20170295 Ver 1_401 Application_20170317

March 14, 2017
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
Attention: Ms. Emily Greer, Regulatory Specialist
Ms. Jennifer Burdette, 401/ Buffer Coordinator
MAR 15 2017
N.C. Division of Water Resources
401 and Buffer Permitting Branch
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
1 TO 295
Reference: Application for USACE Nationwide Permit No. 12 and NC DWR Water Quality
Certification No. 3884
PNG Line 22 Pipeline Replacement Project
Harnett and Sampson Counties
S&ME Project No. 7435-16-042
Dear Ms. Greer and Ms. Burdette:
On behalf of Piedmont Natural Gas (PNG), S&ME, Inc. (S&ME) is submitting this Preconstruction
Notification Form for the above -referenced project as application for a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) Nationwide Permit Number 12 (NWP 12) Verification for commercial and institutional
developments and the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) Water Quality Certification
Number 3884 (WQC 3884).
•.- BACKGROUND INFORMATION
PNG is proposing to replace a segment of an existing 4 -inch diameter natural gas pipeline (Line 22) with a
new 6 -inch diameter pipeline that is compatible with current federally — mandated safety and inspection
requirements, and is capable of increasing service capabilities and reliability for PNG's customers in the
general service area. A majority of the project take place within or adjacent to their existing natural gas
pipeline easement. In areas where the pipeline project will deviate from the existing easement, the
pipeline was rerouted to avoid impacts to jurisdictional features or residential areas constructed after the
original pipe was laid. The pipeline route is primarily within agricultural fields with some residential and
commercial development.
The beginning of the replacement section is located roughly 1,000 feet southwest of the intersection of
Green Path Road and Joe W Smith Lane in Plain View, NC and will extend to an existing regulator station
located at the intersection of Erwin Rd. and Tilghman Dr. in Erwin, NC.
SWE, Inc. 19751 Southern Pine Boulevard I Charlotte, NC 28273 1 p 704.523.4726 1 f 704.525.3953 1 www.smeinc.com

Application for USACE Nationwide Permit No. 12 and NC DWR Water Quality Certification No.
3884
S&ME
PNG Line 22 Pipeline Replacement Project
Harnett and Sampson Counties
S&ME Proiect No. 7435-16-042
The following documents are provided in support of our request:
• Pre -construction Notification (PCN);
Figures: USGS Topographic Map (Figure 1), 2013 Aerial Maps (Figures 2-5), Jurisdictional Impact Maps
(Figures 6-23), National Wetland Inventory Map (Figure 24), National Hydrography Dataset Map
(Figure 25), FEMA Flood Zone Map (Figure 26);
• Agent Authorization Letter;
Appendix I: Stream and Wetland Impact Tables;
♦ Appendix II: Land Ownership Table;
Appendix m: Jurisdictional Delineation Information;
• Appendix IV: NC Natural Heritage Program Element Occurrence Report;
• Appendix V: United States Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) correspondence;
• Appendix VI: NC State Historic Preservation Office correspondence;
♦ Appendix VII: Restoration Plan;
• Appendix VM: NC Division of Mitigation Services Mitigation Acceptance Letter.
❖ PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACTS
The replacement project will include impacts to eight jurisdictional streams and impacts to seven
jurisdictional wetlands. No impacts to regulated riparian buffers, ponds, or open waters are anticipated as
a result of this project. Stream impacts will be temporary, consisting of trenched pipeline crossings.
Stream banks will be returned to original contour and will be seeded with a native seed mix as outlined in
the restoration plan in Appendix VII. Permanent wetland impacts will are limited to the conversion of
forested vegetation to emergent within the new permanently maintained easement. Temporary wetland
impacts are limited to temporary ground disturbance due to the open trenched pipeline crossing.
Additional information regarding the stream and wetland impacts can be found within the Jurisdictional
Impact figures as shown in Appendix II and the Jurisdictional Feature Impact Tables (Appendix II).
As mentioned, PNG intends to parallel their existing utility easement for a majority of the project route.
Deviations from the existing utility easement will be in order to avoid wetland or stream impacts or to
avoid urbanized areas. After construction, the actively maintained easement will be limited to a width of
30 -feet within wetlands instead of the full 50 foot easement which will be maintained within the uplands.
A horizontal direction drill (approximately 3,000 feet) has been proposed to avoid all direct impacts to
Mingo Swamp along the Sampson County/ Harnett County border. Impacts to WA6 and SA2 have been
avoided through the use of conventional bores.
Appropriate sediment and erosion control practices equaling those outlined in the most recent version of
the "North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual" will be used to minimize
impacts to the wetlands.
During construction, equipment operating near stream and wetlands will be limited to that necessary for
excavation, pipe installation, and restoration activities. As proposed, the project will comply with
applicable conditions of NWP No. 12 and WQC No. 3884. Following the work, the affected area will be
returned to its original grade and contour. As proposed, the project will not result in permanent changes
to the ground surface elevation(s) in the area.
March 14, 2017

Application for USACE Nationwide Permit No. 12 and NC DWR Water Quality Certification No.
3884
S&ME
PNG Line 22 Pipeline Replacement Project
Harnett and Sampson Counties
S&ME Proiect No. 7435-16-042
❖ CLOSING
By copy of this correspondence and completed Pre -construction Notification, we are requesting your
written concurrence with this NWP No. 39 application and associated WQC No. 3884. If we can provide
additional information or answer questions you may have, please feel free to contact Ashley Steele at
919.872.2660 or email at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
S&ME, Inc.
Joey Lawler, P.W.S.
Senior Project Manager
[e-mail]
March 14, 2017
Ashley Steele
Staff Scientist

�oV W Art_
�G
y L
i
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Page 1 of 15
PCN Form —Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A.
Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1 a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
FZ
1 b.
Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 12 or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes
® 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
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
❑ Yes ® No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes ® No
1f.
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in -lieu
fee program.
® Yes
❑ No
1 g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
❑ Yes
® No
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 Line 22 Replacement
2b.
County:
Harnett and Sampson Counties
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
2d.
Subdivision name:
N/A
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
N/A
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
Linear Utility Project — Multiple Property Owners.
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
3d.
Street address:
3e.
City, state, zip:
3f.
Telephone no.:
3g. Fax no.:
3h.
Email address:
Page 1 of 15
PCN Form —Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is:
❑ Agent ® Other, specify: Utility Company
4b. Name:
Joshua Whitesides, PE
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
Piedmont Natural Gas
4d. Street address:
4720 Piedmont Row Drive
4e. City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC
4f. Telephone no.:
[phone]
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
[e-mail]
S. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name:
Ashley Steele
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
S&ME, Inc.
5c. Street address:
3201 Spring Forest Road
5d. City, state, zip:
Raleigh, NC 27616
5e. Telephone no.:
[phone]
5f. Fax no.:
5g. Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 2 of 15

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
Linear Utility Project — Multiple properties
Latitude: 35.31386 (start) Longitude: -78.63348
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
35.2556 (end) -78.58306
Approximately 60 acres based on current Limit of
1c. Property size:
Disturbance
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
Black River, Mingo Swamp, Juniper Creek
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
C:Sw
2c. River basin: map is available at
Cape Fear
hftp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/
Page 3 of 15
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

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 will take place primarily within or adjacent to an existing natural gas pipeline easement. Areas where the
pipeline is deviating from the existing easement are primarily agricultural in nature. Surrounding land use is primarily
agricultural and rural residential with some commercial areas.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
Unknown. See delineation information (Appendix III) for information on wetlands delineated within the project area.
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
Unknown. See delineation information (Appendix III) for information on streams delineated within the project area.
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The primary purpose of the project is to replace a segment of existing pipeline with a new pipeline that is compatible with
current federally- mandated safety and inspection requirements. Additionally, the project will result in increased service
capabilities and reliability for PNG's customers in the general service area.
Page 4 of 15

