20081410 Ver 2_401 Application_20091009

Letter of Transmittal
S&ME, Inc. *S&ME
9751 Southern Pine Blvd. Charlotte, NC 28273
[phone]
[phone] fax
N.C. Division of Water Quality
401 Wetlands Unit
2321 Crabtree Blvd.
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-2260
DATE: October 23, 2009 JOB NO: 1357-08-504
ATTENTION: Ms. Cyndi Karoly
RE: Revised Application for NWP No. 12 and WQC
S&ME Proposal No.: 1357-18259-07
08-I4?oVa.
WE ARE SENDING YOU: ® Attached ? Under separate cover via the following items: j
? Shop drawings ? Prints ? Plans ? Draft ? Specifications
? Copy of letter ? Report ® Revised Permit Application
COPIES DATE NO DESCRIPTION
5 10.23.09 1 Revised Application for NWP No. 12/WQC

THESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW:
® For approval ? For your use
? As requested
? FORBIDS DUE:
? For review and comment ?
? PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS:
COPY TO: File
p E V, - ,
0 C T 2 1 2009
DENR - WATER QUALIn
MANDS AND ST6I4fYl 4n BRANCH
/111' 1-1
SIGNED: V?e? /W "L?
IF ENCLOSURES ARE NOT AS NOTED, PLEASE NOTIFY US AT ONCE.
This Letter of Transmittal and the documents accompanying this Letter of Transmittal contain information from S&ME, Inc., which is confidential and legally
privileged. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named on this Letter of Transmittal. If you are not the intended recipient, you
are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on these documents is strictly prohibited.
S&ME SFG-001
(Rev 04/04)
S&ME
October 23, 2009 ? - _
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Attention: Mr. Steve Chapin
N.C. Division of Water Quality
401 Wetlands Unit
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Attention: Ms. Cyndi Karoly
p$- 14 1 0 Va.
sy@ r?0 W
OCT 2 7 2009
DENR - WATER QUALITY
MftAICIS AND SMIRMATER BRANCH
Reference: Revised Application for Nationwide Permit No. 12 and
Request for Jurisdictional Determination
PNG Dixie River Road System Strengthening
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1357-08-504
USACE Action ID No. 2008-02682-360
Dear Mr. Chapin and Ms. Karoly:
S&ME, Inc. (S&ME) is submitting this revised application for impacts to waters of the
U.S. in accordance with Department of the Army Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 12,
along with supporting documentation for a revised verification of jurisdictional
boundaries. The overall project involves the construction of approximately three miles of
10-inch diameter natural gas pipeline. During the time since the previous approval was
received for this project (USACE Action ID No. 2008-02682-360), the North Carolina
Turnpike Authority (NCTA) requested a revision to the alignment to accommodate a
future potential toll road interchange with Interstate 485. The alignment requested by the
NCTA necessitates crossing the Beaverdam Creek stream mitigation site, an Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (EEP) project. Accordingly, Piedmont Natural Gas (PNG) has
revised approximately 1,782 linear feet (if) of the original alignment, and has contacted
EEP regarding the proposed impacts to the stream mitigation site. In correspondence
dated August 11, 2009, EEP indicated that they will not issue approval for these impacts
without U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and N.C. Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) approval (Appendix III - Agency Correspondence). In support of this revised
NWP No. 12 application please find enclosed the following:
Appendix l: Agent Authorization Form and Revised Pre-Construction
Notification (PCN);
Appendix 11: Figures Site Vicinity Map (Figure ])and Conservation Easement
Crossing Map (Figure 2);
Appendix 111: Previous Permit Approvals and Agency Correspondence;
S&ME, INC. / 9751 Southern Pine Boulevard / Charlotte, NC 28273-5560 / p 704.523.4726 f 704.525.3953 / www.smeinc.com
Revised Nationwide Permit No. 1 2/Request for Jurisdictional Determination SWE Project No. 1357-08-504
PNG Dixie River Road System Strengthening October 23, 2009
Appendix IV: USACE Stream Quality Assessment Forms and DWQ Stream
Identification Forms;
Appendix V: Restoration Plan; and
Check for $570 (DWQ).
Copies of this PCN, along with a check for the processing fee, are being provided to
DWQ for written concurrence.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
As presented in the initial permit application, the proposed pipeline is needed to supply
additional pressure to an area of Mecklenburg County that has experienced recent and
ongoing growth. To continue providing adequate pressure to existing customers while
also meeting the needs of new customers, PNG must increase supply. The project will
involve the construction of approximately three miles of 10-inch diameter natural gas
pipeline. The permanent easement width for the pipeline will be 50 feet. The entire
easement will be maintained in uplands; across streams and in wetlands the construction
and maintenance corridors will be reduced to 40 feet.
The origin of the previously permitted proposed pipeline is located south of the
northernmost crossing of Dixie River Road and I-485 (35.2008°N, 80.96901 °W). From
there the pipeline continues south, remaining adjacent to the I-485 right-of-way until its
terminus at Steele Creek Road (35.1656°N, 80.96734°W). The location of the corridor is
depicted on the Site Vicinity Map (Appendix II - Figure 1).
On September 10, 2008, the NCTA requested that PNG revise the proposed alignment to
be outside of the future proposed East-West Connector Toll Road easement. To
accommodate this request, PNG shifted the alignment from the original location, which
was adjacent to the I-485 easement, west approximately 100 feet to be outside of and
adjacent to the future proposed NCTA easement for the toll road. As a result, the
proposed realignment will cross the EEP Beaverdam Creek conservation easement
(Appendix II - Figure 2). The EEP has expressed that permission to cross the
conservation easement is contingent on receipt of amended Section 404/401 permits.
Copies of the request for realignment and associated correspondence are included in
Appendix 111.
The realignment is approximately 0.62 mile south of Garrison Road and comprises
approximately 1,782 If The re-alignment diverges from the original proposed pipeline
corridor at 35.1819°N, 80.9700 °W, and shifts approximately 100 feet west to
accommodate the proposed turnpike comdor. The re-alignment continues south,
paralleling the original proposed pipeline corridor, and then converges with the original
proposed pipeline corridor at 35.1774°N, 80.9699 °W. The location and details of the
pipeline re-alignment are depicted on the Conservation Easement Crossing Map
(Appendix II - Figure 2).
The permitted project involves temporary and limited permanent impacts to waters of the
U.S. Impacts to waters of the U.S. are limited to seven stream crossings and three
wetland crossings. The proposed re-alignment has eliminated impacts associated with
Wetland C from the original pipeline corridor, reducing overall wetland impacts.
Revised Nationwide Permit No.12/Request for Jurisdictional Determination SWE Project No. 1357-08-504
PNG Dixie River Road System Strengthening October 23. 2009
Permanent project-wide wetland impacts resulting from permanent conversion of
scrub/shrub and forested wetland to emergent are reduced from the originally
permitted 0.053 acre to 0.043 acre. Permanent, project-wide impacts to
jurisdictional tributaries (perennial and intermittent RPW) are reduced from the
originally permitted 145 linear feet (11) to 85 if for permanent placement of rip rap.
Temporary impacts to jurisdictional stream channel will increase from the original
permitted 135 if to 160 If.
FIELD OBSERVATIONS
During May 2008 and January 2009, S&ME wetland professionals visited the project
corridor and conducted a jurisdictional delineation to determine the location of waters of
the U.S. For wetlands, the delineations were conducted utilizing currently accepted
methods as set forth in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Stream assessments were conducted in accordance with DWQ and USACE guidelines.
Field review associated with the proposed re-alignment consisted of extending existing
delineations of two streams, Stream 4 and Stream 5, to the new extent of the re-alignment
corridor. No wetlands were identified within the re-alignment corridor. Because Streams
4 and 5 were previously verified by Alan Johnson of DWQ on June 12, 2008, and the
new alignment crosses downstream of the original alignment, new USACE Stream
Quality Forms and DWQ Stream Identification Forms were not filled out for the
aforementioned delineation extensions. Copies of the original forms are included with
this submittal as Appendix N.
Table 1: Wetlands within Project Corridor'
Wetland ID Area within Project Corridor Wetland Type Lat/Lon
Acre
A 0.019 Forested and 35.1965°N
80
9695°W
scrub/shrub ,
.
B 0.024 Emergent and Scrub- 35.1922°N
80
9714°W
shrub ,
.
C Avoided through re-alignment Forested and Emergent 35.1815°N, 80.97°W
Area caicuiarea Dasea on a project corndor width of 50 feet.
Table 2: Streams within Pro'ect Corridor'
Stream ID Length within Project
Corridor (I9 Stream Type Lat/Lon
1 50 Perennial 35.1963°N, 80.9695°W
2 50 Perennial 35.1923°N, 80.9715°W
3 53 Intermittent/ Seasonal RPW 35.1831-N, 80.9705°W
4 56 Perennial 35.1815°N, 80.9704°W
5 51 Perennial 35.1807°N, 80.9704°W
6 50 Perennial 35.1754°N, 80.9703°W
7 50 Perennial 35.1684°N, 80.9687°W
Length based on a protect corridor width of 50 feet.
The re-alignment study corridor generally comprises a mix of wooded areas and newly
restored floodplain habitat dominated by native herbaceous species.
Revised Nationwide Permit No. 1 2/Request for Jurisdictional Determination SWE Project No. 1357-08-504
PNG Dixie River Road System Strengthening October 23, 2009
PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACTS
A 50-foot wide cleared easement will be utilized for construction and permanent
maintenance of the pipeline in upland areas. In jurisdictional waters of the U.S., the
construction corridor will not exceed 40 feet. The permanently maintained corridor will
be 40 feet at stream crossings. Approximately original profiles, contour, and grade will
be established within the channel and along the banks of streams on completion of
pipeline installation.
The previously permitted project corridor impacted three wetland areas and seven
jurisdictional streams. The re-alignment will reduce overall wetland impacts through
avoidance of Wetland C. To accommodate the NCTA request, impacts to Stream 4 and
Stream 5 have shifted approximately 100 feet west of the original impact area and into
the EEP Beaverdam Creek stream mitigation site.
The new alignment will involve permanent impacts resulting from rip rap placement at
Streams 1, 2, and 7. Rip rap will also be used at Stream 6, but this channel is currently
rip rapped from top-of-bank to top-of-bank and has not been included in impact
calculations for the current project. The remaining streams (3, 4, and 5) will not require
rip rap for stabilization and will not be permanently impacted.
The pipeline will be installed using the open-cut method. This will involve digging a
trench that will be an average of five feet wide for most of the corridor length, but may
increase to 20 feet before road crossings. Joints of the pipeline will then be welded and
the pipe will be lowered into the trench. Excavated areas in streams and wetlands will be
backfilled and returned to near pre-construction contours.
PROTECTED SPECIES AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Protected Species
S&ME forwarded scoping letters to the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(NCNHP) and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) on June 12, 2008. The
scoping letters included a description of the proposed work, figures detailing the location
of the project corridor, and a request for comments regarding concerns that the respective
agencies may have. On June 18, 2008, the NCNHP responded stating that their records
indicated the presence of a North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
easement along an unnamed tributary west of the project corridor and south of Garrison
Road (See Appendix III). The NCNHP emphasized this easement is for water quality,
and that sediment from construction would likely enter the tributary. PNG has agreed to
strict sediment and erosion control measures which will be implemented prior to pipeline
construction and will be maintained until disturbed areas have been stabilized to prevent
sediment from entering the tributary. In a July 10, 2008 letter, the USFWS stated that the
requirements under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act have been fulfilled
(Appendix IlI).
S&ME's review of potential protected terrestrial species habitat entailed a literature
review of existing records obtained from federal and state sources to identify documented
records of protected species. The USFWS list of federally protected species (updated
May 10, 2007) and the NCNHP Element Occurrence (EO) Database were consulted for a
listing of protected species documented within Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
This review identified three protected plant species and one animal. Listed fauna and
4
Revised Nationwide Permit No. 1 2/Request for Jurisdictional Determination SWE Project No. 1357-08-504
PNG Dixie River Road System strengthening October 23 2009
flora and their federal status are identified in Table 3. Explanations of rankings are
included at the end of the table.
Table 3: Protected Flora and Farina Riimmar%i
Species Federal Rank' County Status Habitat Present
Helianthus schweinitzii

