Reduced Risk Due
to Levee
Feet,
0 1,000
i
RICHMOND1 i HOKE
COUNTY i COUNTY
C 1
SCOTLAND
COUNTY
!i ROBESON
COUNTY
�J\
Lower Pee Dee River Basin
HUCs 03040201,
03040203,& 03040204
Figure 5-2
Flood Hazard Zones
June 2017
NAD83 NC StatePlane
This map is for reference only.

Pates Lake
Turrlbfer Two
L�
w
�O
5
r0
C) (35
GreenD rN RD
p G�� h pet �GRERAR�121APE� AR -13-
�Cern
AR -1
w
"I"
W
O
M
74 30�
AR- 14
I � •uL
—uL � �l•LL
_ 1L
w
-et
-IL.
2
Guiims
�VlzllfPond
..- / Speight -
�
AR -15 l'%�
cNe t l
6111 Piedmont
Natural Gas
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 434 30 -inch
Robeson, Scotland &
Richmond Counties
Legend
Study Area
Access roads
Laydown Yard
Flood Hazard Zones
■ 1%Annual Chance Flood
Hazard
Regulatory Floodway
Special Floodway
Area of Undetermined Flood
Hazard
■0-2% Annual Chance Flood
Hazard
Future Conditions 1%
Annual Chanoe Flood
Hazard
Area with Reduced Risk Due
to Levee
N
Feet
0 1,000 }
i
RICHMOND1 i HOKE
COUNTY ii COUNTY
SCOTLAND
COUNTY
ROBESON
COUNTY
�J
Lower Pee Dee River Basin
HUCs 03040201,
03040203,& 03040204
Figure 5-3
Flood Hazard Zones
June 2017
NAD83 NC StatePlane
This map is for reference only.

AR -151 e-300—
_rf
cNetll ��,
P
BOONDOCKS RD
o
m
�-
t Peels
-k
Chapel J
AR -17 �' O
AR -16 Cnftt
'j, LAR -19
r
W
Wright
G Cem OId ._
Hundred r
O
Piedmont
Natural Gas
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 434 30 -inch
Robeson, Scotland &
Richmond Counties
Legend
Study Area
Access roads
Laydown Yard
Flood Hazard Zones
. 1%Annual Chance Flood
Hazard
Regulatory Floodway
Special Floodway
Area of Undetermined Flood
Hazard
■0-2% Annual Chance Flood
Hazard
Future Conditions 1%
Annual Chance Flood
Hazard
Area with Reduced Risk Due
to Levee
N
Feet
0 1,000 }
RICHMOND1 i HOKE
COUNTY ,i COUNTY
SCOTLAND
COUNTY
ROBESON
COUNTY
�J\
Lower Pee Dee River Basin
HUCs 03040201,
03040203,& 03040204
Figure 5-4
Flood Hazard Zones
June 2017
NAD83 NC StatePlane
This map is for reference only.

MCF � } } �_ 1
AND RD
0 �,
O 1/
�Z50 250 /I
. y .�.
�Tpper��� ~--� .,, zoo -�- -�•
J.L \F/
was_ • ,
.�. 250
ARmlr,\
. .. li
d -
-
z - Richmond
mill
Lake
i
r6111Piedmont
Natural Gas
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 434 30 -inch
Robeson, Scotland &
Richmond Counties
Legend
Study Area
Access roads
Laydown Yard
Flood Hazard Zones
. 1%Annual Chance Flood
Hazard
Regulatory Floodway
Special Floodway
Area of Undetermined Flood
Hazard
0-2% Annual Chance Flood
Hazard
Future Conditions 1%
® Annual Chance Flood
Hazard
F Area with Reduced Risk Due
to Levee
N
Feet
0 1,000
RICHMOND1 i HOKE
COUNTY ii COUNTY
SCOTLAND
COUNTY
!i ROBESON
COUNTY
�J
Lower Pee Dee River Basin
HUCs 03040201,
03040203,& 03040204
Figure 5-5
Flood Hazard Zones
June 2017
NAD83 NC StatePlane
This map is for reference only.

J1 �`
l
\ 1I LG
1 LL. y�
A" � J
„ v
}Richmond
Mill —
Lake _
Richm.ond'�
Mill
�50
e
O
.i C
1
—LLdL f )
S ead"
�em
-11L
p Malloy u.
A rpm
(2r5\0
rtrt,Q L -A I j
. E AR -26 tT\
4L
N, I Z f
6111 Piedmont
Natural Gas
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 434 30 -inch
Robeson, Scotland &
Richmond Counties
Legend
Study Area
Access roads
® Laydown Yard
Flood Hazard Zones
. 1%Annual Chance Flood
Hazard
Regulatory Floodway
Special Floodway
Area of Undetermined Flood
Hazard
■
0.2% Annual Chance Flood
Hazard
Future Conditions 1%
Annual Chance Flood
Hazard
Area with Reduced Risk Due
to Levee
N
Feet
0 1,000
RICHMOND1 i HOKE
COUNTY ,i COUNTY
SCOTLAND
COUNTY
!i ROBESON
COUNTY
�J
Lower Pee Dee River Basin
HUCs 03040201,
03040203,& 03040204
Figure 5-6
Flood Hazard Zones
June 2017
NAD83 NC StatePlane
This map is for reference only.

coq
250
� u
AR -28
109
1-zz
7"' 4
f
C4
6111 Piedmont
Natural Gas
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 434 30 -inch
Robeson, Scotland &
Richmond Counties
Legend
Study Area
Access roads
® Laydown Yard
Flood Hazard Zones
. 1%Annual Chance Flood
Hazard
Regulatory Floodway
Special Floodway
Area of Undetermined Flood
Hazard
i 02% Annual Chance Flood
Hazard
Future Conditions 1%
Annual Chance Flood
Hazard
Area with Reduced Risk Due
to Levee
N
Feet
0 1,000
RICHMOND1 i HOKE
COUNTY ii COUNTY
SCOTLAND
COUNTY
!i ROBESON
COUNTY
�J
Lower Pee Dee River Basin
HUCs 03040201,
03040203,& 03040204
Figure 5-7
Flood Hazard Zones
June 2017
NAD83 NC StatePlane
This map is for reference only.

C�L
1 5I
501
Ste
4
AR -29-
AR -30
-
AR -31 'C � .�
AR -31 1' %
Q J AR -32
1
. i•t�e. 1
1�
a
ixLZ
LUuj
Lu
a M
M
North
a m
V7 PW
15
5.
0-
A
B
401
S�
OM
O I'LL
Cc %
C
AR -33
_.
6111 Piedmont
Natural Gas
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 434 30 -inch
Robeson, Scotland &
Richmond Counties
Legend
Study Area
Access roads
Laydown Yard
Flood Hazard Zones
. 1%Annual Chance Flood
Hazard
Regulatory Floodway
Special Floodway
Area of Undetermined Flood
Hazard
0-2% Annual Chance Flood
Hazard
Future Conditions 1%
® Annual Chanoe Flood
Hazard
F Area with Reduced Risk Due
to Levee
N
Feet
0 1,000 }
RICHMOND' i HOKE
COUNTY ii COUNTY
SCOTLAND
COUNTY
!i ROBESON
COUNTY
�J\
Lower Pee Dee River Basin
HUCs 03040201,
03040203,& 03040204
Figure 5-8
Flood Hazard Zones
June 2017
NAD83 NC StatePlane
This map is for reference only.