3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The pipeline replacement project will include replace approximately five miles of existing 4 -inch transmission with 6 -inch
transmission. The beginning of this section is located roughly 1,000 feet southwest of the intersection of Green Path Road
and Joe W Smith Lane in Plain View, NC and shall extend to the existing regulator station located at the intersection of
Erwin Rd. and Tilghman Dr. in Erwin, NC. Standard construction equipment will be used.
Construction of the new pipeline will first involve demarcation of clearing limits, jurisdictional boundaries, and other
associated workspaces, etc. The new 6 -inch pipe will primarily be installed in an existing 50 -foot wide easement with the
exception of several small sections which have been rerouted to avoid jurisdictional features, developed residential areas,
and an industrial spray field. Up to an additional 60 feet of temporary workspace (TWS) adjacent to the existing easement
will be required in upland areas to safely install the new pipe. In wetland areas, TWS will be eliminated, and efforts will be
made to remove surface vegetation in a manner that minimizes disturbance of the substrate and prevents exposure of
soil. If necessary, temporary equipment crossings will be installed along one side of the easement to facilitate equipment
passage, cross over streams, and prevent excessive rutting and ground disturbance in the wetlands. Appropriate
sediment and erosion control (S&EC) measures will be installed as clearing proceeds to prevent sedimentation of
jurisdictional features.
No grubbing or below -ground vegetation removal will occur within wetlands or along stream banks outside of the
construction corridor. Where the pipe will be installed by conventional means (e.g. "open -trench" or "isolation"), grubbing
will be limited, to the extent practicable, to the trench line. Select upland portions of the easement may require rough
grading to facilitate safe passage of equipment, and to prepare a suitably -level work surface. Within wetland areas where
extensive rutting or soil disturbance may occur, timber mats are planned for use to provide work and travel space for
equipment.
Following preparation of the work area and installation of necessary S&EC measures, the trench will be excavated along
the "non -working" side of the easement. Subsurface disturbance will only be conducted within the trench line at wetlands
and stream crossings. Stump removal or light grading may occur on the working side of the easement if required for
safety reasons. The work will be performed from the timber mats placed along the working side of the easement. In
certain areas, including wetlands and fields supporting crops, efforts will be made to segregate topsoil from the subsoil. If
necessary, trench breakers (temporary barriers generally constructed of sand bags or similarly suitable material) will be
installed within the trench to slow the flow of subsurface water.
In general, lengths of the 6 -inch pipe will be trucked to the site from temporary storage yards, strung along the easement
and placed on skids (wooden pedestals). Specialized machines will be used to bend individual segments of pipe to fit the
contours of the trench where necessary. The pipe segments will be welded together, x-rayed, the structural integrity and
surface coating inspected, and then lowered into the trench. Segments of the trench may require dewatering or "padding"
to prevent large rocks or other debris from coming in contact with the pipe. Permanent trench breakers will then be
installed where necessary and the trench backfilled. In areas where segregation of the subsoil and topsoil is required, the
topsoil will be replaced last. Affected areas will then be "cleaned up" by rough -grading and temporary seeding (if
necessary), followed by final grading, permanent seeding and mulching to restore the easement as closely as possible to
pre -disturbance contours and conditions.
All work within wetlands and streams will be conducted in accordance with the applicable permits. Best Management
Practices (BMP's) will be employed at all stream and wetland crossings to help prevent siltation or inadvertent discharges
to a Waters of the U.S.
Page 5 of 15

4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
EI Yes ®No El 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):
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
A delineation was performed by S&ME from September to December 2016. See Appendix III for Delineation Information.
Determination will be issued at the discretion of the USACE regulator.
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.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 6 of 15

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
la. 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 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
2h. Comments: Permanent impacts to wetlands will consist of the conversion of forested wetland to emergency wetland. All
other impacts are temporary and include ground disturbance due to an open trench pipeline crossing.
See Wetland Impact Table (Appendix I1).
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)
SA1 ❑ P [:IT
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
SA3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
SA5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
SA6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
SA7 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
SA8 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
SA9 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
Page 7 of 15

3i. Comments: Impacts to streams will all be temporary and will consist of open cutting the stream. See Stream Impact Table
(Appendix ll)
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then indivi ually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water
impact number —
Permanent (P) or
Temporary
4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable)
4c.
Type of impact
4d.
Waterbody type
4e.
Area of impact (acres)
01 ❑P❑T
02 ❑P❑T
03 ❑P❑T
04 ❑P❑T
0. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments: No impacts to open waters are anticipated as a result of this project.
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, the complete the chart below.
5a.
Pond ID
number
5b.
Proposed use or purpose
of pond
5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d.
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e.
Upland
(acres)
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments: No impacts to ponds or lakes
are anticipated as a result of this project.
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 8 of 15

6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
❑ Neuse E] Tar -Pamlico E] Other:
Project is in which protected basin? N/A
❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman
6b.
6c.
6d.
6e.
6f.
6g.
Buffer impact
number —
Reason
Buffer
Zone 1 impact
Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or
for
Stream name
mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Temporary
impact
required?
131 ❑P❑T
❑Yes
❑ No
B2 ❑P[IT
❑Yes
❑ No
B3 ❑P❑T
El Yes
❑ No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments: Project will not occur within a protected basin; no impacts to protected riparian buffers will occur.
Page 9 of 15

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
PNG intends to parallel their existing utility easement for a majority of the project route. Deviations from the existing utility
easement will be in order to avoid wetland or stream impacts or to avoid urbanized areas. After construction, the actively
maintained easement will be limited to a width of 30-feet within wetlands instead of the full 50 foot easement which will be
maintained within the uplands. A horizontal direction drill (approximately 3,000 feet) has been proposed to avoid all
impacts to Mingo Swamp along the Sampson County/ Harnett County border. Impacts to WA6 and SA2 have been
avoided through the use of conventional bores.
Appropriate sediment and erosion control practices equaling those outlined in the most recent version of the "North
Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual' will be used to minimize impacts to the wetlands.
b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
During construction, construction equipment operating near stream and wetlands will be limited to that necessary for
excavation, pipe installation, and restoration activities. As proposed, the project will comply with applicable conditions of
NWP No. 12 and WQC No. 3884. Following the work, the affected area will be returned to its original grade and contour.
As proposed, the project will not result in permanent changes to the ground surface elevation(s) in the area.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
® Yes ❑ No
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ® Corps
❑ Mitigation bank
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
®Payment to in-lieu fee program
project?
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank: N/A
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:
0 linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
❑ warm ❑ cool ❑cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
0 square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
0.19 acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested:
0 acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
0 acres
Page 10 of 15
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

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.
N/A
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? If yes, you will have to fill out this entire form — please
contact the State for more information.
❑ 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:
Page 11 of 15

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ® 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?
<1
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ® No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
Project will not result in additional impervious surface.
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
N/A
❑ Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ DWQ Stormwater Program
❑ DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
❑ Phase 11
❑ NSW
3b. Which of the following locally -implemented stormwater management programs
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ 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
EI Yes ❑ No
attached?
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 12 of 15
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. 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)?
1 c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
El Yes El No
letter.)
Comments: N/A
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.
The project is not considered "growth -inducing" in that its purpose is to replace a segment of existing natural gas pipeline.
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.
The project is not a facility that will regularly generate wastewater.
Page 13 of 15
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