Schweinitz's sunflower E Current No
Lasmigona decorata

Carolina heelsplitter E Historical No-
Echinacea laevigata

Smooth coneflower E Current No
Rhus michauxii
Michaux's sumac
•T E Historical No
• - -I.- • L - L.IIV OIII,GICu
- A habitat assessment was not performed for this aquatic species. Project does not impact designated
Critical Habitat for this species.
As part of the literature review, S&ME also consulted the NCNHP GIS database and
Virtual Workroom for a listing of occurrences of endangered or threatened species within
or near the project corridor. This review identified 10 EOs, none of which are federally
protected species.
In June 2009, S&ME personnel conducted a field review of the realignment corridor.
The field review entailed a pedestrian survey of appropriate habitat to verify the presence
or absence of protected species. During field reconnaissance, S&ME personnel
integrated the information obtained from supporting documentation with field evaluation
for the presence of protected terrestrial species or their potential habitat. Portions of the
study corridor that matched descriptions of the preferred habitat for species listed in
Table 3 were classified as potential habitat for protected terrestrial species.
Field review of the realignment corridor revealed a highly disturbed area as a result of
stream restoration efforts within the EEP conservation easement. Currently, the
realignment corridor is comprised largely of herbaceous species and planted woody
vegetation associated with the stream restoration. Based on the level of recent
disturbance and the stream restoration, the realignment corridor was not considered to
provide potential habitat for protected terrestrial species with a likelihood of occurring in
Mecklenburg County.
The proposed project crosses unnamed tributaries of Beaverdam Creek, which drains
directly into Lake Wylie. Consequently, the proposed pipeline will not impact streams
that drain to known populations of Carolina heelsplitter or its designated Critical Habitat.
No documented occurrences of Carolina heelsplitter are known for Beaverdam Creek or
its tributaries. Accordingly, the proposed project is not anticipated to impact this species
or its designated Critical Habitat.
5
Revised Nationwide Permit No.12/Request for Jurisdictional Determination SWE Project No. 1357-08-504
PNG Dixie River Road System Strengthening October 23 2009
Cultural Resources
S&ME provided a scoping letter to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) on June 12, 2008. SHPO responded with a July 21, 2008 letter stating that they
were aware of no historic resources which would be affected by the project. A copy of
the SHPO letter is included in Appendix 111.
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
PNG has designed the proposed pipeline re-alignment to avoid and minimize impacts to
waters of the U.S. to the extent practical. Clearing will be necessary along the project
corridor; however, it will not result in an easement width of greater than 50 feet in
uplands, or 40 feet within wetlands. Stream crossings were designed to limit impacts by
crossing at a near perpendicular angle. Wetland C will be avoided (0.013 acre) as a result
of the re-alignment.
The proposed project was initially routed to parallel the NCDOT right-of-way for I-485
to the extent practical to minimize impacts to private property owners while also
minimizing "edge effect" in sensitive wetland areas. Because the proposed pipeline is a
distribution line, it must be afforded a level of protection within a dedicated easement
that is not available within the existing maintained NCDOT right-of-way. The re-
alignment continues to parallel the future proposed NCTA easement with similar
objectives.
REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
As outlined in the initial permit submittal, the combined width of the temporary
construction corridor and the permanent easement will not exceed 40 feet in wetlands and
at stream crossings. Permanent impacts associated with stream crossings will be limited
to placement of riprap at those crossings that are immediately downstream of and
adjacent to the I-485 easement, where evidence of high velocity flows was observed.
Following construction, stream crossings 4 and 5 will be restored to near original grade
and elevation. The proposed project should not result in permanent changes in pre-
construction elevation contours or stream dimension, pattern or profile. Excess material
will be removed to a high ground disposal area. Cleared areas will be restored with
native vegetation in accordance with the attached Restoration Plan (Appendix V) within
30 working days of initial land disturbance.
Sediment and erosion control Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be employed in
order to comply with the appropriate turbidity \vater quality standard. These BMPs shall
be consistent with specifications governing their proper design, installation, operation and
maintenance, as outlined in the most recent version of the "North Carolina Sediment and
Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual" and approved by the local governing
authority.
Sediment and erosion control measures placed in waters will be removed and the original
grade restored within two months after the Di\ ision of Land Resources has released the
project. Impacts have been avoided and minimized, and appropriate measures will be
taken during construction to allow flow and circulation patterns of waters of the U.S. to
remain unaffected.
Revised Nationwide Permit No.12/Request for Jurisdictional Determination SWE Project No. 1357-08-504
PNG Dixie River Road System Strengtheninq October 23 2009
Permanent impacts associated with this project are below the thresholds for NWP No. 12.
Accordingly, this PCN for NWP No. 12 is being submitted to the USACE for approval.
MITIGATION
Based on conversations with the USACE for similar projects, we anticipate that
appropriate mitigation for the proposed project can be satisfied by the avoidance and
minimization procedures implemented during the design phase of the proposed project.
Impacts to streams and wetlands within the project corridor will be minimized by use of
the existing, maintained easement to the extent practicable, and by reducing both the
temporary construction and permanent maintained corridor widths.
A majority of impacts resulting from the proposed project are temporary. Original grades
and contours will be restored at stream crossings 4 and 5. To restore the corridor at
stream crossings, PNG will use a native seed mix, which will be distributed with
placeholder species to provide soil stabilization until the permanent seeding germinates
and becomes established. This seed mix will be comprised of native species (with the
exception of the placeholder species, which will consist of annual species to reduce
competition with the native seeds). The restoration plan submitted with this PCN
revision outlines the seed mix and application methods (Appendix V).
CLOSING
By copy of this correspondence and revised PCN, we are requesting your written
concurrence with this NWT No. 12 permit application. If we can provide additional
information, please feel free to contact us at 704.523.4726.
Sincerely,
S&ME
CAP-tom,--c. 1q. L k
Catherine M. Luckenbaugh, C.
Natural Resources Proj ect 1\1 anager
Michael Wolfe
Natural Resources Department Manager
V)??
Senior Review by M. Neal McElveen, P.E.
Attachments
cc: Ms. Mara Sikora, PNG
CMUCJF/ EMW/cml S:\1357',PROJECTS\2008\1357-08-504\PCN Modification\NWP12Letter Dixie realignment
AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM AND REVISED PRE-CONSTRUCTION
NOTIFICATION
AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM - S&ME
Date: 5/27/08
Project Information
S&ME Project Name: PNG Dixie River Road Pipeline
Type of Project: Jurisdictional Delineation, Nationwide Permitting
Location: Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Property Owner/Representative Information
Business Name:
Mailing Address:
City, State, Zip Code
Telephone No.
Contact:
Piedmont Natural Gas
4720 Piedmont Row Drive
Charlotte, NC 28210
[phone]
Ms. Mara Sikora, P.E.
Agent Information
Business Name:
Street Address:
City, State, Zip Code
Telephone No.
Contact:
S&ME, Inc.
9751 Southern Pine Boulevard
Charlotte, N.C. 28273
704.523.4726
Catherine Luckenbaugh
Authorization: I M010 sue- on behalf of
(Contact Signature)
i?OJO?QrA?T R)AT --A - CT hereby authorize
(Name of Landowner Project Sponsor)
S&ME, Inc. to act as agent for the above-mentioned project.