sJ.0 —
% - L
O
s' a—
,L,
-4AR-33
ILI
-44-
ti
AR -36
AR -35
4t �JL
L � �L1 SLL
—
\J
3C
-i= '7d SIV ��S ,.;• s�
o'l - 1l YiL/�,
�� til _ � •;, _.� �,
+i o C -D -,
it
6111 Piedmont
Natural Gas
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 434 30 -inch
Robeson, Scotland &
Richmond Counties
Legend
Study Area
Access roads
Laydown Yard
Flood Hazard Zones
. 1%Annual Chance Flood
Hazard
Regulatory Floodway
Special Floodway
Area of Undetermined Flood
Hazard
02% Annual Chance Flood
Hazard
Future Conditions 1%
® Annual Chance Flood
Hazard
F Area with Reduced Risk Due
to Levee
N
Feet
0 1,000
i
RICHMOND1 i HOKE
COUNTY ii COUNTY
C 1
SCOTLAND
COUNTY
ROBESON
COUNTY
�J\
Lower Pee Dee River Basin
HUCs 03040201,
03040203,& 03040204
Figure 5-9
Flood Hazard Zones
June 2017
NAD83 NC StatePlane
This map is for reference only.

BYP
74
AR -39-
SVYWpY ONS
AR -38 AR -39 4
AR -38
A AR -39
AR -37
� RD
4 -
fJ
6111 Piedmont
Natural Gas
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 434 30 -inch
Robeson, Scotland &
Richmond Counties
Legend
Study Area
Access roads
® Laydown Yard
Flood Hazard Zones
. 1%Annual Chance Flood
Hazard
Regulatory Floodway
Special Floodway
Area of Undetermined Flood
Hazard
0-2% Annual Chance Flood
& Hazard
Future Conditions 1%
Annual Chance Flood
Hazard
F Area with Reduced Risk Due
to Levee
N
Feet
0 1,000
RICHMOND1 i HOKE
COUNTY ii COUNTY
SCOTLAND
COUNTY
ROBESON
COUNTY
�J\
Lower Pee Dee River Basin
HUCs 03040201,
03040203,& 03040204
Figure 5-10
Flood Hazard Zones
June 2017
NAD83 NC StatePlane
This map is for reference only.

—
v ' 4-
—
� ,LQ per.
d _\ McLaughlin
Cem,
Cj
MCBI -_ . '� -�.�
REp �
DRQ
/ _.may/.-L_y♦_ —
�AR-41
7-
/0"
-i
AR -43 — —
AR -44
1 L. n
— AR -42 L r r , . AR -46
��. +REp AR -45
on D
Opp _
lis
GS
' S?R� a u, 200
QL9 \.
ao �- �„ �. �'�,_-• �-�� RSD
_
r�r 14 t i n
p
('' — —
a r ALL ` SJ –.LL L'
BUFFALO pRI 0
r6§1 Piedmont
Natural Gas
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 434 30 -inch
Robeson, Scotland &
Richmond Counties
Legend
Study Area
Access roads
Laydown Yard
Flood Hazard Zones
. 1%Annual Chance Flood
Hazard
Regulatory Floodway
Special Floodway
Area of Undetermined Flood
Hazard
0-2% Annual Chance Flood
Hazard
Future Conditions 1%
® Annual Chance Flood
Hazard
F Area with Reduced Risk Due
to Levee
N
Feet
0 1,000
RICHMOND1 i HOKE
COUNTY ii COUNTY
\ SCOTLAND
\ COUNTY
\ !i ROBESON
\ COUNTY
�J
Lower Pee Dee River Basin
HUCs 03040201,
03040203,& 03040204
Figure 5-11
Flood Hazard Zones
June 2017
NAD83 NC StatePlane
This map is for reference only.

Y7'jAC:R-46
-4jLj
AR -46
1-740
/
.;.
+
1 L yam( -I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
AR 47
AR49i`rr�
— •Z
A �R
AL ^.� `R-48 'RQ
R - v
�
l� v
� yO AR -50
73 AR -51
71 1 �'
L�J
IL. _LLQ
P 'SON
D
6111 Piedmont
Natural Gas
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 434 30 -inch
Robeson, Scotland &
Richmond Counties
Legend
Study Area
Access roads
Laydown Yard
Flood Hazard Zones
.
1% Annual Chance Flood
Hazard
Regulatory Floodway
Special Floodway
Area of Undetermined Flood
Hazard
0-2% Annual Chance Flood
Hazard
Future Conditions 1%
® Annual Chanoe Flood
Hazard
F Area with Reduced Risk Due
to Levee
N
Feet
0 1,000
i
RICHMOND1 i HOKE
COUNTY ii COUNTY
C 11
SCOTLAND
COUNTY
!i ROBESON
COUNTY
�J
Lower Pee Dee River Basin
HUCs 03040201,
03040203,& 03040204
Figure 5-12
Flood Hazard Zones
June 2017
NAD83 NC StatePlane
This map is for reference only.

�1PS Q -��as \��P _
DR
CREPE MYR
O t3
710
W L MOORS RD
Prospect -"
WILD
— OQ Q
AR -51y_ AR -53— /SSO
f%± I -AR -52 �-
AR-52
AR -53
JUSTICE Rd \\\
AR -54 AR -54 m !
e+i$
\_SHERRI AR -55 AR -57
AR -56
-
J MA
-4
— �1L
s
-� 710
� � l
6111 Piedmont
Natural Gas
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 434 30 -inch
Robeson, Scotland &
Richmond Counties
Legend
Study Area
Access roads
Laydown Yard
Flood Hazard Zones
. 1%Annual Chance Flood
Hazard
Regulatory Floodway
Special Floodway
Area of Undetermined Flood
Hazard
■0-2% Annual Chance Flood
Hazard
Future Conditions 1%
Annual Chance Flood
Hazard
F Area with Reduced Risk Due
to Levee
N
Feet
0 1,000
RICHMOND1 i HOKE
COUNTY ii COUNTY
SCOTLAND
COUNTY
!i ROBESON
COUNTY
�J
Lower Pee Dee River Basin
HUCs 03040201,
03040203,& 03040204
Figure 5-13
Flood Hazard Zones
June 2017
NAD83 NC StatePlane
This map is for reference only.

4-L-
aurinburg-
— Maxton
41 / Airport s,
4:"—
311_ 11.L — r112
- - �- , v 200
1
i.
y
CL
"2
4-�
..SJI �, • � i 3J.L
6111 Piedmont
Natural Gas
Piedmont Natural Gas
Line 434 30 -inch
Robeson, Scotland &
Richmond Counties
Legend
Study Area
Access roads
Laydown Yard
Flood Hazard Zones
. 1%Annual Chance Flood
Hazard
Regulatory Floodway
Special Floodway
Area of Undetermined Flood
Hazard
0-2% Annual Chance Flood
Hazard
Future Conditions 1%
® Annual Chance Flood
Hazard
F Area with Reduced Risk Due
to Levee
N
Feet
0 1,000
RICHMOND1 i HOKE
COUNTY ii COUNTY
SCOTLAND
COUNTY
!i ROBESON
COUNTY
�J
Lower Pee Dee River Basin
HUCs 03040201,
03040203,& 03040204
Figure 5-14
Flood Hazard Zones
June 2017
NAD83 NC StatePlane
This map is for reference only.