S.
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 ❑ No
impacts?
® Raleigh
5c.
If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
❑ Asheville
5d.
What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
Based on an email dated October 4, 2016 from the Raleigh office of the USFWS, the USFWS recommended that the
project corridor be evaluated for potential habitat for listed species within Harnett and Sampson Counties. If suitable
habitat was identified, the USFWS then requested that a survey be conducted for the protected species. No habitat for
protected species was observed within the project corridor. A review of the NCNHP database identified no other records
of federally protected species within a one -mile radius of the site. See Appendix IV for additional information.
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?
http:ocean.floridamarine.org/efh_coralAms/viewer.htm
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?
In August of 2016, a scoping letter was sent to the NC State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) by S&ME. PNG
originally planned to conduct work on both Line 22 and Line 36, a nearby existing pipeline which also needs to be
replaced. Since then, PNG has decided to conduct work on Line 36 and Line 22 independently. However,
correspondence with SHPO reflects the original plan to conduct work on both pipelines concurrently. In response to the
scoping letter from August 2016, SHPO requested that an archaeological survey be conducted along segments of the
corridor marked in green (Appendix VI). Within this response, SHPO agreed with S&ME's conclusion that the project
would have no effect on aboveground historic resources and therefore, an architectural survey was not required. S&ME
archaeologist performed a Phase I Archaeological survey within the identified segments of the corridor. The Management
Summary from this report can be found In Appendix VI and the full report can be supplied upon request. Of the five
archaeological resources identified within the Line 22 corridor, three were found to not be eligible for the National Register
of Historic Places (NRNP) and were recommended to not require any further work. One of the remaining sites is a
Cemetery (Godwin -Reaves Cemetery, 31 HT1 244). While not considered eligible for the NRNP, S&ME recommended that
the cemetery be avoided. Current construction plans show that the edge of the temporary workspace will be
approximately 50 feet from the edge of the cemetery and that no further work will be required. The final site, a prehistoric
habitation site (31 SP425), was not evaluated for NRHP eligibility. While S&ME archaeologists concluded that the project
will not have an adverse impact to the site, they did recommend that a qualified archaeologist be on site to monitor during
initial earth moving activities in this area. In their response dated March 6, 2017 (Appendix VI), SHPO agreed with the
conclusions and recommendations outlined in the Phase I Archaeological Survey. These recommendations primarily
include avoiding the cemetery and having a qualified archaeologist on site to monitor earth moving activities in the area of
31 SP425. This letter concurred with the Phase I Archaeological Survey conclusion that no significant archaeological
resources will be affected by the project and recommended that no further archaeological investigation be conducted in
connection with the project as proposed.
Page 14 of 15

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: All necessary floodplain encroachment permits will be obtained
from the respective county/ municipal floodplain administrators prior to project construction.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FEMA mapping
Ashley Steele
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Date
Applic t/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
isprovided.)
Page 15 of 15

Appendix 1
Agent Authorization and Landowner Information

0
AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
Date: 11- ze>lq
broject Information
S&ME Project Name: Line 22 / 36 Replacement Projects
Type of Project: Natural Gas Pipeline
Location: Dunn / Lillington NC
PrOpOrty VWn0r/KeP
lnrormanon
Business Name:
Piedmont Natural Gas (PNG)
Mailing Address:
4720 Piedmont Row Drive
City, State, Zip Code:
Charlotte, NC 28210
Telephone No.
704.731.4057
Contact:
Joshua Whitesides, PE
Business Name:
S&ME, Inc.
Street Address:
9751 Southern Pine Blvd
City, State, Zip:
Charlotte, NC 28273
Telephone No.
704.523.4726
Contact
Ashley Steele
Authorization: L ✓ -',d 011 *&I ffiS on behalf of PNG, hereby
authorize S&ME, Inc. to submit information to the US Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE)/NC Division of Water Resources (DWR), pursuant to obtaining
necessary environmental permits for the project referenced above. If
applicable, this also authorizes the USACE/DWR to access the project area
(PNG easement) with prior notification for the purposes of confirming the
accuracy of the delineated boundaries.
J /Signature:
5&ME,1ke— / 97S1 southern Pine Blvd / p 704.523.4726 (704.525.3953 / www.smeinc.com

OWNERSHIP INFORMATION TABLE
COUNTY
DB E
COUNTY
OWNER NAME/MAILING ADDRESS
PROPERTY ADDRESS
CONTACT INFORMATION - PHONE/EMAIL:
PARCEL
(son) Alan Rebarker, 910-890-2168
SAMPSON
1167/354
14012566002
BETTY DRAUGHON REBARKER (Deceased)
GREEN PATH ROAD DUNN, NC
Warren ReBarker 919-395-3358
PO BOX 1071 DUNN, NC 28334
28334
[e-mail]
80
99E / 141 &
14105936002
JAMES ROBERT WARREN
5989 GREEN PATH ROAD DUNN, NC
910-232-0468
DB: 905/349
125 SOUTH FIFTH AVE. WILMINGTON, NC 28401
SAMPSON
1247/156
14093712005
ROBERT SCOTT COATS
5825 GREEN PATH ROAD DUNN,
919-820-3710 Cell, 910-980-6150 Ofc.
PO BOX 1392, DUNN, NC 28335-1392
NC 28334
(son) Alan Rebarker, 910-890-2168
SAMPSON
1342/420
14010453501
BETTY DRAUGHON REBARKER (Deceased)
JOE W. SMITH LANE DUNN, NC
Warren ReBarker 919-395-3358
PO BOX 1071 DUNN, NC 28334
28334
[e-mail]
SAMPSON
1071/890
14067471001
JAN SMITH McLAMB
202 JOE W. SMITH LANE DUNN, NC
Jan Sikes & Chandler Sikes 910.303.9813
PO BOX 1654 DUNN, NC 28335
28335
Dean Hooton 910.892.6100
IRENE S. HOOTON
JOE W. SMITH LANE DUNN, NC
[e-mail]
SAMPSON
?????
14048656002
236 JONE SMITH LANE DUNN, NC 28335
28334
David & Sharon Hooton 910.567.6901
Danny & Kay Hooton 910.567.6350

OWNERSHIP INFORMATION TABLE
COUNTY
D NE
COUNTY PB/PGARCEL
OWNER NAME/MAILING ADDRESS
PROPERTY ADDRESS
CONTACT INFORMATION - PHONE/EMAIL:
JOHNATHON C. VILARDO
Dean Hooton 910.892.6100
SAMPSON
1527/545
14093157511
PO BOX 1613 DUNN, NC 28335
DEE TYNDALL LANE DUNN, NC
[e-mail]
Dean Hooton 910.892.6100
IRENE S. HOOTON
JOE W. SMITH LANE DUNN, NC
[e-mail]
SAMPSON
?????
14048656004
236 DONE SMITH LANE DUNN, NC 28335
28334
David &Sharon Hooton 910.567.6901
Danny & Kay Hooton 910.567.6350
BETTY DRAUGHON REBARKER (Deceased)
(son) Alan Rebarker, 910-890-2168
SAMPSON
1167/354
14093712006
PO BOX 1071 DUNN, NC 28334
OFF GREEN PATH ROAD DUNN, NC
[e-mail]
HILDA E. SMITH
JOE W. SMITH LANE DUNN, NC
Hilda Smith (910-892-6971) Robert Stewart (910-
SAMPSON
751/256
14092496003
PO BOX 114 DUNN, NC 17224
28334
237-2292)
MILLARD DEWANE SMITH
389 JOE W. SMITH LANE DUNN, NC
Dewane Smith 910.891.4713
SAMPSON
1202/549
14092420001
PO BOX 6 DUNN, NC 28335
28334
[e-mail]
HILDA E. SMITH
JOE W. SMITH LANE DUNN, NC
Hilda Smith (910-892-6971) Robert Stewart (910-
SAMPSON
1841/831
14114342001
PO BOX 114 DUNN, NC 17224
28334
237-2292)

OWNERSHIP INFORMATION TABLE
COUNTY
DB/PG
COUNTY PARCEL
OWNER NAME/MAILING ADDRESS
PROPERTY ADDRESS
CONTACT INFORMATION - PHONE/EMAIL:
SAMPSON
1200/481
14081656003
STALEY HOWARD POPE 6189
JOE W. SMITH LANE DUNN, NC
910-237-0299
GREEN PATH ROAD DUNN, NC 28334
28334
STALEY HOWARD POPE
JOE W. SMITH LANE DUNN, NC
SAMPSON
02E / 383
14077132001
6189 GREEN PATH ROAD DUNN, NC 28334
28334
910-237-0299
JESSIE ANNA LEE WALKER
N. SPRING BRANCH ROAD DUNN,
SAMPSON
1623/837
14060846801
PO BOX 102 LEESBURG, VA. 20178
NC.
GEORGE W. WORLEY
SR 1002 DUNN, NC (OFF OF N.
919-417-8949 [e-mail]
SAMPSON
87E / 118A
14053584001
306 BLOUNT STREET CLINTON, NC 28328
SPRING BRANCH RD.)
[e-mail]
NO GIS INFO
PROPERTY TO THE RIGHT OF TRACT
SAMPSON
NO GIS INFO AVAILABLE
#1100
AVAILABLE
CHARLOTTE RUTH LUCAS
US 421 S OFF POPE ROAD DUNN,
Tenants: Miranda Tucker (910-890-1237) Daughter
HARNETT
2696/551
1525-13-9461
1325 POPE ROAD DUNN, NC 28334
NC
of owner & Husband: Terry Tucker (919-464-9772)