fio O w a F9il
?
i
O Iii? T
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information Vh
_
PAID
1. Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
E Section 404 Permit ? Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: Nationwide Permit 12 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? = N:Y:es ? No
1 d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
• 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 For the record only for DWQ 401 For the record only for Corps Permit:
because written approval is not required? Certification:
?Yes ENo ? Yes • No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation ? Yes • No
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program.
1 g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1h ? Yes •No
below.
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: PNG Dixie River Road System Strengthening
2b. County: Mecklenburg
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Charlotte
2d. Subdivision name: N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state N/A
project no:
° LEd?MC Dui
a r T 2 7 ZQn9
DENR - WATER QUALITY
119If;TMIM AND STORKNATER BRANCH
Page 1 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: Linear Corridor Project, multiple owners
3b. Deed Book and Page No. N/A
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable): N/A
3d. Street address: N/A
3e. City, state, zip: N/A
3f. Telephone no.: N/A
3g. Fax no.: N/A
3h. Email address: N/A
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ? Agent 0 Other, specify: Property Easement Owner
4b. Name: Mara Sikora, P.E.
4c. Business name
(if applicable): Piedmont Natural Gas
4d. Street address: 4720 Piedmont Row Drive
4e. City, state, zip: Charlotte, N.C. 28210
4f. Telephone no.: 704-731-4375
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: Catherine Luckenbaugh, C.E.
5b. Business name
(if applicable): S&ME, Inc.
5c. Street address: 9751 Southern Pine Boulevard
5d. City, state, zip: Charlotte, N.C. 28273
5e. Telephone no.: 704-523-4726
5f. Fax no.: 704-565-4929
5g. Email address: cluckenbaugh(@smeinc.com
Page 2 of 12
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
14113122 19959109
14113301 19924126
14113119 14117119
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): 14118153
14117112
14118164
14118141
14117122
Origin
Latitude: 35.2008 Longitude: - 80.96901
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Terminus
Latitude: 35.1656 Longitude: - 80.96734
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1 c. Property size: 16 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to Beaverdam Creek
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: Beaverdam Creek: Class C
2c. River basin: Catawba
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:
The project corridor and surrounding areas are comprised of maintained road rights-of-way, wooded uplands
and riparian corridors, and scrub/shrub areas. The re-aligned portion of the pipeline crossed wooded uplands, a
wooded riparian corridor, and an herbaceous riparian corridor.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0.043 acres
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
350
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The proposed pipeline will increase natural gas capacity to existing customers and provide service to new
residential developments in the service area.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The proposed project invovles the construction of approximately three miles of natural gas pipeline on new
location. A re-alignment from the originally-permitted application shifts impacts downstream on two stream
channels. One of these is part of the Ecosystem Enhancement Program Beaverdam Creek stream mitigation
site. In upalnds the contruction corridor will be limited to 50 feet, and it will be narrowed to a maximum of 40 feet
at stream and wetland crossings. Joints of the pipeline will be welded, the pipe will be lowered into a trench and
the trench will be backfilled. Equipment to be used on the job includes trackhoes, dozers, trucks, sidebooms,
welding rigs and boring machines.
Page 3 of 12
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
Project Information and Prior Project History
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property
!

• Yes ? No ?Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments:
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
? Preliminary • Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company: S&ME, Inc.
Name (if known): Joe Lawler, PWS Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
October 1, 2008 (Appendix 111)
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
• Yes ?No ?Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
USACE Action ID: SAW-2008-02682-360, application submitted September 5, 2008, permit issued October 1, 2008.
DWQ Project No.: 08-1410, application submitted September 5, 2008, certification approved September 23, 2008.
See Appendix III for copies of previous permit approvals.
Current application is a revision to accommodate a small alignment change requested by the North Carolina
Turnpike Authority.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ? Yes • No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 4 of 12
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
• Wetlands ¦ Streams - tributaries ? Buffers
? 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. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number - Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ - non-404, other) (acres)
Temporary T
W1(A) El P ? T Conversion •Yes ¦ Corps 0.019
? No ¦ DWQ

W2(B) ? P ? T
Conversion
• Yes •
Corps
0.024
? No ¦ DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts 0.043
2h. Comments: Proposed wetland impacts for the overall project include temporary placement of fill and
permanent conversion in two wetland areas (reduced from three, previously). Jurisdictional areas
impacted by construction of the proposed project will be restored to original grades and contours
upon completion of the project.
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. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average Impact
number - (PER) or (Corps - 404, 10 stream length
Permanent (P) or intermittent DWQ - non-404, width (linear
Temporary (T) (INT)? other) (feet) feet)

S1 • P ? T trenching and UT Beaverdam ¦ PER • Corps
5 to 6
30
riprap Creek ? INT ¦ DWQ
¦

S2 P T
trenching and
UT Beaverdam
¦ PER
¦ Corps

5

30
riprap Creek ? INT ¦ DWQ

S3 ? P ¦ T
trenching UT Beaverdam ? PER ¦ Corps
3
40
Creek ¦INT • DWQ
S4 ? P • T trenching UT Beaverdam ¦ PER • Corps
4 to 5
40
Creek ? INT ¦ DWQ

S5 ? P • T
trenching UT Beaverdam ¦ PER • Corps
6
40
Creek ? INT ¦ DWQ
S6 ? P ¦ T trenching UT Beaverdam Creek • PER • Corps 4 to 6 40
Page 5of12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
? INT
• DWQ

S7 • P ? T
riprap UT Beaverdam ¦ PER • Corps
4
25
Creek ? INT ¦ DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 245(85
perm)
3i. Comments: Proposed impacts associated with the re-aligned stream crossings will include 40 feet of temporary
impacts associated with clearing and pipeline installation. Jurisdictional areas impacted by construction of the
proposed project will be restored to original grades and contours upon completion of the project. Three of the seven
jurisdictional streams will be permanently impacted by the placement of riprap at a width not to exceed 30 feet. One
additional stream, Stream 3, is intermittent and will not require riprap for stabilization. Another stream (Stream 6) has
previously been filled with riprap due to projects previously completed by others. Streams 4 and 5 have been
recently restored by the N.C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program and will not require riprap for stabilization.
Accordingly, these streams (3, 4, 5, and 6) will be only temporarily impacted during construction.
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 individual) list all open water impacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of waterbody
impact number- (if applicable) Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
01 ?P?T
02 ?P?T
03 ?P?T
04 ?P?T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments: N/A - no open water impacts.
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
Pond ID Proposed use or purpose (acres)
number of pond
Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments: N/A - no pond or lake construction.
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:
Page 6 of 12
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Avoidance and minimization measures include routing the pipeline to maximize the proximity to existing road
and powerline rights-of-way. A majority of impacts to wetlands and streams will be temporary, and original
grades and contours will be restored upon completion of construction. Riprap will be used at stream crossings
1, 2, 6, and 7 where it is considered necessary and will be restricted to the area below ordinary high water mark.
Stream 6 is currently fully rip rapped from top-of-bank to top-of-bank as a result of a project completed by
others. Rip rap will not be used at Streams 3, 4 and 5; impacts at these crossings will be temporary. Boring was
considered for the proposed stream crossings; however, the steep topography in the vicinity of Streams 4 and 5
does not allow for boring.
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? ? Yes • No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ? DWQ ? Corps