MYPiedmont
Natural Gas Supporting Documentation for PCN Application
Appendix C: USACE Preliminary JD
PNG Line 434 Extension Project Appendix C

Page intentionally blank
Inserted for double sided printing

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW -2016-02207 County: Richmond, Scotland, Robeson
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Applicant: Piedmont Natural Gas
4720 Piedmont Row Dr
Charlotte, NC 28210
Agent: AECOM
Charles Benton
701 Corporate Center Dr
Suite 475
Raleigh, NC 27607
Size (acres) 1313
Nearest Waterway Leith Creek
USGS HUC 03040204
Nearest Town Hamlet
River Basin Pee Dee
Coordinates Project Start: Latitude: 34.8400491 N
Longitude: -79.735642 W
Project End: Latitude: 34.722535 N
Longitude: -79.213014 W
Location description: Pipeline pro iect runs east to west, ayyroximately 33.6 miles, the 30 -inch pipeline will begin at the
Duke Smith Energy Complex south of I-74 in Hamlet NC and end at the PNG Junction A substation ad'acent to NC -
710 in Pembroke, NC.
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
X There are waters, including wetlands, on the above described property, that may be subject to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). The
waters, including wetlands, have been delineated, and the delineation has been verified by the Corps to be sufficiently
accurate and reliable. Therefore this preliminary jurisdiction determination may be used in the permit evaluation process,
including determining compensatory mitigation. For purposes of computation of impacts, compensatory mitigation
requirements, and other resource protection measures, a permit decision made on the basis of a preliminary JD will treat all
waters and wetlands that would be affected in any way by the permitted activity on the site as if they are jurisdictional
waters of the U.S. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program
Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part 331). However, you may request an approved JD, which is an
appealable action, by contacting the Corps district for further instruction.
There are wetlands on the above described property, that may be subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). However, since the
waters, including wetlands, have not been properly delineated, this preliminary jurisdiction determination may not be
used in the permit evaluation process. Without a verified wetland delineation, this preliminary determination is merely an
effective presumption of CWA/RHA jurisdiction overall of the waters, including wetlands, at the project area, which is
not sufficiently accurate and reliable to support an enforceable permit decision. We recommend that you have the
waters of the U.S. on your property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a
timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can be verified by the Corps.
B. Approved Determination
There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC

§ 1344). Unless there is a change in law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period
not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
There are waters of the U.S., including wetlands, on the above described project area subject to the permit requirements
of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
_ We recommend you have the waters of the U.S. on your property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to accomplish
this wetland delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can be
verified by the Corps.
_ The waters of the U.S., including wetlands, on your project area have been delineated and the delineation has been
verified by the Corps. If you wish to have the delineation surveyed, the Corps can review and verify the survey upon
completion. Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA and/or RHA
jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied
upon for a period not to exceed five years.
_ The waters of the U.S., including wetlands, have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat
signed by the Corps Regulatory Official identified below on . Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
— The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Wilmington, NC, at [phone] to determine
their requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US, including wetlands, without a Department of the Army permit
may constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). Placement of dredged or fill material,
construction or placement of structures, or work within navigable waters of the United States without a Department of the
Army permit may constitute a violation of Sections 9 and/or I0 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC § 401 and/or 403). If
you have any questions regarding this determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Rachel Cal2ito at
(910)-251-4487 or Rachel.A.Ca ito usace.arm .mil
G Basis For Determination: The Corps has determined that the pipeline construction and buffer
zones may impact streams, ponds and wetlands which meet the criteria as described in the 1987
Corps Wetland Delineation Manual and The Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Regional
Supplement. These features are considered potentially jurisdictional waters of the United States.
D. Remarks: This project crosses county borders from Richmond to Robeson County.
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the
particular site identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation
provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation
in USDA programs, you should request a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
CAPITO.RACHEL.AO CM�El�R1136>,b,�
5: r. o -11S mVS,Uarcmmern.av-Cr0.ou-GA.
Corps Regulatory Official:
€ 14.1536276790 'w -17M] If 11.15161]6190

The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete our Customer Satisfaction Survey, located online at
httn://comsmapu.usace.armv.rnil/cm apex/f9p=136:4:0.
SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision.
Additional information may be found at httu://www.usace.armv.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/Reg�ulatorvPro2ramandPermits.ast)x or
Corns regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request
that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district
engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will
forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your
objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your
objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After
evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in
Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein,
you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of
this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days
of the date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section lI of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division
engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant:
Piedmont Natural Gas File Number: SAW -2016-02207 Date: July 21 2017
Attached is: See Section below
❑
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter ofpermission)
A
❑
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter ofpermission)
B
❑
PERMIT DENIAL
C
❑
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
D
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
E
SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision.
Additional information may be found at httu://www.usace.armv.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/Reg�ulatorvPro2ramandPermits.ast)x or
Corns regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request
that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district
engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will
forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your
objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your
objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After
evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in
Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein,
you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of
this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days
of the date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section lI of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division
engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new
information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the
date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive al] rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers
Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the
preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed),
by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the
Corps to reevaluate the JD.
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial
proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or
objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the
record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to
clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record.
However, you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative
record.
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
appeal process you may contact: also contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
Attn: Rachel Capito CESAD-PDO
69 Darlington Ave U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
Wilmington, NC 28443 60 Forsyth Street, Room 1OM15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day
notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site investigations.
Date: I Telephone number:
of appellant or
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Jason Steele,
Administrative Appeal Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 10M15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]

ONPiedmont
Natural Gas Supporting Documentation for PCN Application
Appendix D: RIBITs Report and NCDEQ DMS Mitigation
Acceptance Letter
PNG Line 434 Extension Project Appendix D

Page intentionally blank
Inserted for double sided printing

State: North Carolina
County: Robeson(NC), Scotland(NC),Rlchmand(NC)
8 -Digit Hydrologic Unit Code: D3040201.03040203,03040204
USFWS Field Office: Raielgh
USACE District: VVilmingtan
NOAA Region: Southeast
Mitigation/ onservation Banks & ILF Sites in Primary Service Area 0
Mitigation/ onservation Banks & ILF Sites in Secondary Service Area 0
Mitigationl onservation Banks & ILF Sites in Tertiary Service Area 0
ILF Program Advance Credits 0
Search Criteria:
Excluding single clients
Excluding banks with zero available credits
Using service areae of rank Primary, secondary, Tertiary
Found Banks ILF SIts e, and ILF Programs by 8 -dl it HUC
IIHUC81IStat&IIDiatrictligervice Area Rank Credit Type BanklProgir