OWNERSHIP INFORMATION TABLE
COUNTY
OWNER
COUNTY PARCEL
OWNER NAME/MAILING ADDRESS
PROPERTY ADDRESS
CONTACT INFORMATION - PHONE/EMAIL:
DB/PG
ID#
CHARLOTTE RUTH LUCAS
US 421 S OFF POPE ROAD DUNN,
HARNETT
2734/932
1525-03-8468
1325 POPE ROAD DUNN, NC 28334
NC
CHARLOTTE LUCAS JENKINS
HARNETT
1890/6
1525-03-5535
POPE ROAD DUNN, NC
1325 POPE ROAD DUNN, NC 28334
JOHN P. LOCKAMY & CARRIE LYNN L LEE & FAYE L.
HARNETT
2070/844
1515-93-8506
GODWIN
POPE ROAD DUNN, NC
682 NC 55 DUNN, NC 28334
HARNETT
3202/S64
1515-93-6236
WEEKS FARM, LLC
POPE ROAD DUNN, NC
910-892-3930- R. DEWAYNE WEEKS (PRESIDENT)
163 RUFFIN ROAD DUNN, NC 28334
CHARLOTTE RUTH LUCAS
HARNETT
2734/824
1515-93-1525
1335 POPE ROAD DUNN, NC
1325 POPE ROAD DUNN, NC 28334
JOHN P. LOCKAMY & CARRIE LYNN L LEE
HARNETT
2070/844
1525-04-1193
POPE ROAD DUNN, NC
682 NC 55 DUNN, NC 28334

OWNERSHIP INFORMATION TABLE
COUNTY
OWNER
COUNTY PARCEL
OWNER NAME/MAILING ADDRESS
PROPERTY ADDRESS
CONTACT INFORMATION - PHONE/EMAIL:
DB/PG
ID#
JOHN P. LOCKAMY & CARRIE LYNN L LEE & FAYE L.
HARNETT
2070/844
1515-93-6719
GODWIN
1293 POPE ROAD DUNN, NC
682 NC 55 DUNN, NC 28334
JOHN P. LOCKAMY & CARRIE LYNN L LEE & FAYE L.
HARNETT
2070/844
1515-93-1711
GODWIN
POPE ROAD DUNN, NC
682 NC 55 DUNN, NC 28334
ROCH ELLE J. POPE
HARNETT
????
1515-84-1384
1164 POPE ROAD DUNN, NC
1164 POPE ROAD DUNN, NC 28334
LONG BRANCH HOLDING CO., LLC
HARNETT
1844/854
1515-85-4002
SPRING BRANCH ROAD DUNN, NC
PO BOX 928 DUNN, NC 28335
JOSEPH B. WARREN
HARNETT
746/45
1515-96-9866
POPE ROAD DUNN, NC
330 WARREN ROAD DUNN, NC 28334
loye Weeks, 910-892-6464, Ray
JESSE B. LEE HEIRS
Weeks, 910-890-2610 [e-mail]
HARNETT
2004D / 636
1515-87-2774
C/O HAZEL JOYE LEE WEEKS
POPE ROAD DUNN, NC
Chris Weeks (Tenant Farm) 919-820-0746 Attorney
505 S KING AVE. DUNN, NC 28334
Jimmy Narron

OWNERSHIP INFORMATION TABLE
COUNTY
OWNER
COUNTY PARCEL
OWNER NAME/MAILING ADDRESS
PROPERTY ADDRESS
CONTACT INFORMATION - PHONE/EMAIL:
DB/PG
ID#
BOBBY S. JERNIGAN
HARNETT
10628 TIMOTHY ROAD DUNN, NC 28333
BOBBY S. JERNIGAN
HARNETT
1057/99
1515-77-7932
FAIRVIEW VILLAGE ROAD DUNN, NC
10628 TIMOTHY ROAD DUNN, NC 28334
BOBBY S. JERNIGAN
HARNETT
1057/99
1515-78-9306
OFF POPE ROAD DUNN, NC
10628 TIMOTHY ROAD DUNN, NC 28334
BOBBY S. JERNIGAN
HARNETT
1057/99
1515-78-9667
OFF POPE ROAD DUNN, NC
10628 TIMOTHY ROAD DUNN, NC 28334
1057/99 &
BOBBY S. JERNIGAN
HARNETT
1515-88-0913
BUD HAWKINS ROAD DUNN, NC
2175/454
10628 TIMOTHY ROAD DUNN, NC 28334
588 / 63 &
HOWARD L. TART C/O GALE TART
Gale Tart 910.892.6213 919.518.6767
HARNETT
1515-78-0697
BUD HAWKINS ROAD DUNN, NC
273/500
411 W. POPE STREET DUNN, NC 28334
[e-mail]

OWNERSHIP INFORMATION TABLE
COUNTY
OWNER
COUNTY PARCEL
OWNER NAME/MAILING ADDRESS
PROPERTY ADDRESS
CONTACT INFORMATION - PHONE/EMAIL:
DB/PG
ID#
[phone] (son
ROY S. TART, SR.
HARNETT
2967/662
1515-68-1338
830 ELM STREET DUNN, NC
Dwight) 919.820.2280 [e-mail] Attorney
1104 GUY AVENUE DUNN, NC 28334
Mike McLeod 910.892.6136
919.471.2339 919.423.1292 m
HARNETT
3273/930
1515-69-2010
MILLARD JACKSON GAINEY & DIANE W. GAINEY
1050 ELM STREET DUNN, NC
[e-mail] 5400 Fair Oaks Dr
Durham NC 27712
GARY B. & JANET H. BEASLEY
HARNETT
943/142
1515-58-4607
ELM STREET DUNN, NC
910-514-3568, [e-mail]
567 AMMONS ROAD DUNN, NC 28334
DENFORD MILTON & CAROL STEVENS
HARNETT
1155/886
1515-58-2962
ELM STREET DUNN, NC
601-798-9659, mr [e-mail]
45 GEORGE MITCHELL ROAD CARRIERE, MS. 39426
GARY B. & JANET H. BEASLEY
HARNETT
943/140
1515-58-3525
ELM STREET DUNN, NC
910-514-3568, [e-mail]
567 AMMONS ROAD DUNN, NC 28334
GARY B. & JANET H. BEASLEY
HARNETT
929/660
1515-48-9612
AMMONS ROAD DUNN, NC
910-514-3568, [e-mail]
567 AMMONS ROAD DUNN, NC 28334

OWNERSHIP INFORMATION TABLE
COUNTY
DB E
COUNTY
OWNER NAME/MAILING ADDRESS
PROPERTY ADDRESS
CONTACT INFORMATION - PHONE/EMAIL:
DPARCEL
HARNETT
960/428
1515-48-7596
GARY B. & JANET H. BEASLEY
AMMONS ROAD DUNN, NC
910-514-3568, [e-mail]
567 AMMONS ROAD DUNN, NC 28334
HARNETT
960/428
1515-48-5884
GARY B. & JANET H. BEASLEY
AMMONS ROAD DUNN, NC
910-514-3568, [e-mail]
567 AMMONS ROAD DUNN, NC 28334
HARNETT
918/776
1515-48-3943
WILLIAM MICHAEL & BONNIE B. BEASLEY
AMMONS ROAD DUNN, NC
[phone] [e-mail]
663 AMMONS ROAD DUNN, NC 28334
JESSE CLIFTON ALPHIN & ERNEST JARVIS ALPHIN
Ernest & Theresa 919.820.0467
HARNETT
3173/481
1516-30-5173
3489 US 301 S DUNN, NC 28334
US 301 S DUNN, NC DUNN, NC
[e-mail]
KAY ALPHIN JOHNSON & JESSE C. ALPHIN, 1R.
Ernest & Theresa 919.820.0467
HARNETT
3194/629
1515-29-5716
945 ALPHIN ROAD DUNN, NC 28334
US 301 S DUNN, NC DUNN, NC
[e-mail]
LDL LAND COMPANY, LLC
919-553-8718 - LARRY D. LEE MANAGER/MEMBER
HARNETT
2539/962
1516-21-6566
18 WELDON DRIVE CLAYTON, NC 27520
US 301 S DUNN, NC 28334
Attorney- Mike McLeod 910.892.6136