2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project? ? Mitigation bank

? 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 Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. ? Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: ? warm ? cool ?cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): N/A square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: NIA acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: N/A acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: N/A acres
4h. Comments:
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 8 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
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 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: N/A - no buffer impacts.
Page 9 of 12
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 Y •
? es 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.
? Yes ? No
Comments:
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 • No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: The proposed pipeline does not result
in an increase of impervious surface.
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
? Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ? DWQ Stormwater Program
? DWO 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
? Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ? NSW
? USMP
apply (check all that apply): ? Water Supply Watershed
? Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ? 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
attached? ? Yes ? No
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
Pagel 0 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the ? Yes ® 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 ? Yes ? No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1c. 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
letter.) ? Yes ? No
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 ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ? Yes ® 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 ® 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.
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.
Page 11 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
? Yes No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ® Yes El No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted. E:1 Raleigh
® Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
Natural Heritage Virtual Workroom, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) North Carolina County Species List, Scoping
letters to NC Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) and to USFWS.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ? Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
Natural Heritage Virtual Workroom, USFWS North Carolina County Species List, Scoping letters to NCNHP and to
USFWS.
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 ® 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?
Scoping letter to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? ® Yes ? No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: no changes in grade or contour will be made and no impervious
surfaces are proposed as part of the project.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FEMA flood maps
Catherine Luckenbaugh `
Applicant/tlpxs Printed Name Applicanb?s Signaturd-J Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided.
Page 12 of 12
Belmont ``??
Catawba River
Project Origin
to/Douglas
South?Fork Catawba River
L--
Figure 2 Extents
73.
Project Terminus
' Shopton Rd
j
U
Lake Wylie ; y
160
Rerouted Pipeline Alignment
Approximate Pipeline Alignment
L
REFERENCE:
THE ABOVE INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED FROM THE ESRI STREETMAP USA DATASET (2000). PLEASE NOTE
l! {F
THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY IT IS NOT MEANT FOR DESIGN, LEGAL, OR ANY OTHER Q Q, rj j 111.5
USES. THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES ABOUT ITS ACCURACY S&ME, INC. ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR t
ANY DECISION MADE OR ANY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION. Miles
;ALE: AS SHOWN _ y FIGURE
SITE VICINITY MAP NO.
RTE: 05-16-08 S&ME
PNG Dixie River Road
2AWN BY: DDH DH System Strengthening
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
IECKED BY: LJB PROJECT NO: 1357-08-504
N
• I
♦ Wetland C
• Wetland Area 0.024 acre
♦ 1 ~� Avoided Impacts 0.013 acre
♦ 1
♦ 1
♦ 1
♦ I
r
r
r �
r I
r
r
0.145 acre of proposed r
pipeline corridor within r
conservation easement r i
r
r 1
r 1
r
r 1
r 1
r �
r ,
r
• I
r I
r
r �
r i
Rerouted Pipeline Alignment
Original Project Corridor
Proposed Pipeline Corridor
Original Pipeline Alignment
Streams
Wetland
Proposed Turpike Right -of -Way
EEP Conservation Easement
Parcels
0
REFERENCE: 2007 AERIAL PHOTGRAPH
PIPELINE ROUTES, CORRIDORS, AND DELINEATION BOUNDARIES WERE OBTAINED FROM REGIONAL LAND SURVEYORS
(RLS) INC. CONSERVATION EASEMENT BOUNDARY WAS OBTAINED FROM MECKLENBURG COUNTY REAL ESTATE
SERVICES DEPARTMENT PLEASE NOTE THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT MEANT FOR 0 50 100 150
DESIGN, LEGAL, OR ANY OTHER USES THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES ABOUT ITS ACCURACY. S&ME, INC. ASSUMES NO
RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DECISION MADE OR ANY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION Feet
SCALE: 1„ = 100, CONSERVATION EASEMENT FIGURE
DATE: 4-17.2009
S&ME CROSSING NO
PNG Dixie River Road
DRAWN BY DDH System Strengthening
'HECKED BY: CML WWW.SMEINC.COM Mecklenburg County, NC
PROJECT "O: 1357-08-504
50'+
r
i
r
I
r
•
i
r
'
r
r i
I
.
I
`
� I
r
r
�
0
REFERENCE: 2007 AERIAL PHOTGRAPH
PIPELINE ROUTES, CORRIDORS, AND DELINEATION BOUNDARIES WERE OBTAINED FROM REGIONAL LAND SURVEYORS
(RLS) INC. CONSERVATION EASEMENT BOUNDARY WAS OBTAINED FROM MECKLENBURG COUNTY REAL ESTATE
SERVICES DEPARTMENT PLEASE NOTE THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT MEANT FOR 0 50 100 150
DESIGN, LEGAL, OR ANY OTHER USES THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES ABOUT ITS ACCURACY. S&ME, INC. ASSUMES NO
RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DECISION MADE OR ANY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION Feet
SCALE: 1„ = 100, CONSERVATION EASEMENT FIGURE
DATE: 4-17.2009
S&ME CROSSING NO
PNG Dixie River Road
DRAWN BY DDH System Strengthening
'HECKED BY: CML WWW.SMEINC.COM Mecklenburg County, NC
PROJECT "O: 1357-08-504