Page intentionally blank
Inserted for double sided printing

�Tr­
A0*0,Pn
F
Servicvs
9"VIROMMEMIAL QUALITY
September 19, 2017
Jason Brown
Piedmont Natural Gas
4720 Piedmont Row Drive
Charlotte, NC 28210
Project: PNG Line 434
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secmtary
Expiration of Acceptance: 3/18/2018
Counties: Richmond, Scotland, Robeson
This is a conditional acceptance letter. The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the NCDEQ Division of
Mitigation Services (DMS) is willing to accept payment for compensatory mitigation for impacts associated
with the above referenced project as indicated in the table below. Please note that this decision does not
assure that participation in the DMS in -lieu fee mitigation program will be approved by the permit issuing
agencies as mitigation for project impacts. It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact permitting
agencies to determine if payment to the DMS will be approved. You must also comply with all other state,
federal or local government permits, regulations or authorizations associated with the proposed activity
including G.S. § 143-214.11.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter and is not transferable. If we have not
received a copy of the issued 404 Permit1401 Certification within this time frame, this acceptance will
expire. It is the applicant's responsibility to send copies of the permits to DMS. Once DMS receives a copy
of the permit(s) an invoice will be issued based on the required mitigation in that permit and payment must
be made prior to conducting the authorized work. The amount of the in -lieu fee to be paid by an applicant is
calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and policies listed on the DMS website.
Based on the information supplied by you in your request to use the DMS, the impacts for which you are
requesting compensatory mitigation credit are summarized in the following table. The amount of mitigation
required and assigned to DMS for this impact is determined by permitting agencies and may exceed the
impact amounts shown below.
River Basin Impact Location
(8 -digit HUC
Impact Type
Impact Quantity
Yadkin
03040201
Riparian Wetland
1.59
Lumber
03040203*
Riparian Wetland*
9.04
*Riparian credits are not currently available in this area; DMS proposes to offer riparian credits from Privateer Farms
in the aq acent HUC Cype Fear 03030005
Lumber 03040204*
_
Riparian Wetland*
9.46
*Riparian credits are not currently available in this area; DMS proposes to offer riparian credits from Privateer Farms
in the adjacent HUC Cape Fear 03030005
Lumber
03040203
Non -Riparian Wetland 4.59
Non -Riparian Wetland** 3.08
Lumber ± 03040204**
"non -riparian credits are not currently available in this HUC; DMS proposes to offer non -riparian credits in the Lumber
03040203 HUC
Upon receipt of payment, DMS will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation. The
mitigation will be performed in accordance with the In -Lieu Fee Program instrument dated July 28, 2010.
State ofNorth Carolina I Environmental Quality I Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 1 217 W. Jones Street, Suite 3000
919 707 8976 T

Thank you for your interest in the DMS in -lieu fee mitigation program. If you have any questions or need
additional information, please contact Kelly Williams at [phone].
Sincerely,
me . B Stanfill
A Management Supervisor
cc: Charles Benton, agent

ONPiedmont
Natural Gas Supporting Documentation for PCN Application
Appendix E: USFWS Coordination
PNG Line 434 Extension Project Appendix E

Page intentionally blank
Inserted for double sided printing

A=COM
January 25, 2017
Mr. Gary Jordan
Raleigh Field Office
US Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
AECOM 919 854 6200 tel
701 Corporate Center Drive 919 854 6259 fax
Suite 475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
www.aecom.com
Re: PNG Line 434 30 -inch Natural Gas Pipeline
Robeson, Scotland, and Richmond Counties, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Jordan:
AECOM, on behalf of Piedmont Natural Gas (PNG), would like to request your agency's review of the
proposed Line 434 30 -inch Natural Gas Pipeline Project. PNG is proposing to install approximately
33.6 miles of new 30 -inch natural gas pipe in Robeson, Scotland, and Richmond Counties, North
Carolina. The project begins at NC Highway 710 in Robeson County and terminates at the Duke
Smith Energy Center Complex, just west of Airport Road in Richmond County (see figures,
Attachment A). The potential impact area runs the entire 33.6 miles and is approximately 200 feet
wide, although slightly narrower or wider in some sections. The proposed pipeline runs directly
parallel to an existing natural gas pipeline, the 120 -mile 20 -inch Sutton line. The proposed pipeline is
offset from the Sutton line by approximately 30 feet, except in four areas where the proposed line
diverges from the existing easement (see detail maps 2-5).
Endangered Species Act
In 2010, S&ME Inc. conducted a protected species assessment for the then -proposed 120 -mile
Sutton pipeline, as well as a biological assessment for the red -cockaded woodpecker (RCW). The
biological assessment concluded that no RCW habitat was located within one half mile of the Sutton
pipeline. S&ME Inc. also conducted federally protected plant species surveys during appropriate
times of the year, during which no protected plant species were observed. The USFWS provided
comments in response to S&ME Inc.'s assessment in a letter dated May 21, 2011 (Attachment C).
The USFWS concurred with the determination that the Sutton pipeline was not likely to adversely
affect federally threatened or endangered species, and stated that the Section 7 (a)(2) requirements
of the ESA had been satisfied for the project.
Regarding the proposed Line 434 pipeline, AECOM obtained federally listed endangered and
threatened species data from the USFWS county lists for Robeson, Scotland, and Richmond
Counties. In addition, the NC Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) Data Explorer website was used to
generate a list of known element occurrences within one mile of the proposed project (Attachment B).
The NCNHP lists one historical occurrence of RCW, located approximately 0.8 mile northeast of the
proposed pipeline. Otherwise, there are no element occurrences of any federally threatened or
endangered species located within one mile of the proposed project. In November and December,
2016, AECOM biologists conducted pedestrian surveys of the proposed project area for habitat and
individual occurrences of the federally protected species listed for Robeson, Scotland, and Richmond
Counties. These surveys were not conducted within the optimal survey windows for the plant species.

A=COM
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
January 25, 2017
Page 2
In lists updated on December 3, 2012, December 26, 2012, and July 24, 2015, respectively, the
USFWS lists seven federally protected species for Robeson, Scotland, and Richmond Counties
(Table 1). A brief description of each species' habitat requirements follows, along with the Biological
Conclusion rendered based on survey results in the study area.
Table 1. Federally protected species listed for project counties
Scientific Name
Common Name _T
Counties
Federal
Habitat
Biological
Listed
Status
Present
Conclusion
Vertebrate:
Alligator
American alligator
Robeson,
T (S/A)
N
Not Required
mississippiensis
Scotland
Robeson,
Picoides borealis
Red -cockaded
Scotland,
E
N
No effect
woodpecker
Richmond
Vascular Plant:
May effect, not
Helianthus
Schweinitz's
schweinitzii
sunflower
Richmond
E
Y
likely to
adversely affect
May effect, not
Lysimachia
Rough -leaf
Scotland,
asperulaefolia
loosestrife
Richmond
E
Y
likely to
adversely affect
May effect, not
Oxypolis canbyi
Canby's dropwort
Scotland
E
Y
likely to
adversely affect
Robeson,
May effect, not
Rhus michauxii
Michaux's sumac
Scotland,
E
Y
likely to
Richmond
adversely affect
May effect, not
Schwalbea
American chaffseed
Scotland
E
Y
likely to
americana
adversely affect
E - Endangered
T (S/A) - Threatened due to similarity of appearance
American Alligator
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: year round (only warm days in winter)
Habitat Description: In North Carolina, alligators have been recorded in nearly every coastal county,
and many inland counties to the fall line. The alligator is found in rivers, streams, canals, lakes,
swamps, and coastal marshes. Adult animals are highly tolerant of salt water, but the young are
apparently more sensitive, with salinities greater than five parts per thousand considered harmful.
Biological Conclusion: Not Required
The American alligator is listed as Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance to the Endangered
American crocodile, and is not afforded protection under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.