OWNERSHIP INFORMATION TABLE
COUNTY
OWNER
COUNTY PARCEL
OWNER NAME/MAILING ADDRESS
PROPERTY ADDRESS
CONTACT INFORMATION - PHONE/EMAIL:
DB/PG
ID#
KAY ALPHIN JOHNSON & JESSE C. ALPHIN, JR. & ERNEST
Ernest & Theresa 919.820.0467
HARNETT
3194/629
1516-10-9705
JARVIS ALPHIN
US 301 5 DUNN, NC 28334
[e-mail]
945 ALPHIN ROAD DUNN, NC 28334
JESSE B. LEE HEIRS
Joye Weeks, 910-892-6464, Ray Weeks, Cell 910-890
C/O HAZEL JOYE LEE WEEKS
2610 [e-mail]
HARNETT
?????
1516-02-1117
505 5 KING AVE. DUNN, NC 28334 ---
CHICKEN FARM ROAD DUNN, NC
Attorney Jimmy Narron Rayma Stephenson (sister)
Rayma Stephenson 1105 Hartstone Dr, Colfax NC
336.497.5330
27235 336.497.5330
ROSALIE S. WOOTEN
Rosalie Bissette 252.230.1853 [e-mail]
HARNETT
253/376
1516-22-1592
AKA ROSALIE W. BISSETTE
CHICKEN FARM ROAD DUNN, NC
David Lewis, 910-897-8101 Ofc., 919-820-2656 cell
1716 LAKESIDE DRIVE WILSON, NC 27896
[e-mail]
John 910.892.5095 (h) 910.890.7249(m) (Son John
HARNETT
??????
1516-23-7010
JOHN A. & GEORGE S.
US 3015 DUNN, NC
910.897.4724(h) 910.263.0952(m)
NN, NCWILLO8334HBY
611 PARK AVENUE DUNN, NC 28334
[e-mail])
Richard Green 910-812-4482 HOME, 910-890
HARNETT
3409/181
1516-23-0863
JUNE JOHNSON GREEN
1210 CHICKEN FARM ROAD DUNN,
1352 [e-mail] Attorney -
1217 CHICKEN FARM ROAD DUNN, NC 28334
NC 28334
[e-mail]
DUNBAR FOODS CORPORATION
Ron Austin, Plant Manager, Debbie Davis Asst. 910 -
HARNETT
765/943
1516-14-3539
CHICKEN FARM ROAD DUNN, NC
PO BOX 519 DUNN, NC 28335
892-3175

OWNERSHIP INFORMATION TABLE
COUNTY
DB E
COUNTY PARCEL
OWNER NAME/MAILING ADDRESS
PROPERTY ADDRESS
CONTACT INFORMATION - PHONE/EMAIL:
HARNETT
2278/132
1516-15-0341
WILLIE EARL & BARBARA A. MCKOY PO
SUSAN TART ROAD DUNN, NC
POSSIBLE PHONE #: [phone]
BOX 553 LILLINGTON, NC 27546
HARNETT
1794/379
1516-15-0356
ALSEY B. JOHNSON & FAYE S. JOHNSON
SUSAN TART ROAD DUNN, NC
POSSIBLE PHONE #: [phone]
1217 CHICKEN FARM RD. DUNN, NC 28334
HARNETT
2278/132
1516-15-2622
WILLIE EARL & BARBARA A. MCKOY PO
SUSAN TART ROAD DUNN, NC
POSSIBLE PHONE #: [phone]
BOX 553 LILLINGTON, NC 27546
HARNETT
2839/183
1516-15-4824
HUBERT D. YEATMAN & SALLIE Y. THOMAS
SUSAN TART ROAD DUNN, NC
POSSIBLE PHONE #: [phone]
321 DON RON ROAD ERWIN, NC 28339
HARNETT
2941/563
1516-06-9140
KARL GIEBMANNIS CREDIT SHELTER
SUSAN TART ROAD DUNN, NC
POSSIBLE PHONE #: [phone]
10 CEDARDALE COURT PALM COAST, FL. 32137
HUBERT D. YEATMAN & SALLIE Y. THOMAS
POSSIBLE PHONE # FOR SALLIE: 910-892-2946 & 910
HARNETT
2839/192
1516-16-5637
SUSAN TART ROAD DUNN, NC
321 DON RON ROAD ERWIN, NC 28339
892-6827

OWNERSHIP INFORMATION TABLE
COUNTY
DB E
COUNTY
OWNER NAME/MAILING ADDRESS
PROPERTY ADDRESS
CONTACT INFORMATION - PHONE/EMAIL:
PARCEL
IBRAHIM N. OUDEH PO BOX
Virginia Tyler (Mr. Oudeh's assistant):
HARNETT
1126/637
1516-07-7266
987 DUNN, NC 28334
198 CANTERBURY DRIVE DUNN, NC
[e-mail]- 910-892-6500
HARNETT
2864/810
1506-96-9959
HARNETT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.
803 TILGHMAN DRIVE DUNN, NC
PO BOX 1706 DUNN, NC 28335
IBRAHIM N. OUDEH
Virginia Tyler (Mr. Oudeh's assistant):
HARNETT
1095/474
1506-97-9243
PO BOX 987 DUNN, NC 28334
801 CANTERBURY DRIVE DUNN, NC
[e-mail]- 910-892-6500
TILGHMAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATES LLC 801
Virginia Tyler (Mr. Oudeh's assistant):
HARNETT
2192/267
1516-07-2575
TILGHMAN DRIVE DUNN, NC 28334
TILGHMAN DRIVE DUNN, NC
[e-mail]- 910-892-6500
LEE PROFESSIONAL PARK, LLC 100
TILGHMAN DRIVE DUNN, NC 28335
Tommy McLeod 910 890 3979 Stuart
Tommy: 910-890-3979 & Edward
HARNETT
2791/795
1516-08-0033
Turlington Son 859 489 7514 Rayma
S POWELL AVENUE DUNN, NC
Stuart Turlington: 859-489-7514
Stephenson 336 497 5330 Joy Lee
Weeks 910 892 6464
MSMS REAL ESTATE, LLC
3650 CAPE CENTER DRIVE FAYETTEVILLE, NC 28304
910-483-0049 - MATTHEW DAKA (MANAGING
HARNETT
3450/898
1506-98-6467
[e-mail]
303 TILGHMAN DRIVE DUNN, NC
MEMBER)
Jennifer Romano: 910 483 0049

OWNERSHIP INFORMATION TABLE
COUNTY
OWNER
COUNTY PARCEL
OWNER NAME/MAILING ADDRESS
PROPERTY ADDRESS
CONTACT INFORMATION - PHONE/EMAIL:
DB/PG
ID#
TQM DEVELOPMENT, LLC 500OLD
HARNETT
2410/880
1506-99-7325
TILGHMAN DRIVE DUNN, NC
910-892-4382
US 421DUNN, NC 28334
1 NOWELL SMITH, III
905 ERWIN ROAD DUNN, NC 28334
HARNETT
1804/511
1506-99-5374
910 892 2447
905 ERWIN ROAD DUNN, NC
Represented by P. Tilghman Pope
910 892 4029 - [e-mail]
Deanna "Dina" Fulcher, Ofc. Administrator, ABC
HARNETT
2114/38
1506-99-1021
CHIODO FAMILY, LLC 104
104 TILGHMAN DRIVE DUNN, NC
Pediatric, 910-892-1333 x2226, Cell 910-797-3905
TILGHMAN DRIVE DUNN, NC 28334
[e-mail]
EDWARD S. TURLINGTON
PO BOX 1027 DUNN, NC 28335
Tommy: 910-890-3979 & Edward
HARNETT
1061/240
1506-99-2277
Tommy McLeod 910 890 3979 Stuart
100 TILGHMAN DRIVE DUNN, NC
Stuart Turlington: 859-489-7514
Turlington Son 859 489 7514