PREVIOUS PERMIT APPROVALS AND AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action ID. SAW-2008-02682-360 County: Mecklenburg USGS Quad: Charlotte West
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Property Owner / Authorized Agent: Piedmont Natural Gas, Attn: Mara Sikora
Address: 4720 Piedmont Row Dr.
Charlotte, NC 28210
Telephone No.:
Size and location of property (water body, road name/number, town, etc.): PNG Dixie River Road
System Strengthening proiect located on the west side of I-485 from Dixie River Road south to
Steele Creek Road.
Description of projects area and activity: This permit authorizes the construction of 14,130 LF of gas
pipeline for the Purpose of serving new residential development in the area. The project will
include 7 subaqueous crossings of UT's-Beaverdam Creek and conversion of 0.053 acre of forested
and scrub shrub to herbaceous wetlands. There will be 145 LF of permanent stream channel
impacts as a result of depositing riprap on stream banks (see special condition).
SPECIAL CONDITION:
No riprap shall be permanently Placed in stream beds.
Applicable Law: ® Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344)
? Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 USC 403)
Authorization: Regional General Permit Number:
Nationwide Permit Number: 12
Your work is authorized by the above referenced permit provided it is accomplished in strict accordance with the
attached conditions and your submitted plans. Any violation of the attached conditions or deviation from your
submitted plans may subject the permittee to a stop work order, a restoration order and/or appropriate legal action.
This verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified below unless the nationwide authorization
is modified, suspended or revoked. If, prior to the expiration date identified below, the nationwide permit
authorization is reissued and/or modified, this verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified
below, provided it complies with all requirements of the modified nationwide permit. If the nationwide permit
authorization expires or is suspended, revoked, or is modified, such that the activity would no longer comply with
the terms and conditions of the nationwide permit, activities which have commenced (i.e., are under construction) or
are under contract to commence in reliance upon the nationwide permit, will remiain authorized provided the activity
is completed within twelve months of the date of the nationwide permit's expiration, modification or revocation,
unless discretionary authority has been exercised on a case-by-case basis to modify, suspend or revoke the
authorization.
Activities subject to Section 404 (as indicated above) may also require an individual Section 401 Water Quality
Certification. You should contact the NC Division of Water Quality (telephone [phone]) to determine
Section 401 requirements.
For activities occurring within the twenty coastal counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA), prior to beginning work you must contact the N.C. Division of Coastal Management.
This Department of the Army verification does not relieve the permittee of the responsibility to obtain any other
required Federal, State or local approvals/permits.
If there are any questions regarding this verification, any of the conditions of the Permit, or the Corps of
Engineers regulatory program, please contact Steve Chapin at 828-271-7980.
Corps Regulatory Official Steve Chapin Date: October 1, 2008
Expiration Date of Verification: October 1, 2010
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 the attached customer Satisfaction Survey or visit
http://www.saw.usace.anny.miUWETLANDS/index.htmi to complete the survey online.
Determination of Jurisdiction:
A. ? Based on preliminary information, there appear to be waters of the US including wetlands within the above
described project area. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory
Program Administrative Appeal Process ( Reference 33 CFR Part 331).
B. ? There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area subject to the
permit requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
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.
C. ® There are waters of the US and/or wetlands within 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.
D. ? The jurisdictional areas within the above described project area have been identified under a previous action.
Please reference jurisdictional determination issued . Action ID
Basis of Jurisdictional Determination: The site contains wetlands as determined by the USACE 1987 Wetland
Delineation Manual and is adjacent to stream channels that exhibit indicators of ordinary high water marks. The
stream channels within the project area are unnamed tributaries to Beaverdam Creek which flow into the Catawba
River and ultimately flows to the Atlantic Ocean through the Beaverdam Creek>Catawba River system which is a
Section 10 navigable-in-fact waterway at Lake Wylie.
Appeals Information: (This information does not apply to preliminary determinations as indicated by paragraph A.
above).
Attached to this verification is an approved jurisdictional determination. If you are not in agreement with that
approved jurisdictional determination, you can make an administrative appeal under 33 CFR 331. Enclosed you will
find a Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal
this determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Program
Attn: Steve Chapin, Project Manager
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the
criteria for appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of
the date of the NAP. Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address within 60
days from the Issue Date below.
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this
correspondence.**
Corps Regulatory Official: Steve Chapin
Issue Date: October 1, 2008
Expiration Date: Five years from Issue Date
Copy Furnished:
S&NIE, Inc. (Catherine Luckenbaugh), 9751 Southern Pine Blvd., Charlotte, NC 28273
O?O? W A 7-
co
r_
bLua,
Oji ?
Michael F Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
September 23, 2008
DWQ# 08-1410
Mecklenburg County
Mara Sikora
Piedmont Natural Gas
4720 Piedmont Row Dr.
Charlotte, NC 28210
Subject: Natural Gas Line
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions
Dear Ms. Sikora:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those
listed below, to impact 0.053 acre of wetland and 280 linear feet (If) (145 permanent) of
unnamed stream to Beaver Dam Creek in order to construct the gas line in Mecklenburg
County, as described in your application received by the Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) on September 17, 2008. After reviewing your application, we have determined
that this project is covered by Water Quality General Certification Number 3699, which
can be viewed on our web site at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. The General
Certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number 12 once it is issued to you by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Please note that you should get any other federal,
state or local permits before proceeding with your project, including those required by
(but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non-Discharge, and Water Supply
Watershed regulations.
The above noted Certification will expire when the associated 404 permit expires
unless otherwise specified in the General Certification. This approval is only valid for
the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you change your
project, you must notify us in writing, and you may be required to send us a new
application for a new certification. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given
a copy of the Certification and approval letter; and is thereby responsible for complying
with all conditions.
In addition to the requirements of the certification, you must also comply with the
following conditions:
1. The Mooresville Regional Office shall be notified in writing once construction at the
approved impact areas has commenced.
Mailing Address Phone [phone] Location 0-
610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301 Fax [phone] East Center Avenue, Suite 301 No?turallina
Mooresville, NC 28115 Mooresville, North Carolina
Internet: AwA.nc",aterqualitV.org
Customer Service 1-877-623-6748
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
2. Existing stream dimensions (including the cross section dimensions, pattern, and
longitudinal profile) must be maintained (or restored). Installed riprap shall be
embedded in the channel.
3. All wetlands, streams, surface waters, and riparian buffers located on the project site
where impacts are not allowed shall be clearly marked (example- orange fabric
fencing) prior to any land disturbing activities.
4. Use of native vegetation and other soft stream bank stabilization techniques must be
used where practicable instead of riprap or other bank hardening methods. If riprap is
necessary, it shall not be placed in the streambed, unless approved by the DWQ.
5. No waste, spoil, solids, or fill of any kind shall occur in wetlands, waters, or riparian
areas beyond the footprint of the impacts depicted in the Preconstruction Notification
application. All construction activities associated with this project shall meet, and/or
exceed, those requirements specified in the most recent version of the North Carolina
Sediment and Erosion Control Manual and shall be conducted so that no violations of
state water quality standards, statutes, or rules occur.
6. Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to
the maximum extent practicable. If placement of sediment and erosion control devices
in wetlands and waters is unavoidable, they shall be removed and the natural grade
restored within two months of the date the Division of Land Resources has released
the project.
7. Upon completion of the project, the applicant shall complete and return the enclosed
"Certificate of Completion" form to the 401/Wetlands Unit of the NC Division of Water
Quality. Photos shall be submitted of the completed impacts.
8. Continuing Compliance. The applicant (Peidmont Natural Gas) shall conduct all
activities in a manner so as not to contravene any state water quality standard
(including any requirements for compliance with section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act)
and any other appropriate requirements of state and federal law. If DWQ determines
that such standards or laws are not being met (including the failure to sustain a
designated or achieved use) or that state or federal law is being violated, or that further
conditions are necessary to assure compliance, DWQ may reevaluate and modify this
certification to include conditions appropriate to assure compliance with such
standards and requirements in accordance with 15 A NCAC 2H.0507(d). Before
codifying the certification, DWQ shall notify the applicant and the US Army Corps of
Engineers, provide public notice in accordance with 15A NCAC 21-1.0503, and provide
opportunity for public hearing in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0504. Any new or
revised conditions shall be provided to the applicant in writing, shall be provided to the
United States Army Corps of Engineers for reference in any permit issued pursuant to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and shall also become conditions of the 404
Permit for the project.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an
adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter.
To ask for a hearing, send a written petition that conforms to Chapter 150B of the North
Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service
Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This certification and its conditions are final and
binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of
the Clean Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone Mr. Alan Johnson in
the Mooresville Regional Office at 704-663-1699 or Ms. Cyndi Karoly in the Central Office
in Raleigh 919-733-9721.
Sincerely,
IL
for Coleen H. Sullins
Attachments
cc: Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville
Ian McMillan, Wetlands Unit
Central Files
File Copy
Catherine Luckenbaugh, S&ME
r.-
,440sp
c>r?ac.rtnt?
August 11, 2009
Catherine M. Luckenbaugh, C.E.
Natural Resources Project Manager,S&ME, Inc.
9751 Southern Pine Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28273-5560
Subject: PNG Dixie River Road Pipeline
EEP Beaverdam Creek Stream Mitigation
EEPID 92217, SPO 60-AAAR
Right-of-way across state conservation easement
Dear Ms. Luckenbaugh;
On July 27, 2009, the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) received a letter dated July 14,
2009 requesting approval to allow Piedmont Natural Gas (PNG) to install a pipeline across a
section of the program's stream restoration project along Beaverdam Creek in Mecklenburg
County.
The Beaverdam Creek project provides compensatory mitigation for impacts within the Catawba
Basin in cataloging unit 03050101 in the amount of 12,427 feet of stream restoration, 567 feet of
enhancement 1, and 2,603 feet of stream preservation.
Four alternative trajectories for the pipeline were described in the letter. The PNG preferred
alternative was to place the pipeline within the current pipeline right-of-way along the I-495
corridor. This alternative does not require a path across the restoration site. The information
package included a letter from the N.C. Turnpike Authority requesting that the pipeline right-of-
way be moved to a location just outside the proposed new turnpike right-of-way.
Our preference is that any alternative avoid impacts to this mitigation site because it is a
regulated aquatic resource. However, in the event that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the
N.C. Division of Water Quality permits this activity, EEP will request that the Department of
Administration draft appropriate agreements with PNG that allow this activity to occur.
Damages to our site require reimbursement in two forms. The first applies to the replacement
value of the impact and administrative processing. The impact to our property will require us to
rebuild approximately 100 linear feet of stream elsewhere in the watershed at a cost of $34,400.
There are also administrative costs of $1500. The total direct cost will be $35,900. A second cost
may be required by the regulators in regard to compensatory mitigation due to impacts to our
aquatic resource. If this occurs, we will assist you in providing that mitigation through our in-lieu
program if so desired.
&_ Brio- f a - u L t S':f _ NCDENR
Borth Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N( 27699-1652 f 919-715-0176 / hwo.n(eep.net
Ms. Luckenbaugh
August 11, 2009
Page two
Please call Stephanie Horton [phone] of my staff if you would like to discuss this matter
further.
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, PE
Director
NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Attachments: Letter from S&ME
Alternatives Analysis
Map of Conservation Easement Crossing
Letter from Turnpike Authority
cc: David Knight, Assistant Secretary for Natural Resources