A=COM
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
January 25, 2017
Page 3
As such, Section 7 consultation with the USFWS is not required for this species. A review of the
NCNHP records, accessed on October 14, 2016, indicates no known occurrences of American
alligator within 1.0 mile of the study.
Red -cockaded woodpecker
USFWS optimal survey window: year round; April 1 through July 31 (optimal)
Habitat Description: The red -cockaded woodpecker (RCW) typically occupies open, mature stands of
southern pines, particularly longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), for foraging and nesting/roosting habitat.
The RCW excavates cavities for nesting and roosting in living pine trees, aged 60 years or older, and
which are contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age to provide foraging habitat. The
foraging range of the RCW is normally no more than 0.5 mile. The USFWS RCW Recovery Plan
outlines specific requirements for RCW foraging and nesting habitat (USFWS 2003). These
requirements include, but are not limited to, little or no hardwood and/or pine midstory, pine stands of
at least 30 years of age, and total stand basal area (BA) should be no higher than 80 square feet per
acre.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Pedestrian surveys were conducted in November and December, 2016, within pine communities in
the study area that could potentially contain habitat for RCW. It was determined that no suitable
nesting or foraging habitat for RCW occurs within these communities due to their dense midstory,
unsuitable tree diameter classes and stand age, and/or a BA higher than 80 square feet per acre. A
review of NCNHP records, accessed on October 14, 2016, indicates no known RCW occurrences
within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Schweinitz's Sunflower
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: late August through October
Habitat Description: Schweinitz's sunflower occurs in full to partial sun and is found in areas with poor
soils, such as thin clays that vary from wet to dry. It is believed that this species once occurred in
natural forest openings or grasslands. Many of the remaining populations occur along roadsides.
Biological Conclusion: May affect, not likely to adversely affect
Surveys for Schweinitz's sunflower and its habitat were conducted during pedestrian surveys
conducted in November and December, 2016. Suitable habitat for this species occurs along utility
and transportation rights-of-way. No individuals were found during the survey. A review of the
NCNHP records, accessed on October 14, 2016, indicates no known element occurrences within 1.0
mile of the study area.
Rough -leaf loosestrife
USFWS optimal survey window: Mid May through June
Habitat Description: This species generally occurs in the ecotones or edges between longleaf pine
uplands and pond pine pocosins (areas of dense shrub and vine growth usually on a wet, peaty,
poorly drained soil) on moist to seasonally saturated sands and on shallow organic soils overlaying
sand. Rough -leaf loosestrife has also been found on deep peat in the low shrub community of large

A=COM
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
January 25, 2017
Page 4
Carolina bays (shallow, elliptical, poorly drained depressions of unknown origin). The grass -shrub
ecotone, where rough -leaf loosestrife is found, is fire -maintained, as are the adjacent plant
communities (longleaf pine - scrub oak, savanna, flatwoods, and pocosin). Suppression of naturally -
occurring fire in these ecotones results in shrubs increasing in density and height and expanding to
eliminate the open edges required by this plant. Several populations are known from roadsides and
power line rights of way where regular maintenance mimics fire and maintains vegetation so that
herbaceous species are open to sunlight.
Biological Conclusion: May effect, not likely to adversely affect
Within the project study area, suitable habitat consists of Carolina bays, mesic pine flatwoods, and
various poorly drained sites. A review of the NCNHP records, accessed on October 14, 2016,
indicates no known element occurrences of rough -leaf loosestrife within 1.0 mile of the study. No
populations or individuals of rough -leaf loosestrife were identified within the study area during
pedestrian surveys conducted in November and December, 2016.
Canby's Dropwort
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: Mid -July through September
Habitat Description: Canby's dropwort has been found in a variety of coastal plain habitats, including
natural ponds dominated by pond cypress, grass -sedge dominated Carolina bays, wet pine
savannas, shallow pineland ponds and cypress -pine swamps or sloughs. The largest and most
vigorous populations have been found in open bays or ponds that are wet throughout most of the
year but which have little or no canopy cover. Soils are sandy loams or acidic peat mucks underlain
by clay layers which, along with the slight gradient of the areas, result in the retention of water.
Biological Conclusion: May affect, not likely to adversely affect
Pedestrian surveys for Canby's dropwort and its habitat were conducted in November and December,
2016. Suitable habitat for this species occurs within some of the wetland areas. No individuals were
found during the survey. A review of the NCNHP records, accessed on October 14, 2016, indicates
no known element occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Michaux's Sumac
USFWS optimal survey window: May through October
Habitat Description: Michaux's sumac, endemic to the inner Coastal Plain and lower Piedmont, grows
in sandy or rocky, open, upland woods on acidic or circumneutral, well -drained sands or sandy loam
soils with low cation exchange capacities. The species is also found on sandy or submesic loamy
swales and depressions in the fall line Sandhills region as well as in openings along the rim of
Carolina bays; maintained railroad, roadside, power line, and utility rights-of-way; areas where forest
canopies have been opened up by blowdowns and/or storm damage; small wildlife food plots;
abandoned building sites; under sparse to moderately dense pine or pine/hardwood canopies; and in
and along edges of other artificially maintained clearings undergoing natural succession. In the
central Piedmont, it occurs on clayey soils derived from mafic rocks. The plant is shade intolerant
and, therefore, grows best where disturbance (e.g., mowing, clearing, grazing, periodic fire) maintains
its open habitat.

A=COM
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
January 25, 2017
Page 5
Biological Conclusion: May affect, not likely to adversely affect
Within the project study area, suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac consists of maintained utility and
transportation easements and areas along the edges of Carolina bays. A review of the NCNHP
records, accessed on October 14, 2016, indicates no known element occurrences of Michaux's
sumac within 1.0 mile of the study. No populations or individuals of Michaux's sumac were identified
within the study areas during pedestrian surveys conducted in November and December, 2016.
American Chaffseed
USFWS optimal survey window: May through August (1-2 months after fire)
Habitat Description: American chaffseed occurs in sandy (sandy peat, sandy loam), acidic, seasonally
moist to dry soils. It is generally found in habitats described as open, moist pine flatwoods, fire -
maintained savannas, ecotonal areas between peaty wetlands and xeric sandy soils, and other open
grass -sedge systems. Chaffseed is dependent on factors such as fire, mowing, or fluctuating water
tables to maintain the crucial open to partly -open conditions that it requires. Historically, the species
probably existed on savannas and pinelands throughout the coastal plain and on sandstone knobs
and plains inland where frequent, naturally occurring fires maintained these sub -climax communities.
Under these conditions, herbaceous plants such as Schwalbea were favored over trees and shrubs.
Biological Conclusion: May affect, not likely to adversely affect
Within the project study area, suitable habitat for American chaffseed consists of pine flatwoods and
transitional areas between wetlands. A review of the NCNHP records, accessed on October 14, 2016,
indicates no known element occurrences of American chaffseed within 1.0 mile of the study. No
populations or individuals of American chaffseed were identified within the study areas during
pedestrian surveys conducted in November and December, 2016.
Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act
A review of the NCNHP records, accessed on October 14, 2016, indicated no known bald eagle
occurrence within 1.0 mile of the study area. No bald eagles, bald eagle nests, or suitable habitat
were observed within the study area during pedestrian surveys conducted in November and
December, 2016
Based on the results of our review of the NCNHP records, our pedestrian surveys, and the absence
of individuals or populations of protected plant species found during S&ME Inc.'s survey of the
directly adjacent Sutton line during appropriate optimal survey windows in 2010, we propose a "May
affect, not likely to adversely affect" conclusion for each of the federally protected plant species. We
did not observe any suitable habitat for the RCW during our pedestrian surveys. Given this, and the
fact that S&ME Inc. did not find any suitable habitat for the RCW within one half mile during their
biological assessment for the directly adjacent Sutton pipeline, we propose a "No effect" conclusion
for this species.
We would appreciate your concurrence with the biological conclusions listed above. We would also
appreciate your agency providing comments on any possible issues that might emerge with respect
to endangered species, critical habitat, migratory birds, or other trust resources from the proposed
project area. A preliminary jurisdictional determination for Waters of the US, including wetlands, is