Appendix 11
Figures and Impact Tables

NOTE: POTENTIAL WATERS OF THE U.S. WERE DETERMINED IN THE FIELD BY SBME
h SCIENTISTS. FEATURE BOUNDARIES WERE LOCATED WITH GPS UNITS CAPABLE
r. OF SUB -METER ACCURACY; THEY HAVE NOT BEEN SURVEYED BY A REGISTERED
} r LAND SURVEYOR.
T�`' ±�►. err-` >l�
gee F\0 F/ -ossyp
_ G< vistIs
s �' •,
eat C
�P9
'-A geeF�9
\n
t`d G< F o< \mPa°ts
IeteF\91�
S6 i
� l6
yy nr� wi
w.• y��a r q ,.. P8
n �
�e<ya gv�a� o� \tOPa. 4.a
Se
I ,
.� _....
. ro
u
PROJECT AREA (-54.3 ACRES)
III I BORED PIPE INSTALLATION
H— TRENCHED PIPE INSTALLATION
CULVERTS
>-- STREAM CENTERLINE
STREAM BANKS
® JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
IREFERENCE: 2013 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH7 12005 4 -FOOT CONTOURS
BASE MAPPING OBTAINED FROM NC ONEMAP. THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES
ONLY. ALL FEATURE LOCATIONS DISPLAYED ARE APPROXIMATED. THEY ARE NOT BASED ON
CIVIL SURVEY INFORMATION, UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE.
0 500 1,000
(IN FEET)'
z. .
`N P'\o
dGCoSFo \mV'os
so\met\aaF.\g, �5
See
,l:.T. u..— .. _. -
#4 r
` v a• N m O
Z
1 VIE�yHWY r Q M
D �
to Geo o S .1615
.t(t0My efov
r
M
r
O O
O
L0 6C.0II Z '
F- M
w w
U cr
cn a
FIGURE NO.
2
Q f
J E
O
a z 6
LU
O�
Z
0 i
D F—
w Q Z
CL
Z Z O <
Z
Q w a
O
EL 2 Q
I.I.I N (/7
M w a Z
Z
O —' F-
04 w
z
f
FIGURE NO.
2

Yfl 7r l .Hj• j ' ' NOTE: POTENTIAL WATERS OF THE U.S. WERE DETERMINED IN THE FIELD BY S&ME
SCIENTISTS. FEATURE BOUNDARIES WERE LOCATED WITH GPS UNITS CAPABLEir r. �•
OF SUB -METER ACCURACY; THEY HAVE NOT BEEN SURVEYED SYA REGISTERED rP
LAND SURVEYOR. O m p
r r r �. , •I d ,( �jcN
1 * W c�
M Of
o f r' ,b / 71f // Qom- � P� r •. 1 ; 41� wpope:s__-_ !'• 1 0 0
op
� R N M
L0 6
< tr PARIIMENTiP�� m t �' r II Z 7
a '0b .♦ Q k 1 °C - M
LLI
di
E
7ltto
Tt.
_ O
1 �s * ; j p yt �' v + t ►CINGSWpY"D�'. F1 . 0
CPQ y� �!
r. pQ •• �
ENSBURy�Cf
QUEr' r
Ir
A ca
PLLI
GYN
�r
Cr�CO�FRIDGE
1 a� O `L to 0t�'�6` •e . 1A
G
.4���✓. s,�s �•�sr tiros `,. • v�� f •� � ye ya��°�`A ' ,�, w y�• � * ,
f yti , e `�� � \ JP a.. d0 •.. ' _-, `�yee �Pb g$�� Qa°
' �• ~'.. .%r �. 'Sb
GtoQol
�Qo�3,.
• , try` •.,
{ t i O,Q Fri y, '` �y� . / • 260+00--4 = F -
PROJECT AREA (-54.3 ACRES) . , f r' . J z i
1 1 1 BORED PIPE INSTALLATION
'gP2 /• LV N 0c
TRENCHED PIPE INSTALLATION .. SJ r - Y fL �' , • - .�,/ ; 1'.` M w LU
a
CULVERTS ` sr %SII , .,��.� • " e N
>-- STREAM CENTERLINE r 1
STREAM BANKS _- ,, "� . •:. yP�` ^ y. r
® JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
i w
FIGURE NO.
REFERENCE: 2013 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH7 12005 4 -FOOT CONTOURS + 0•' ` 500' � .1;000
* BASE MAPPING OBTAINED FROM NC ONEMAP. THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ti
ONLY. ALL FEATURE LOCATIONS DISPLAYED ARE APPROXIMATED. THEY ARE NOT BASED ON
CIVIL SURVEY INFORMATION, UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE.
4 g (IN FEET) fir• Y
• _ ... ice.- _ _ .: '" ,. J._,& ..3 )i _ s -:'t. _.

s
0 50 100
(IN FEET)
REFERENCE: JURISDICTIONAL FEATURE LOCATION WAS DETERMINED USING GPS UNITS CAPABLE OF SUB -METER ACCURACY,
BUT HAVE NOT BEEN SURVEYED BY A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR. PROPOSED WORKSPACES, ACCESS ROADSAND PIPE
LOCATIONS WERE PROVIDED BY MAGNOLIA RIVER. THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. ALL FEATURE LOCATIONS
DISPLAYED ARE APPROXIMATED. THEYARE NOT BASED ON CIVIL SURVEY INFORMATION, UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE.
LE END N
TRENCHED PIPE INSTALLATION
® EXISTING PIPELINE ROW
PROPOSED NEW ROW
TEMPORARY WORKSPACE
TEMPORARY ACCESS EASEMENT
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
CULVERTS
> - - STREAM CENTERLINE
STREAM BANKS
STREAM IMPACTS:
M N TEMPORARY STREAM IMPACT AREA
SCALE: DATE: JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS: FIGURE NO.
1 " = 50 ' 3-9-2017 Stream Crossing
PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY: S&ME LINE 22 PIPELINE REPLACEMENT 6
7435-16-042 DDH PIEDMONT NATURAL GAS
HARNETTAND SAMPSON CO., NORTH CAROLINA
Stream Crossing ID
SA9
Local Waterway
UT to Mingo Swamp
Longitude
I 35.256798°N
Latitude
78.584293°W
Flow Regime
INTERMITTENT
Cowardin Classification
R4
DWQ Stream ID Score
23
LF in ROW
57
LF Permanent Impact
0
,`•
••
••.•
LF Temporary Impact
57
Temporary disturbance / trenched pipeline
•
Impact Description
crossing
•
••
I None
Additional Notes
SCALE: DATE: JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS: FIGURE NO.
1 " = 50 ' 3-9-2017 Stream Crossing
PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY: S&ME LINE 22 PIPELINE REPLACEMENT 6
7435-16-042 DDH PIEDMONT NATURAL GAS
HARNETTAND SAMPSON CO., NORTH CAROLINA

i
f 1 �•
U1
00
c
1 ` ,
11 `
0 50 100 1
(IN FEET)
REFERENCE: JURISDICTIONAL FEATURE LOCATION WAS DETERMINED USING GPS UNITS CAPABLE OF SUB -METER ACCURACY,
BUT HAVE NOT BEEN SURVEYED BY A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR. PROPOSED WORKSPACES, ACCESS ROADS AND PIPE
LOCATIONS WERE PROVIDED BY MAGNOLIA RIVER. THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. ALL FEATURE LOCATIONS
DISPLAYEDARE APPROXIMATED. THEYARE NOT BASED ON CIVIL SURVEY INFORMATION, UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE.
SCALE: DATE:
1 " = 50' 3-9-2017
PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY: #S&ME
7435-16-042 DDH
LEGEND
TRENCHED PIPE INSTALLATION
EXISTING PIPELINE ROW
PROPOSED NEW ROW
TEMPORARY WORKSPACE
TEMPORARY ACCESS EASEMENT
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
CULVERTS
>-- STREAM CENTERLINE
STREAM BANKS
STREAM IMPACTS:
TEMPORARY STREAM IMPACT AREA
iP
Stream Crossing ID
SA8
Local Waterway
UT to Mingo Swamp
Longitude
35.270481°N
lao
Latitude
78.595968°W
Flow Regime
INTERMITTENT
Cowardin Classification
R4 0
DWQ Stream ID Score
26.5 N
LF in ROW
46
LF Permanent Impact
0
LF Temporary Impact
46
Impact Description
Temporary disturbance / trenched pipeline
crossing
None
Additional Notes
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS:
Stream Crossing
LINE 22 PIPELINE REPLACEMENT
PIEDMONT NATURAL GAS
HARNETTAND SAMPSON CO., NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE NO.
N