Scott McLendon, Assistant Chief, USACE Regulatory Division
Matt Matthews, Section Chief, Division of Water Quality
Mell Nevils, Section Chief, NCDENR Division of Land Quality
Steve DeWitt, N.C. Turnpike Authority
Jennifer Harris, N.C. Turnpike Authority
Ann Matthews, Assistant Attorney General
Blane Rice, State Property Office EEP Manager
Guy Pearce, EEP Full Delivery Supervisor
Stephanie Horton, EEP Land Protection Supervisor
Beth Harmon, EEP DOT Liaison
S&ME
Celebrating 35 Years
1973.20Q8
July 14, 2009
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center ?U(2 ? D
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652 EH 2p09
Nq& Co.
Attention: Ms. Stephanie Horton, Land Protection Supervisor Hr44f
Reference: Response to Request for Additional Information
PNG Dixie River Road Pipeline - EEP Beaverdam Creek Stream Mitigation
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1357-08-504
EEPID 92217, SPO 60-AAAR
Dear Ms. Horton:
On behalf of Piedmont Natural Gas (PNG), S&ME is requesting approval to install a
pipeline across an upstream section of the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
Beaverdam Creek stream mitigation site. This letter serves as our response to your
request for additional information, as presented in an April 29, 2009 email
correspondence from you to our Catherine Luckenbaugh. Accordingly, we are providing
pertinent background information on the project, a review of the alternatives analysis, and
discussion of the proposed project impacts.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
PNG has proposed the Dixie River System Strengthening project to increase supply in the
service area. This project is considered necessary to continue providing adequate
pressure to existing customers while also meeting the needs of new, customers. The
project involves the construction of approximately three miles of 12-inch diameter high
pressure natural gas pipeline.
PNG plans to construct the new pipeline to bring high pressure natural gas (800 pounds
per square inch (psi]) from an existing 16-inch line at the northern crossing of Dixie
River Road, just west of the crossing with Interstate 485 (1-485), to tie into a proposed
l 2-inch distribution main and regulator station at the southern crossing of Dixie River
Road and 1-485. This pipeline would deliver necessary natural gas supply to
southwestern Mecklenburg County to address ongoing low pressure issues in this area.
PNG will also build a regulator station at the southern end of the proposed project to
reduce the pressure from 800 psi to 60 psi, which is standard pressure for distribution to
customers.
SWE, INC. / 9751 Southern Pine Boulevard / Charlotte, NC 28273-5560 / p 704.523.4726 / 704.525.3953 / www.smeinc.com
Response to Request for Additional Information S&ME Project No. 1357-08-504
PNG Dixie River Road Pipeline July 14, 2009
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
With respect to the need for the project, PNG considered several alternatives, as
discussed below:
Alternative I - No-Build
Alternative 1 (No-Build) would result in continued low pressure in the service area. Low
pressure is particularly a problem in the winter months when demand for natural gas is
higher. Increased demand on a system that has already experienced low pressure during
peak demand times could ultimately result in insufficient pressure to operate heating
systems and appliances that rely on natural gas. Because of its adverse consequences,
Alternative l was eliminated from further consideration.
Alternative 2 - Original alignment adjacent to Interstate 485 right-of-way
This alternative, which involves paralleling the existing right-of-way along Interstate 485,
was the initial proposal. Alternative 2 was initially chosen because it was the shortest
route between the target source for natural gas and the delivery point. Additionally, this
alternative would limit clearing of vegetation by placing the alignment adjacent to
existing, maintained North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) easement.
This alternative would not involve impacts to the EEP Beaverdam Creek stream
mitigation project. However, upon receipt of notification of the project, the North
Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA) requested that the alignment be shifted outside of 1
what is a potential future toll road corridor. To accommodate this significant request, ?
Alternative 2 was eliminated from consideration. i
i
Alternative 3 - Adjacent to the future NCTA right-of-way limits with a directional bore of
EEP Beaverdam Creek mitigation site
This alternative was developed after the request to re-locate the initial alignment was
received from the NCTA. In response to the NCTA request, PNG proposed to re-align a
section of the pipeline to be parallel and adjacent to the future NCTA construction limits,
which involved a slight downstream shift into the uppermost reach of the EEP
Beaverdam Creek mitigation site. Because the EEP site extends for several hundred feet
downstream, approaching the confluence with Lake Wylie, shifting the alignment further
downstream was not feasible. Additionally, PNG proposed to directionally bore the EEP
Beaverdam Creek mitigation site; however, during a site visit to review the feasibility of
this approach, it was determined that topography in the area is too steep to meet the
required radius for a bore. Accordingly, Alternative 3 was eliminated from further
consideration.
Alternative 4 (Preferred Alternative) - Adjacent to the future NCTA right-of-way limits
with an open-cut crossing of EEP Beaverdam Creek mitigation site
After rejecting the directional bore of Alternative 3 as impracticable, PNG considered
following the same alignment as Alternative 3, but utilizing an open-cut for the stream
crossing. As described in the following Description of the Proposed Impact section of this
document, the pipeline would be installed by digging a trench along the proposed
2
Response to Request for Additional Information SWE Project No. 1357-08-504
PNG Dixie River Road Pipeline July 14, 2009
alignment. In general, the trench is expected to be approximately three feet wide at the
deepest point, and approximately ten feet wide at the surface. These dimensions are
dictated by the size of the pipe and safe trenching practices, which require gradual side
slopes to maintain safe working conditions in the trench. An additional 10 feet of the
stream bed would be disturbed to provide for equipment passage to facilitate
construction. To maintain flows in the stream during construction, a bypass pump and
hoses would be used to move water from upstream of the construction area to
downstream. Additionally, strict erosion and sedimentation control measures would be
utilized during construction to minimize turbidity or other disturbance to the stream. This
approach (Alternative 4) has been selected as the preferred alternative.
Alternative 5 - Move alignment to eastern side of Interstate 485 (1-485)
This alternative would avoid impacts to the restored portion of Beaverdam Creek by re-
locating the alignment to the eastern side of 1-485. Constructing this alignment, while
still connecting the necessary segments of existing pipe, involves two horizontal direction
drills beneath I-485. This alternative was rejected because the cost associated with the
addition of these two drills, i.e., the additional pipe material and labor involved in the
directional drill, is prohibitively high. Rough estimates indicate that this alternative
would cost approximately four times that of the preferred alternative. Furthermore,
approximately one acre of forested area would need to be cleared (one-half acre at each
bore) to accommodate temporary easement to assemble pipe bore pull sections.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED IMPACT
The current proposed alignment would impact approximately 0. 145 acre of the EEP
Beaverdam Creek stream mitigation conservation easement. Temporary construction
impacts will include limited clearing and trenching. Following installation of the
pipeline, the landscape will be restored to original grade and the excess spoil removed to
an appropriate off-site disposal area. The permanent impact will be the maintenance of
the corridor as herbaceously-vegetated (rather than woody growth) to allow for access to
the pipeline.
The pipeline would be installed by digging a trench perpendicular to the streambed along
the proposed alignment. Trenching would be conducted in the dry by placing temporary
dams upstream and downstream of the work area. To maintain flows in the stream
during construction, a bypass pump and hoses would be used to move water from
upstream of the construction area to downstream. In general, the trench is expected to be
approximately three feet wide at the deepest point, and approximately ten feet wide at the
surface. These dimensions are dictated by the size of the pipe and safe trenching
practices, which require gradual side slopes to maintain safe working conditions in the
trench. An additional 10 feet of the stream bed would be disturbed to provide for
equipment passage to facilitate construction. Additionally, strict erosion and
sedimentation control measures would be utilized during construction to minimize
turbidity or other disturbance to the stream.
3
Response to Request for Additional Information SWE Project No. 1357-08-504
PNG Dixie River Road Pipeline July 14, 2009
Upon completion of construction, stream flow would be re-established in the construction
area by removing the temporary dams and bypass equipment. Areas with disturbed soil
would be matted and seeded with a native seed mix. Proposed maintenance of the
permanent corridor would be limited to annual mowing.
CONCLUSION
Based on a review of the alternatives, PNG is proposing to proceed with Alternative 4.
Accordingly, we are requesting approval to impact 0.145 acre of the EEP Beaverdam
Creek stream mitigation site.
CLOSING
S&ME appreciates the opportunity to provide you with this information for the proposed
open-cut pipeline crossing of Beaverdam Creek. Please contact us at your convenience if
you have questions or need additional information.
Very truly yours,
S&ME
Catherine M. Luckenbaugh, C.E. Michael Wolfe
Natural Resources Project Manager Natural Resources Department Manager
Senior Review by Lisa J. Beckstrom, C.W.B., C.E., LEEDO AP
CML/LJB/cml
Attachments
cc: Blane Rice - State Properties Office
Jacqueline McNeil - Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation Department
r?
Y? *. , k 3
?_ '?? } I I
i
'E c r ? ? s 4L a!z ,.
o a S
3k 4r ?+a:: t i
Kra. ? ' ? k fhtr y«r? t
k x 1.?ra
ate. _ _r r? •? ik '
h r
10.145 acres of proposed
I, pipeline corridor within € - 3 1 ~z .; ° ^r
?y conservation easement
?t i t it ! r
?FS ya? R P ? '! ) L .3"f
c r `
Rerouted Pipeline Alignment to
Sri'
Proposed Pipeline Condor
\.' Original Pipeline Alignment
Original Project Corridor 3
y.
Streams
Wetland
Proposed Turpike Right-of-Way
ConservationEasement
Parcels
REFERENCE: 2007 AERIAL PHOTGRAPH s . T
PIPELINE ROUTES, CORRIDORS, AND DELINEATION BOUNDARIES WERE OBTAINED FROM REGIONAL LAND SURVEYORS _
(RLS) INC. CONSERVATION EASEMENT BOUNDARY WAS OBTAINED FROM MECKLENBURG COUNTY REAL ESTATE
SERVICES DEPARTMENT. PLEASE NOTE THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT MEANT FOR 50 1 00 1507
DESIGN, LEGAL, OR ANY OTHER USES. THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES ABOUT ITS ACCURACY. SSME, INC. ASSUMES NO
RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DECISION MADE OR ANY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION. E / Feet
SCALE: 1° = 100' CONSERVATION EASEMENT FIGURE
DATE: 4-17-2009 CROSSING NO. PNG Dixie River Road
DRAWN BY: ppH S&ME System Strengthening
CHECKED BY: ?F.SC tN Mecklenburg County, NC
i?L I- CML PROJECT No: 1357-08-504
`ryd? SWj??
H
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
TURNPIKE AUTHORITY
MICHAEL F. EASLEY 1578 MAIL. SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, N.C. 27699-1578
GOVERNOR
September 10, 2008
Ms. Jacqueline McNeil, AICP
Real Estate Coordinator
Mecklenburg County Real Estate Services
1435 West Morehead Street Suite 120
Charlotte, NC 28208
RE: Piedmont Natural Gas Easement Request
I-485 and Dixie River Road
Mecklenburg County Parcels 141-171-12 & 141-171-19
TIP U-3321 (Gaston East-West Connector)
Dear Ms. McNeil:
DAVID W. JOYNER
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Thank you so much for coordinating with the North Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA)
before granting an easement to Piedmont Natural Gas along the Right of Way of 1-485 near
Dixie River Road. As you are aware, NCTA is currently preparing the environmental impact
statement for the Gaston East-West Connector as a candidate toll facility. As currently
proposed, there will be an interchange with 1-485 in the vicinity of the Mecklenburg County
parcels mentioned above.
The proposed I-485/Gaston E-W Connector interchange ramps will have a direct impact on
the parcel in question. As a result of this impact, we are requesting that Mecklenburg County
and Piedmont Natural Gas avoid the construction limits as currently shown in the preliminary
designs. On the following pages, please find plan views of the two interchange scenarios
currently being studied. These scenarios are from segments K3C and K4A. Additionally, a
representative cross-section view from the K3C alignment is attached to indicate the impacts
of the ramp construction to the Mecklenburg County property. As shown in the sketches,
approximately 60' of additional Right of Way will be needed to accommodate the construction
of the toll facility. Some additional Right of Way will be needed in the area where the ramp
begins veering away from I485. NCTA prefers that the proposed natural gas easement be
located outside of the anticipated NCTA Right of Way limits
In order to assist you in locating the easement in a manner which takes into account the future
construction, NCTA can provide you with MicroStation (cadd) files or GIs shape files
containing the proposed NCTA Right of Way limits. Please let us know which format you
prefer.
NORTH CAROLINA TURNPIKE AUTHORITY
TELEPHONE: [phone] FAX: [phone]
Thanks again for coordinating with us on this request. NCTA will also coordinate with
NCDOT and confirm that these recommendations are in compliance with their policies and
procedures.
If you have any questions, or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me
(919/510-4372) or Donna Keener (919/788-7150).
Sincerely,
Xb?anmDonP.E.
N CTA Director of Construction
cc (via email):
John Wadsworth - NCDOT/NCTA Liaison
David West, State Encroachment Agent - NCDOT
Robert Memory, State Utility Agent - NCDOT
Donna Keener, P.E., Sr. Design Engineer, HNTB/NCTA
Jeff Dayton, P.E., Transportation Engineer, HNTB/NCTA
2
_ --- K3C
?EC4Enp,/14 CMl?i? /
At?
50' PNG EASEMENT AS PROPOSED
-25ARAF 3
-- -°- --------------- -------ITJIL----------°-----
---- IIX15T----------------- °-------------
- -------'
1485 SB ---------------
-----------------------------------------------
------- - -----------
- ------------
I-485 NB
-25ARDB-
@Y- ---i rl?
- --- K4A
50' PNG EASEMENT AS PROPOSED
/ ?I
.R, mow. T
?E
C