A=COM
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
January 25, 2017
Page 6
pending the USACE review of our field delineation. Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) is proposed
for the Lumber River crossing, and several other large wetland/stream crossings.
Please contact me at [phone] or [e-mail] if you have any questions
regarding this request.
Sincerely,
AECOM
4jaj-�
Paul Gerlach
Environmental Scientist
Enclosures
Attachment A — Figures
Attachment B — NCNHP Report
Attachment C — USFWS Section 7(a)(2) Response Letter to S&ME

From: Ellis, John [mailto:john_ellisQfws.gov]
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 11:40 AM
To: Gerlach, Paul
Subject: PNG line 434 30" line?
Paul,
How many additional feet of clearing would occur for the new pipeline? For example it may
now be a 100 ft corridor but the new one will need to widen that to 180 ft (just making up
numbers).
Thanks
John

From: Gerlach, Paul
To: "Ellis. John"
Subject: RE: PNG line 434 30" line?
Date: Friday, February 24, 2017 4:57:00 PM
Attachments: Alignment Figures 1-3.odf
Clearing Limits Figures 1-3.odf
Hi John,
I was able to obtain some additional information about the project from the engineers.
Clearing and grubbing along the new pipeline will vary in different areas (up to 70 feet of permanent
clearing and 90 feet of temporary clearing). There are three (3) general scenarios that we describe
below, and that are depicted on the attached "Clearing Limits Figures 1-3." Various sections of the
proposed pipeline will require one of the three scenarios.
In addition, subsequent to our initial correspondence letter, the project alignment has been
redesigned in several locations. While most of the alignment is still collocated adjacent to the
existing Line 175, there are now eight (8) areas where the proposed pipeline will diverge from the
existing easement. These areas are presented on the attached "Alignment Figures 1-3."
Clearing Limits Figure 1:
The proposed 30 -inch Line 434 pipeline is collocated adjacent to the existing Line 175 (Sutton Line)
pipeline, and will require 70 feet of permanent easement (50 feet and 20 feet each side of
centerline). The proposed pipeline would be offset from the existing pipeline by 30 feet. Along the
existing pipeline side, 50 feet is already cleared within the existing Line 175 easement. The 20 feet of
permanent easement located along the other side of the proposed pipeline is also within cleared
easement. As such, no permanent clearing is required for the 70 -foot easement around the
proposed pipeline for this scenario.
In addition to the permanent easement, temporary clearing is required for the construction of the
pipeline. The limits of the temporary workspace (TWS) extend 110 feet from the centerline of the
proposed pipeline. As such, 90 feet of temporary clearing would occur for this scenario. Post -
construction, the TWS will be seeded with a native grass mix and allowed to revert back to a
forested condition via natural seed recruitment from the adjacent canopy.
Clearing Limits Figure 2:
The proposed pipeline is collocated adjacent to the existing Line 1 pipeline, and will require 70 feet
of permanent easement (50 feet and 20 feet each side of centerline). The proposed pipeline would
be offset from the existing pipeline by 30 feet. Along the existing pipeline side, 50 feet is already
cleared within the existing Line 175 easement. The 20 feet of permanent easement located along
the other side of the proposed pipeline would be located outside of the existing cleared easement.
As such, 20 feet of permanent clearing is required for the 70 -foot easement around the proposed
pipeline for this scenario.

The limits of the TWS extend 110 feet from the centerline of the proposed pipeline. As such, another
90 feet of temporary clearing would occur for this scenario. Post -construction, the TWS will be
seeded with a native grass mix and allowed to revert back to a forested condition via natural seed
recruitment from the adjacent canopy.
Clearing limits Figure 3:
The pipeline is re-routed away from the existing Line 175/Line 1 easement. The re-routed
permanent easement will be 70 feet (50 feet and 20 feet each side of centerline). As such, 70 feet of
permanent clearing is required around the proposed pipeline for this scenario.
The limits of the TWS extend 110 feet from the centerline of the proposed pipeline. As such, 60 feet
of temporary clearing would occur for this scenario. Post -construction, the TWS will be seeded with
a native grass mix and allowed to revert back to a forested condition via natural seed recruitment
from the adjacent canopy.
Extra Workspace:
Finally, there will be extra workspace (EWS) needed for Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) under
large wetlands/waters. HDD pads are generally 200 feet by 250 feet. The placement of these HDD
pads has not been finalized yet, but it is anticipated that they would be situated both within the
existing cleared easement and within un -cleared areas. All clearing for HDDs would be temporary.
Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this information, or if there are any specific
locations of concern that you would like more specific information about.
Thanks,
Paul Gerlach
Environmental Scientist
D 1-919-239-7133
paul.gerlach aecom.com
AECOM
701 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 475, Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
T 1-919-854-6200
www.aecom.com

From: Ellis, John [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 11:06 AM
To: Gerlach, Paul; Dale Suiter
Subject: Re: PNG line 434 30" line?
So to summarize, there will be additional clearing for the pipeline but no pine habitat to be
cleared was suitable for RCW foraging based on the Nov and Dec 2016 pedestrian surveys.
Since it was a late fall, I will double check with our botanist to see if the plant determinations
are acceptable or if surveys will need to be conducted during the optimal survey window. Do
you know the name of the person who did the plant surveys?
John

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Gerlach, Paul <naul.gerlachUaecom.com>
Date: Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 11:39 AM
Subject: RE: PNG line 434 30" line?
To: "Ellis, John" <john_ellis(&,fws.gov>, Dale Suiter <dale_suiterC&,fws.gov>
John,
Thanks for your response. That is correct — during Nov and Dec 2016 (survey of old proposed
alignment, shown on attached Alignment Figures 1-3), and March 2017 (survey of new proposed
alignment, shown on the same figures), the entire project area was covered with pedestrian surveys,
and no suitable RCW habitat was observed, based on inappropriate stand age, understory thickness,
or basal area.
Pedestrian surveys for protected plant species were conducted during the same months by the
following AECOM staff members:
Charles Benton (Nov, Dec)
Ron Johnson (Mar)
Paul Masten (Mar)
Kevin Lapp (Mar)
Paul Gerlach (Nov, Dec)
Chris Inscore (Nov, Dec, Mar)
Peyton Daly (Nov, Dec, Mar)
I've also attached our original correspondence letter, for Dale's reference, containing our Biological
Conclusions for protected plant species. The figures shown in this letter show the old alignment, but
the revised alignment can be found on the attached Alignment Figures 1-3. Please let me know if
you need any additional information or if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Paul Gerlach
Environmental Scientist
D 1-919-239-7133
paul.gerlach aecom.com
AECOM
701 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 475, Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
T 1-919-854-6200
www.aecom.com