It a
1
----------------
k"
_____________ k.
Wi- ♦
SA7--- --
♦
♦
♦
♦
0 50 100 �.
♦
•
•
(IN FEET)
REFERENCE: JURISDICTIONAL FEATURE LOCATION WAS DETERMINED USING GPS UNITS CAPABLE OF SUB -METER ACCURACY,
BUT HAVE NOT BEEN SURVEYED BY A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR. PROPOSED WORKSPACES, ACCESS ROADS AND PIPE
LOCATIONS WERE PROVIDED BY MAGNOLIA RIVER. THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. ALL FEATURE LOCATIONS
DISPLAYED ARE APPROXIMATED. THEYARE NOT BASED ON CIVIL SURVEY INFORMATION, UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE.
LE END N
TRENCHED PIPE INSTALLATION
EXISTING PIPELINE ROW
PROPOSED NEW ROW
TEMPORARY WORKSPACE
TEMPORARY ACCESS EASEMENT
_ LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
CULVERTS
)P.-- STREAM CENTERLINE
STREAM BANKS
STREAM IMPACTS:
E 0 TEMPORARY STREAM IMPACT AREA
Stream Crossing ID SA7
3
Local Waterway UT to Mingo Swamp
Longitude 35.271442°N
Latitude 78.597116°W
Flow Regime INTERMITTENT
Cowardin Classification R4
x
3
DWO Stream ID Score 1 22.5 L
LF in ROW 76 1
ILF Permanent Impact I 0 '
LF Temporary Impact 76
Temporary disturbance / trenched pipeline
Impact Description crossing
Additional Notes
None
SCALE: DATE: JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS: FIGURE NO.
1 " = 50' 3-9-2017 Stream Crossing
PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY: #S&ME LINE 22 PIPELINE REPLACEMENT 8
7435-16-042 DDH PIEDMONT NATURAL GAS
HARNETT AND SAMPSON CO., NORTH CAROLINA

-
LEGEND
TRENCHED PIPE INSTALLATION
N
EXISTING PIPELINE ROW
w
PROPOSED NEW ROW
N
TEMPORARY WORKSPACE
Z
•
TEMPORARY ACCESS EASEMENT
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
p
I r i
•
CULVERTS
0
STREAM CENTERLINE
3
� •
STREAM BANKS
°
-
STREAM IMPACTS:
TEMPORARY STREAM IMPACT AREA
s
• 1
3
3
Stream Crossing ID SA6
y
Local Waterway UT to Mingo Swamp
! P6
Longitude 35.275302°N
o
a
/S •
! /
+
Latitude 78.599606°W
o
• '
Flow Regime INTERMITTENT
3
Cowardin Classification'I
R4
w
W •
DWO Stream ID Score . 19.75
0
LF in ROW 40
LF Permanent Impact 0
LF Temporary Impact 40
• 90+00
•
Temporary disturbance /trenched pipeline
\ ' ;
crossing
'
1
Impact Description
0 50 100 '
j r � � •
None
! (IN FEET), •
REFERENCE: JURISDICTIONAL FEATURE LOCATION WAS DETERMINED USING GPS UNITS CAPABLE OF SUB -METER ACCURACY,
Additional Notes
BUT HAVE NOT BEEN SURVEYED BY A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR. PROPOSED WORKSPACES, ACCESS ROADS AND PIPE
LOCATIONS WERE PROVIDED BY MAGNOLIA RIVER. THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. ALL FEATURE LOCATIONS
DISPLAYEDARE APPROXIMATED. THEYARE NOT BASED ON CIVIL SURVEY INFORMATION, UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE.
----- ----
SCALE:
DATE:
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS.
FIGURE NO.
1 " = 50 '
3-9-2017
Stream Crossing
#S&ME
REPLACEMENT
9
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:
LINE 22 PIPELINE
7435-16-042PIEDMONT
DDH
NATURAL GAS
HARNETTAND SAMPSON CO., NORTH CAROLINA

i
i 7$;0_0♦ I
to
i
_41i
Tr
��♦­d�
0 50 100 1 it
(IN FEET)_ % /I-
REFERENCE:
i_
REFERENCE: JURISDICTIONAL FEATURE LOCATION WAS DETERMINED USING GPS UNITS CAPABLE OF SUB -METER ACCURACY, ,
BUT HAVE NOT BEEN SURVEYED BYA REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR. PROPOSED WORKSPACES, ACCESS ROADS AND PIPE
LOCATIONS WERE PROVIDED BY MAGNOLIA RIVER. THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. ALL FEATURE LOCATIONS
DISPLAYE D ARE APPROXIMATED. THEY ARE NOT BASED ON CIVIL SURVEY INFORMATION, UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE.
SCALE:
1 "=50'
PROJECT NO:
7435-16-042
DATE:
3-9-2017 #S&ME
DRAWN BY:
DDH
' LEGEND N
1 1 1 1 BORED PIPE INSTALLATION
TRENCHED PIPE INSTALLATION
PROPOSED NEW ROW
TEMPORARY WORKSPACE
TEMPORARY ACCESS EASEMENT
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
- - STREAM CENTERLINE
STREAM BANKS
® JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
STREAM IMPACTS:
0 0 TEMPORARY STREAM IMPACT AREA
Stream Crossing IDSA5 1H
Local Waterway
UT to Black River °
Longitude
35.292205°N
Latitude
78.624610°W c
Flow Regime
PERENNIAL
Cowardin Classification i R3 '
DWQ Stream ID Score 31.5
1 LF in ROW 68 1
LF Permanent Impact 0
LF Temporary Impact 68
Temporary disturbance / trenched pipeline
Impact Description crossing
None
Additional Notes
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS:
Stream Crossing
LINE 22 PIPELINE REPLACEMENT
PIEDMONT NATURAL GAS
HARNETT AND SAMPSON CO., NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE NO.
10

•
0 50 100 • '�
•
QN FEET)
REFERENCE: JURISDICTIONAL FEATURE LOCATION WAS DETERMINED USING GPS UNITS CAPABLE OF SUB -METER ACCURACY,
BUT HAVE NOT BEEN SURVEYED BY A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR. PROPOSED WORKSPACES, ACCESS ROADS AND PIPE
LOCATIONS WERE PROVIDED BY MAGNOLIA RIVER. THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. ALL FEATURE LOCATIONS
DISPLAYEDARE APPROXIMATED. THEYARE NOT BASED ON CIVIL SURVEY INFORMATION, UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE.
LEGEND
1 I I BORED PIPE INSTALLATION
TRENCHED PIPE INSTALLATION
PROPOSED NEW ROW
TEMPORARY WORKSPACE
� LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
>-- STREAM CENTERLINE
STREAM BANKS
® JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
STREAM IMPACTS:
E I STREAM IMPACTAVOIDANCE AREA
Stream Crossing ID SA4
3
Local Waterway UT to Juniper Creek
Longitude 35.297057°N
Latitude 78.623128°W c
Flow Regime I INTERMITTENT N
Cowardin Classification R4
DWQ Stream ID Score 28
LF in ROW 41
LF Permanent Impact 0
LF Temporary Impact 0
None - HDD pipe installation
Impact Description
Additional Notes
Equipment crossing may occur using
temporary bridging.
SCALE: DATE: JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS: FIGURE NO.
1 " = 50' 3-9-2017 Stream Crossing
PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY: #S&ME LINE 22 PIPELINE REPLACEMENT 11
7435-16-042 DDH PIEDMONT NATURAL GAS
IL HARNETTAND SAMPSON CO., NORTH CAROLINA