-- --------F?
\ ® / aF
3
-
I
-j
1

W?
U
W
W I
4 '

y
1
I
I
i° Wa

4

a
S 1
I
1
I
1
I

!IL L

1
1
Q
a Q
aI Z
0
1
I .

I V
LU
i

I
N
m
N 1
m 1
? i
I
m
T I
1
I
I
i
jZW I
J I
I
z I
I
N
I?
I
I
1
i
I
Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Ms. Crystal J. Fox
S&ME, Inc.
9751 Southern Pine Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28273-5560
Subject: PNG - Dixie River Road Pipeline; Mecklenburg County
S&ME Project No. 1357-08-504
Dear Ms. Fox:
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
The Natural Heritage Program has no record of rare species, significant natural communities, or
significant natural heritage areas at the site nor within a mile of the project area. However, our data layer
indicates that there is an N.C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) easement lying along an unnamed
creek in the project area (see enclosed map - easement in green). The proposed pipeline might just skirt
the upper end of the easement. However, as the creek waters flow from 1-485 westward, sediment from
pipeline construction would likely enter this creek, and the easement's purpose is to protect water quality
in the stream and the wetlands and uplands that buffer the stream. Thus, it is important that proper
sedimentation controls be in place during construction of the pipeline.
You may wish to check the Natural Heritage Program database website at www.nenlip.org for a listing of
rare plants and animals and significant natural communities in the county and on the quad map. Our
Program also has a new website that allows users to obtain information on element occurrences and
significant natural heritage areas within two miles of a given location:
<http://nhpweb.enr.state.nc.us/nhis/public/gmap75-main.phtml>. The user name is "public" and the
password is "heritage". You may want to click "Help" for more information.
NC OneMap now provides digital Natural Heritage data online for free. This service provides site
specific information on GIS layers with Natural Heritage Program rare species occurrences and
Significant Natural Heritage Areas. The NC OneMap website provides Element Occurrence (EO) ID
numbers (instead of species name), and the data user is then encouraged to contact the Natural Heritage
Program for detailed information. This service allows the user to quickly and efficiently get site specific
NHP data without visiting the NHP workroom or waiting for the Infor nation Request to be answered by
NHP staff. For more information about data formats and access, visit <ww,w.nconemap.com>, then click
on "FTP Data Download", and then "nheo.zip" [to the right of "Natural Heritage Element Occurrences"].
You may also e-mail NC OneMap at <dataq c@i ncmail.net> for more information.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 919-715-8697 if you have questions or need further information.
Sincerely,
Harry E. LeGrand, Jr., Zoologist
Natural Heritage Program
1601 N W& Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601 tee
arolina
C
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.enr.state.ne.us/ENR/ r,//
An Equal opportunity J Affirmative Action Employer - 50 % Recycled \ 10 % Post Consumer Paper `j
ff +C71 'l` ��yy
:. aN`� `v "� f.. x.

?yy s.? STATE o
Vw?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbcck, Administrator
AGchael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
July 21, 2008
Crystal Fos
S&IViE
9751 Southern Pine Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28273-5560
Office of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
Re: PNG Dixie River Road Pipeline, S&IvfE # 1357-08-504, Mecklenburg County, ER 08-1493
Dear Ms. Fox:
Thank you for your letter of June 12, 2008, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and are aware of no historic resources that would be
affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the undertaking as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
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. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
111 P f(+?
Peter Sandbeck
Location: 109 Cast Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27679.4617 Telephone/Fare [phone]/807-6597
QpP??*.NTlOF rtiF
a? United States Department of the Interior
o
? b
_ FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
ARCH sag Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
July 10, 2008
Ms. Crystal J. Fox
Ms. Lisa J. Beckstrom
S&ME, Inc.
9751 Southern Pine Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273-5560
Dear Ms. Fox and Ms. Beckstrom:
Subject: Species Assessment, PNG Dixie River Road Gas Pipeline, Adjacent to Interstate 485
South, West of Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina (S&ME Project
No. 1357-08-504)
In your letter dated June 12, 2008, you requested our comments on the subject project. The
following comments are based on our review of the information that you presented and are in
accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C.
661-667e), and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543)
(Act).
Your client, Piedmont Natural Gas, is applying for a Section 404 permit for impacts associated with
the installation of about 3 miles of 10-inch gas pipeline. The pipeline will cross multiple unnamed
tributaries to Beaverdam Creek. No information was provided as to the method proposed for the
stream crossings.
Endangered Species - According to our records and a review of the information provided, no listed
species or their habitats occur on the site. Therefore, we believe the requirements under section 7 of
the Act are fulfilled. However, obligations under section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if:
(1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical
habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner
that was not considered in this review, or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is determined
that may be affected by the identified action.
Wetland/Stream Protection and Erosion Control - We are concerned with the stream-crossings
that are being proposed for this project. We assume, because a Section 404 permit is required, that
your client is proposing an open-cut/trench method for the stream crossings. From our past
experiences with similar projects, we believe this technique increases the likelihood of fixture lateral
movement of the stream (which could undercut or erode around the gas pipeline), and the correction
of these problems could result in additional future maintenance and impacts to the stream. Just this
year, we have reviewed several projects where PNG is conducting (and financing) stream-bank
stabilization activities because of past pipeline projects where open-cut/trenching was used for
stream crossings. Therefore, we recommend the use of directional boring under the stream to prevent
stream impacts, and we recommend that vegetated riparian buffers (a minimum of 100 feet wide on
perennial streams and 50 feet wide on intermittent streams) be restored and preserved. Directional
boring under streams significantly minimizes impacts to aquatic resources, and forested riparian
buffers serve as filters for contaminants, lessen storm-water velocities, provide thermal cover, and
protect stream-bank stability. If this method cannot be used and trenching is determined to be the
only viable option, we recommend the development of a stream-bank monitoring and maintenance
program that would allow for the prompt stabilization of stream banks near the pipeline crossing
(should any stream-bank erosion or destabilization occur) throughout the life of this project.
We strongly recommend that stringent measures to control erosion be implemented prior to any
ground disturbance and that these measures be maintained throughout project construction. Any
disturbed areas should be reseeded with seed mixtures that are beneficial to wildlife. Fescue-based
mixtures should be avoided. Native annual small grains appropriate for the season are preferred and
recommended. Biodegradable erosion-control matting should be used in conjunction with
appropriate seeding on disturbed soils in steep slope and riparian areas. Matting should be secured in
place with staples, stakes, or live stakes of native trees (whenever possible). The vegetation should
be monitored, and subsequent plantings should be installed when needed. Fertilizers and pesticides
should not be used near streams.
We also recommend that construction equipment be kept out of the stream by operating from the
banks in a fashion that minimizes disturbance to woody vegetation. Equipment should be inspected
daily and should be maintained to prevent the contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels,
lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials. All fuels, lubricants, and other toxic materials
should be stored outside the riparian management area of the stream, in a location where the material
can be contained. Equipment should be checked for leaks of hydraulic fluids, cooling system liquids,
and fuel and should be cleaned before fording any stream.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. If we can be of assistance or if you have
any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Bryan Tompkins of our staff at 828/258-3939,
Ext. 240. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please reference our Log Number
4-2-08-232.
SinC'erly,
r? .f
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
USACE STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEETS AND DWQ
STREAM IDENTIFICATION FORMS
USACOE Aid # DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
_-AW
1. Applicant's name: Piedmont Natural Gas 2. Evaluator's name: S&ME (D. David Homans)
3. Date of Evaluation: 5/12/2008 4. Time of Evaluation:04:12:28pm
5. Name of stream: Stream 4 6. River basin: Upper Catawba
7. Approximate drainage area: 230 acres 8. Stream order: 2
9. Length of reach evaluated: 80 feet 10. County: Mecklenburg
11.Site coordinate(if known): prefer in decimal degrees 11. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. - 34.872312) 35.18158°N Longitude (ex. - 77.55661) 80.97003°W
Method location determined ? GPS ? Topo Sheet ? Ortho (Aerial Photo/GIS) ? Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note the nearby roads and landmarks and attach a map identifying stream's location):
West of 1-485 between the southern Dixie River Road crossing and the Garrison Road crossing.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): Utility crossing
15. Recent weather conditions: windy, some rain
16. Site conditions at time of visit: clear
17. Identify any special waterway classification known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation reach? NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does the channel appear on a USGS quad map? YES 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey: Yes
10 % Residential 10 % Commercial 10 % Industrial 0 % Agricultural
21. Estimated watershed land use: 50 % Forested 0 % Cleared/Logged 20 % Other
22. Bankfull width: 4-5' 23. Bankfull height (from bed to top of bank): 2-4'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0-2%) X Gentle (2-4%) Moderate (4-10%) Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends X Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
Instruction for completion of worksheet (located on page 2):
Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the
same ecoregion. Assign points to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under
review (e.g., the stream flows from the pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to
evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 49 Comments:
Evaluators Signature: ?-`- `--- Date: 5/12/2008
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering
the data required by the United States Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream quality. The total score resulting
from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ratio or requirement.
Form subject to change - version 06/03. To comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26
1
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECORE GION POINT RANGE
SCORE
# CHARACTERISTICS
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 04 0-5 2
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 2
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)