From: Ellis, John [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 7:52 AM
To: Gerlach, Paul; Leigh Mann
Subject: Fwd: PNG line 434 30" line?
Paul,
The Service concurs with your determinations for listed species.
John

From: Gerlach, Paul
To: "Ellis, John"; "Leigh Mann"
Subject: RE: PNG line 434 30" line?
Date: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 10:26:00 AM
Attachments: Figure 1.odf
Figure 2.odf
project report line 434 richmond mill lake 7091 7091.12df
Hi John,
I'd like to give you an update on the Piedmont Natural Gas (PNG) Line 434 natural gas pipeline
project that you reviewed a couple of months ago. PNG is now proposing to reroute approximately 5
miles of the alignment in Scotland County, as shown on the attached Figure 1(Richmond Mill Lake
Reroute). Last week, AECOM surveyed this reroute study area for listed threatened and endangered
species and habitat. No protected plant species were observed during this survey; however, possible
habitat for the red -cockaded woodpecker (RCW) was observed in two locations along the new
proposed alignment. These locations are shown on the attached Figure 2. The first area, labeled as
"future potential RCW foraging habitat," had the following characteristics:
• Basal area was averaged to around 100 sgft/ac., using a 10 factor prism.
• Understory was variable in appearance. Some areas were sparse, with wiregrass present.
Other areas were thick with blackberry, muscadine, and honeysuckle vines, 4-6 ft tall.
• Mid -story was also variable. In some areas, mid -story was sparse to non-existent. Other
areas had dense hardwood mid -story.
• Based on the private lands guidance in the RCW Recovery Plan (USFWS 2003), this area
meets the stand age requirement for foraging habitat — stand age was about 30 years.
• It does not meet any other requirements (ideal basal area, lack of hardwood mid -story,
prescription burning).
• Based on the RCW Recovery Plan, this would qualify as "Future Potential Habitat" if it
were thinned and burned AND if there is a cluster found within 0.25 mile and another
foraging stand or existing cluster within 200 ft.
The area labeled as "Suitable RCW Nesting Habitat" had the following characteristics:
• Ideal appearance for nesting habitat. However, AECOM did not measure basal area, tree
age, or DBH.
Estimated 60-70 sgft/ac. basal area, no mid -story, sparse understory (wiregrass), 80 -
year -old+ longleaf.
Appears to be maintained with prescribed fire, as there were fire lines in place.
This would also meet requirements for foraging habitat, if it is within 0.25 mile of an
existing cluster and 200 ft from existing foraging habitat or an existing cluster.
Additionally, according to the NC NHP, there is a current element occurrence of RCW (EO ID 24044)
located approximately 0.6 mile north of the study area, as shown on the attached figures. AECOM
confirmed the presence of individual birds and active RCW nests at this location, directly adjacent to
McFarland Road, on April 25, 2017. No active nests or individuals of RCW were observed within the
project study area.
Based on our habitat observations within the reroute study area, and the lack of active nests found

within the immediate vicinity, AECOM proposes changing our original biological conclusion for RCW
from No Effect, to May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect. We would appreciate your review of
this reroute area, as well as any comments regarding our biological conclusion and whether any
additional surveys may be required. PNG has a tight timeline for this project, so we would like to
notify them as soon as possible whether the project is in compliance with the ESA. Please let me
know if you have any questions or if you need any additional information.
Thanks,
Paul Gerlach
Environmental Scientist
D 1-919-239-7133
paul.gerlach e aecom.com
AECOM
701 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 475, Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
T 1-919-854-6200
www.aecom.com
From: Gerlach, Paul
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 2:31 PM
To: 'Ellis, John'; Leigh Mann
Subject: RE: PNG line 434 30" line?
John,
Thanks. We'll be sure to let you know if anything changes with the project plans. We appreciate your
review of this project.

From: Gerlach, Paul
To: "Ellis, John"
Cc: John Hammond; Leigh Mann
Subject: RE: PNG line 434 30" line?
Date: Friday, June 02, 2017 12:06:00 PM
John,
Yes, thanks very much — we'll let the client know that surveys will need to be conducted.
Have a great weekend,
Paul Gerlach
Environmental Scientist
D 1-919-239-7133
paul.gerlach e aecom.com
AECOM
701 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 475, Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
T 1-919-854-6200
www.aecom.com
From: Ellis, John [mailto:john—[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2017 10:42 AM
To: Gerlach, Paul
Cc: John Hammond; Leigh Mann
Subject: Re: PNG line 434 30" line?
Paul,
I conferred with John, and we recommend that red cockaded woodpecker surveys be
conducted in a half mile radius of any pines 10" dbh or greater that are to be removed in the
area of suitable habitat. The information will be used in our review of the Sect 7
determination.
Will this be sufficient?
John
On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Gerlach, Paul <paul.gerlach(&,aecom.com> wrote:
Hi John,
Thanks for your response. To answer John's questions, yes, pines greater than or equal to 10 inches
dbh will be removed in the area of suitable nesting habitat for both the permanent easement
(approximately 70 feet maximum) and temporary easements (approximately 90 feet maximum). A
survey for RCW was only conducted within approximately 300 -feet of the proposed centerline of the
pipeline. Additional survey area (e.g. 1/2 mile radius of the trees to be removed) was not in our
scope -of -work.

Our current coordination with your agency on this issue is to determine if this additional survey area
for RCW is recommended by the USFWS. If it is recommended, we would appreciate this
recommendation be provided in writing (email is fine), so that we may inform our client of the
additional scope -of -work required to satisfy the regulatory requirements for this project.
Please let me know if you need any additional information.
Thanks,
Paul Gerlach
Environmental Scientist
D 1-919-239-7133
paul.gerlach e aecom.com
AECOM
701 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 475, Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
T 1-919-854-6200
www.aecom.com
From: Ellis, John [mailto:john ellis(a)fws.gov]
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 4:36 PM
To: Gerlach, Paul; John Hammond
Cc: Leigh Mann
Subject: Re: PNG line 434 30" line?
John H. and I spoke and he asked if pines greater than or equal to 10 inches dbh will be
removed in the area of suitable nesting habitat. If so, did you all survey a 1/2 mile radius of
the trees to be removed?
John

From: Gerlach, Paul
To: "Ellis, John"
Cc: John Hammond
Subject: PNG Line 434 RCW Survey
Date: Friday, June 16, 2017 2:10:00 PM
Attachments: PNG Line 434 RCW memo 2017 06 16.pdf
Hi John,
In accordance with your June 2 request for RCW surveys along areas of the Piedmont Natural Gas
(PNG) Line 434 project, and on behalf of PNG, AECOM recently conducted surveys within a half -mile
radius of any pines 10 inches DBH or greater that will be removed within the area of suitable habitat.
The results of these surveys are summarized in the attached memo. Please let me know if you have
any questions regarding this information.
Thanks,
Paul Gerlach
Environmental Scientist
D 1-919-239-7133
paul.gerlach aecom.com
AECOM
701 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 475, Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
T 1-919-854-6200
www.aecom.com