3 Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
2
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 04 0-4 2
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)

5 Groundwater discharge
0-3
04
0-4
2
d (no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)

6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
04
0-2
2
(no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
04
0-2
2
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points

8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j
0-6
0-4
0-2
3
acent wetlands = max points)
(no wetlands = 0; large ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 3
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 04 04 1
(extensive de osition= 0; little or no sediment = max oints
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 04 0-5 2
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 04 0-5 2
>4 (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
,,*
13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
3
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 3
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 04 0-5
2
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 2
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max oints)
1-4 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 3
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
2
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)

x
19 Substrate embeddedness
NA*
04
0-4
3
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 04 0-5 0-5 2
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
>., 21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 04 0-4 1
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
O 22 Presence of fish 0-4 0 4 0 4 1
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
?--+
?q
23 Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
2
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 49
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams
USACOE Aid # DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET _AQF
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Piedmont Natural Gas 2. Evaluator's name: SBME (D. David Homans)
3. Date of Evaluation: 5/20/2008 4. Time of Evaluation:10:02:32am
5. Name of stream: Stream 5 6. River basin: Upper Catawba
7. Approximate drainage area: 110 acres 8. Stream order: 1
9. Length of reach evaluated: 100 feet 10. County: Mecklenburg
11.Site coordinate(if known): prefer in decimal degrees 11. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. - 34.872312) 35.18093°N Longitude (ex. - 77.55661) 80.96985°W
Method location determined ? GPS ? Topo Sheet ? Ortho (Aerial Photo/GIS) ? Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note the nearby roads and landmarks and attach a map identifying stream's location):
West of 1-485 between the southern Dixie River Road crossing and the Garrison Road crossing.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): Utility crossing
15. Recent weather conditions: light rain 2 days prior
16. Site conditions at time of visit: overcast
17.Identify any special waterway classification known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation reach? YES If yes, estimate the water surface area: 2 acres
19. Does the channel appear on a USGS quad map? YES 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey: Yes
10 % Residential 20 % Commercial 0 % Industrial 0 % Agricultural
21. Estimated watershed land use: 60 % Forested 0 % Cleared/Logged 10 % Other
22. Bankfull width: 6' 23. Bankfull height (from bed to top of bank): 3-5'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0-2%) X Gentle (24%) Moderate (4-10%) Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends X Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
Instruction for completion of worksheet (located on page 2):
Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the
same ecoregion. Assign points to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under
review (e.g., the stream flows from the pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to
evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 48 Comments: Observed creek chub and Hydropsychidae.
Evaluators Signature: G ?' ""?---- Date: 5/20/2008
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering
the data required by the United States Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream quality. The total score resulting
from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ratio or requirement.
Form subject to change - version 06/03. To comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26
1
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECORE GION POINT RANGE
CHARACTERISTICS SCORE

Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 04 0-5 3
no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points)

2 Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
2
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)

3 Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
2
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
2
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max oints
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 04 0-4 2
U (no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)

6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
04
0-2
3
y (no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
?i Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
04
0-2
1
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)

8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j
0-6
0-4
0-2
2
no wetlands = 0; large ad
acent wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 3
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 04 0-4 2
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)

11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA
0-4
0-5
2
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 04 0-5 1
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)

13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
1
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
l4 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5 1
E„ no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production

substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points) 0-5 04
-5
0-5 2
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes

(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points) 0-3 0-5 0-6 3
17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 3
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
0.4 18 Canopy coverage over streambed

M
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points) 0-5 0-5 0-5 3

'?7•i"
19 Substrate embeddedness
NA*
04
0-4
2
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)

no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points) 04 0-5 0-5 2
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 04 0-4 2
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
O 22 Presence of fish

no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points) 0-4 0-4 0-4 2
pq 23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 2
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 48
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 5/12/2008 Project PNG Dixie River Road System Strengthening Latitude: 35.18158'N
Evaluator: S&ME (D . David Homans) Site: Stream 4 Longitude: 80.97003°W
Total Points 42 rJ
Stream is at least intermittent
if z 19 or perennial if a 30 County: Mecklenburg Other

e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 19.5) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 3
2. Sinuosity 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 2
4. Soil texture or stream su strate sorting 2
Active/relic oo p aln 1
epos) Iona ars or enc es 2
ral e c Anne p
ecent a uvla eposlts 2
a. Natural evees 0
10. Head cuts o
11. Grade con ro s 0.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 1
13. econ or greater or er on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
Yes = 3
a. rnan-rnaue uncnes are not ratea: see alscusslons in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 12
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hours since rain or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5
17. Sediment on plants or debris 1.5
18. fganlC debris lines or piles raC Ines 1.5
19. y ric soils re oxlmorp is features) present? Yes = 1.5
C. Bloloav (Subtotal = 11 )
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3
21 b. Rooted plants in channel 2
22. Crayfish o
23. Bivalves p
24. Fish p
25. Amphibians 0.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 1
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 3
28. Iron bacteria/fun us o
29b. Wetland plants in streambed OBL = 1.5
l? aiiu z r rucus urr ure presence or uplana plants. Item Z9 tocuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes) Sketch:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 5/20/2008 Project PNG Dixie River Road System Strengthening Latitude: 35.18093°N
Evaluator: S&ME (D . David Homans) Site: Stream 5 Longitude: 80.96985°W
Total Points 43
Stream is at least intermittent
if t 19 or perennial if z 30 County: Mecklenburg Other

e. g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 23 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1 a. Continuous bed and bank 3
2. Sinuosity 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 3
4. Soil texture or stream sub strate sorting 3
Active/relic oo p aln 3
epos) Iona ars or benches 3
Braided channel 0
Recent alluvial deposits 3
a. Natural levees 0
10. Head cuts 0
11. Grade controls 0.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 1.5
13. econ or greater or er on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
a. 111d11-1udUU UILUles are no[ raiea, see ascussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal= 1n
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hours since rain or

Water in channel -- dry or growing season
3
16. Leaflitter 1.5
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5
18. Organic debris lines or pl es raC Ines 0.5
19. H y rlc sol s re oxlmorp lc ea ures presen . Yes = 1.5
C. Bloloov (Subtotal = in
1
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 2
21 b. Rooted plants in channel 2
22. Crayfish 0
23. Bivalves 0
24. Fish
1.5
25. Amphibians 0.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 1
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 3
28. Iron bacteria/fun us 0
29b. Wetland plants in streambed None = 0
li 6 Niwenw ui upidnu Plains. item " rocuses on ine presence of aquatic or wetland plants
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes) Sketch:
Observed creek chub and Hydropsychidae.
RESTORATION PLAN
PNG Dixie River Road System Strengthening
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
The following Restoration Plan has been prepared for the Piedmont Natural Gas (PNG)
Dixie River Road System Strengthening project in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
While a majority of mitigation for the proposed project has been accomplished through
avoidance and minimization of impacts (i.e. - paralleling an existing, maintained
easement), the following plan shall be implemented to restore those portions of the
temporary work space easement (TWS) that are located in wetlands or streams and
temporarily-impacted to facilitate installation of the new pipeline.
This plan entails restoration of temporarily-disturbed wetland areas to their original
contours and conditions to the degree practicable upon project completion. Further,
disturbed wetland and upland areas will be permanently stabilized with a native
vegetative cover. Measures outlined in the Restoration Activities section of this plan will
be specified in the contract documents prepared for construction of the proposed project.
Restoration Activities
Proposed restoration activities will include the removal of placed fill material and
restoration of bank slopes to original pre-disturbance contours. Excavated material shall
be returned to the trench to the extent possible, and remaining material relocated and
retained on an upland site. Substrate containing roots, rhizomes, seeds, etc., will be kept
viable and replaced at the surface of the excavated site. A native, restoration seed mix
will be utilized within portions of the corridor comprised of wetlands. This seed mix
(Table 1) will be installed with a temporary groundcover species to provide short-term
coverage of disturbed soil, and will cover the disturbed wetlands and stream banks from
the jurisdictional boundary extending 10 feet landward.
Table 1: Seed Mix for Wetland/Stream Restoration*
Common Name Scientific Name Percentage of Mix
Annual rye grain Secale cereale 25
Black-eye Susan Rudbeckia hirta 10
Foxtail millet Setaria italica 20
Korean lespedeza Lespedeza stipulacea 15
Partridge pea Chamaecrista fasciculata 10
Plains coreopsis Coreopsis tinctoria 5
Slender smartweed Polygonum lapathifolium 5
Virginia wild rye Elymus virginicus 5
Evening primrose Oenotheria biennis 5
"Apply seed mix at a rate of 45 lbs./acre.
L
Restoration Plan SWE Project No. 1357-08-504
PNG Dixie River Road System Strengthening January 13. 2009
Restoration Plan Prepared By: S&ME, Inc.
9751 Southern Pine Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28273
704.523.4726
704.525.3593
Contact: Catherine Luckenbaugh, C.E.
cluckenbau h a,smeinc.com
-A--