From: Ellis, John
To: Gerlach, Paul
Cc: John Hammond
Subject: Re: PNG Line 434 RCW Survey
Date: Wednesday, July 05, 2017 10:02:56 AM
Paul,
Thanks for the information. The Service concurs with your "no effect" determination.
John Ellis
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Gerlach, Paul <paul.gerlach4aecom.com> wrote:
Hi John,
In accordance with your June 2 request for RCW surveys along areas of the Piedmont
Natural Gas (PNG) Line 434 project, and on behalf of PNG, AECOM recently conducted
surveys within a half -mile radius of any pines 10 inches DBH or greater that will be
removed within the area of suitable habitat. The results of these surveys are summarized in
the attached memo. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this
information.
Thanks,
Paul Gerlach
Environmental Scientist
D 1-919-239-7133
AECOM
701 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 475, Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
T 1-919-854-6200
www.aecom.com

MYPiedmont
Natural Gas Supporting Documentation for PCN Application
Appendix F: NPS Coordination Letter
PNG Line 434 Extension Project Appendix F

Page intentionally blank
Inserted for double sided printing

IN REPLY REFER TO:
1.A.2. (SERO -PQ
United States Department of the Interior
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Southeast Regional Office
Atlanta Federal Center
1924 Building
100 Alabama St., SW.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
JUL 11 2W
Charlie Benton, PWS
AECOM
701 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Re: Piedmont Natural Gas Line 434 Looping Project
Dear Mr. Benton:
NATIONAL
PARK
SERVICE
We have reviewed the project materials you provided and have determined that, under the
primary design alternative which uses horizontal directional drilling (HDD), the proposed project
does not trigger a formal Section 7 determination by the National Park Service (NPS) in
accordance with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA). However, in the unlikely event that
HDD becomes infeasible, any contingencies that involve ground disturbance within the river's
bed and banks (e.g., open cut) would trigger further review under Section 7 of the WSRA and
may in fact result in direct and adverse effects to the river's values. If the HDD crossing proves
unsuccessful and the non -HDD contingency plan becomes necessary, please contact the NPS for
additional consultation and analysis prior to any ground disturbance within the bed and banks of
the Lumber River. Should you have any questions, please contact Jeffrey R. Duncan, PhD,
Fishery Ecologist & Water Quality Specialist, at 423-987-6127 or jeff [e-mail].
Sincerely,
en West
Chief, Planning and Compliance Division

Page intentionally blank
Inserted for double sided printing

MYPiedmont
Natural Gas Supporting Documentation for PCN Application
Appendix G: NC HPO Coordination
PNG Line 434 Extension Project Appendix G

Page intentionally blank
Inserted for double sided printing

Benton, Charles
From: DePalma, Alicia <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2017 2:56 PM
To: Jorgenson, Matt
Cc: Brown, Jason A.; Benton, Charles; Lane, Mike
Subject: FW: ER#17-0077
Received a response from SHPO. See below.
Alicia DePalma
Environmental Siting and Licensing Support
4720 Piedmont Row Drive
Charlotte, NC 28210
[phone] Office
[phone] Mobile
alicia.depalma(a�-duke-energy.com
From: Gledhill-earley, Renee [mailto:renee.gledhill-earley cdcr.gov]
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2017 1:38 PM
To: DePalma, Alicia <alicia.depalma uke-energy.com>
Subject: RE x#17-0077
*** Exercise caution. This is an EXTERNAL email. DO NOT open
attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected
email. ***
We have your August ls'submittal. It is under review. Due to severe staffing situation, we are a bit behind in responding.
Thank you for your patience.
Renee Gledhill -Earley
Environmental Fbview Coordinator
Sate Historic Preservation Office
109 E Jones St MSC 4601 Raleigh, NC 27699
919 807 6579 office
■
NC DEPARTMENT OF
W s NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law
and may be disclosed to third parties.
Please Note: Requestsfor project review or responsesto our review commentsshould be sent to our Environmental Review
emailboxat environmental.review(cD-ncdcr.gov Otherwise, I will have to return your request and askthat you send it to the proper
mailbox Thiswill cause delaysin your project. Information on email project submittal isat:
http://www.hpo.ncdcr.gov/er/er email submittal.html
1

From: DePalma, Alicia[mailto:alicia.depalma(a�-duke-energy.coml
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2017 11:47 AM
To: Gledhill-earley, Renee <renee.gledhiII-earl ey(a�ncdcr.gov>
Subject: U4M7-0077
Hi Ms. Gledhill -Earley,
I would like to follow-up on the concurrence request dated August 1 st for ER#17-0077 to ensure you received it
and if you had any questions. Please let me know if we need to resend.
Thank you.
Alicia DePalma
Environmental Siting and Licensing Support
4720 Piedmont Row Drive
Charlotte, NC 28210
[phone] Office
[phone] Mobile
alicia.depalma(a_)duke-energy.com

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary Susi H. Hamilton
January 27, 2017
Matthew Jorgenson
AECOM
701 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 475
Raleigh, NC 27607
matt. j orgenson@aecom. com
Re: Construct Piedmont Natural Gas Line 434 30" Loop Pipeline;
Richmond, Scotland, and Robeson Counties; ER 17-0077
Dear Mr. Jorgenson:
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Thank you for your letter of January 4, 2017, concerning the above project. We have reviewed the
information provided and offer the following comments.
There are 23 previously recorded archaeological sites located within the Area of Potential Effects (APE) for
the proposed Piedmont Natural Gas (PNG) Line 434 Pipeline, and five additional sites are located in close
proximity to the APE. All of these sites were determined not eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places (NRHP) or were recommended for no further work.
The proposed corridor for the Line 434 Pipeline is offset and parallel to the existing Sutton Pipeline in all
but four places, where the two lines diverge. An archaeological survey is not necessary in portions of the
proposed pipeline corridor that are immediately offset from and paralleling the Sutton Pipeline because the
existing line was subjected to an intensive cultural resources survey between June 2010 and August 2011
(Nagel et al. 2011). This survey covered a vast majority of the current APE for the proposed Line 434
Pipeline. An archaeological survey is not necessary in the furthest west area where Line 434 diverges from
the Sutton Pipeline, in the third divergent area going west to east, or in the furthest east of the divergent
areas because conditions in these locations have a relatively low potential for containing significant, intact
archaeological sites.
We do, however, recommend that an intensive archaeological survey be conducted in the second of four
divergent areas going west to east. This area is near where McFarland Road crosses the Laurinburg and
Southern Railroad, north of the town of Laurinburg. There is a cemetery located on the north side of
McFarland Road and west of the railroad, approximately 50 m south of the proposed APE for Line 434. In
addition to an intensive archaeological survey of this overall area, special attention should be paid to the
area around the cemetery to ensure that the pipeline will not impact the cemetery or any potentially
unmarked burials that may be associated with the cemetery.
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

Two copies of all resulting archaeological reports, as well as one copy of the North Carolina site form for
each site recorded, should be forwarded to the Office of State Archaeology through this office for review
and comment as soon as they are available and in advance of any construction or ground disturbance
activities.
We have determined that the project as proposed will not have an effect on any historic structures.
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.
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.review(kncdcr.,izov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona M. Bartos