LEGEND N
TRENCHED PIPE INSTALLATION
• SFR CIR PROPOSED NEW ROW
• TEMPORARY WORKSPACE
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
> - - STREAM CENTERLINE
STREAM BANKS
• \ '4
STREAM IMPACTS:
TEMPORARY STREAM IMPACT AREA
•
'r
Stream Crossing ID SA3
Local Waterway UT to Juniper Creek
Longitude
- 35.301981'N
Latitude 78.626620° W
N
Flow Regime PERENNIAL
Cowardin Classification
R3
DWCI Stream ID Score 30.5
LF in ROW 170
LF Permanent Impact 0
LF Temporary Impact 170
Temporary disturbance / trenched pipeline
Impact Description crossing
0 50 100
Non -perpendicular crossing required due
(IN FEET) to constraints from adjacent test crop
REFERENCE: JURISDICTIONAL FEATURE LOCATION WAS DETERMINED USING GPS UNITS CAPABLE OF SUB -METER ACCURACY, Additional Notes fields, sewers, and residences.
BUT HAVE NOT BEEN SURVEYED BY A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR. PROPOSED WORKSPACES, ACCESS ROADS AND PIPE
LOCATIONS WERE PROVIDED BY MAGNOLIA RIVER. THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. ALL FEATURE LOCATIONS
DISPLAYEDARE APPROXIMATED. THEYARE NOT BASED ON CIVIL SURVEY INFORMATION, UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE.
SCALE: DATE: JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS: FIGURE NO.
1 " = 50 ' 3-9-2017 Stream Crossing
PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY: #S&ME LINE 22 PIPELINE REPLACEMENT 12
7435-16-042 DDH PIEDMONT NATURAL GAS
L HARNETT AND SAMPSON CO., NORTH CAROLINA

LEGEND
1 I BORED PIPE INSTALLATION
EXISTING PIPELINE ROW
PROPOSED NEW ROW
TEMPORARY WORKSPACE
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
CULVERTS
>-- STREAM CENTERLINE
STREAM BANKS
STREAM IMPACTS:
IN 0 STREAM IMPACTAVOIDANCE AREA
♦ i/ sp.2 � s
♦, i. `` ' _ Stream Crossing ID
+�4 `♦.' : �41�i `♦ Local Waterway
u ♦01
0 50 100
." /
Al FEET) S
Longitude
Latitude
SA2
Juniper Creek
35.304181 ° N
78.627247° W
Flow Regime
' PERENNIAL
Cowardin Classification,, R3
DWQ Stream ID Score
38.5
LF in ROW
20
LF Permanent Impact
0
i
LEGEND
1 I BORED PIPE INSTALLATION
EXISTING PIPELINE ROW
PROPOSED NEW ROW
TEMPORARY WORKSPACE
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
CULVERTS
>-- STREAM CENTERLINE
STREAM BANKS
STREAM IMPACTS:
IN 0 STREAM IMPACTAVOIDANCE AREA
♦ i/ sp.2 � s
♦, i. `` ' _ Stream Crossing ID
+�4 `♦.' : �41�i `♦ Local Waterway
u ♦01
0 50 100
." /
Al FEET) S
Longitude
Latitude
SA2
Juniper Creek
35.304181 ° N
78.627247° W
Flow Regime
' PERENNIAL
Cowardin Classification,, R3
DWQ Stream ID Score
38.5
LF in ROW
20
LF Permanent Impact
0
LF Temporary Impact 0
None - HDD pipe installation
Impact Description
REFERENCE: JURISDICTIONAL FEATURE LOCATION WAS DETERMINED USING GPS UNITS CAPABLE OF SUB -METER ACCURACY, _ Additional Notes
BUT HAVE NOT BEEN SURVEYED BYA REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR. PROPOSED WORKSPACES, ACCESS ROADSAND PIPE
LOCATIONS WERE PROVIDED BY MAGNOLIA RIVER. THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. ALL FEATURE LOCATIONS
DISPLAYEDARE APPROXIMATED. THEYARE NOT BASED ON CIVIL SURVEY INFORMATION, UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE.
Equipment crossing may occur using
I temporary bridging.
SCALE: DATE: JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS: FIGURE NO.
1 " = 50' 3-9-2017 Stream Crossing
PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY: S&ME LINE 22 PIPELINE REPLACEMENT 13
7435-16-042 DDH PIEDMONT NATURAL GAS
HARNETT AND SAMPSON CO., NORTH CAROLINA

♦
0 50 100 N ,`
(IN FEET)
REFERENCE: JURISDICTIONAL FEATURE LOCATION WAS DETERMINED USING GPS UNITS CAPABLE OF SUB -METER ACCURACY,
BUT HAVE NOT BEEN SURVEYED BY REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR. PROPOSED WORKSPACES, ACCESS ROADS AND PIPE
LOCATIONS WERE PROVIDED BY MAGNOLIA RIVER. THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. ALL FEATURE LOCATIONS
DISPLAYED ARE APPROXIMATED. THEYARE NOT BASED ON CIVIL SURVEY INFORMATION, UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE.
SCALE: DATE:
1 " = 50 ' 3-9-2017
PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:
7435-16-042 DDH
I---=.
14_� ttru
LEGEND N
TRENCHED PIPE INSTALLATION
EXISTING PIPELINE ROW
PROPOSED NEW ROW
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
CULVERTS
>-- STREAM CENTERLINE
STREAM BANKS
® JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
STREAM IMPACTS:
TEMPORARY STREAM IMPACT AREA
Stream Crossing ID
SA1
3
Local Waterway
UT to Juniper Creek a
Longitude
35.307627°N L
Latitude
78.630049°W o
Flow Regime
INTERMITTENT 3
Cowardin Classification
R4 0
DWQ Stream ID Score
19.5 N
0
LF in ROW
71
LF Permanent Impact
0
LF Temporary Impact
71
Impact Description
Temporary disturbance / trenched pipeline
crossing
None
Additional Notes
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS:
Stream Crossing
LINE 22 PIPELINE REPLACEMENT
PIEDMONT NATURAL GAS
HARNETTAND SAMPSON CO., NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE NO
14

LEGEND N
TRENCHED PIPE INSTALLATION
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
®JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
EXISTING PIPELINE ROW
PROPOSED NEW ROW
TEMPORARY WORKSPACE
WETLAND IMPACT AREAS:
PERMANENT WETLAND IMPACT
'-""TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACT
VVI U !
Wetland Crossing ID WA10
Local Waterway UT to Mingo Swamp
Longitude 78.589719°W
Latitude 35.264812°N
•�
WAM Classification Headwater Forest
Cowardin Classfication PFO
•
,
i
Acres in Workspace 0.060
•
��
Acres Permanent Impact 0.029
Acres Temporary Impact
0.031
�.
\
�•�
Trenched pipeline crossing / permanent
Nk
`
maintenance within new easement.
•�\.-:;
,x', ��
Impact Description
0 50 100 `.
,
Wetland is emergent within existing
(IN FEET) ,
permanent easement.
REFERENCE: JURISDICTIONAL FEATURE LOCATION WAS DETERMINED USING GPS UNITS CAPABLE OF SUB -METER ACCURACY,
Additional Notes
BUT HAVE NOT BEEN SURVEYED BYA REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR. PROPOSED WORKS PACES, ACCESS ROADSAND PIPE
LOCATIONS WERE PROVIDED BY MAGNOLIA RIVER. THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. ALL FEATURE LOCATIONS
DISPLAYED ARE APPROXIMATED. THEYARE NOT BASED ON CIVIL SURVEY INFORMATION, UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE.
SCALE:
DATE:
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS:
FIGURE NO.
1 " = 50 '
3-9-2017
WA10 Wetland Crossing
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:
#S&ME
LINE 22 PIPELINE REPLACEMENT
15
7435-16-042
DDH
PIEDMONT NATURAL GAS
HARNETT AND SAMPSON CO., NORTH CAROLINA
LEGEND N
TRENCHED PIPE INSTALLATION
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
®JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
EXISTING PIPELINE ROW
PROPOSED NEW ROW
TEMPORARY WORKSPACE
WETLAND IMPACT AREAS:
PERMANENT WETLAND IMPACT
'-""TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACT
VVI U !
Wetland Crossing ID WA10
Local Waterway UT to Mingo Swamp
Longitude 78.589719°W
Latitude 35.264812°N
•�
WAM Classification Headwater Forest
Cowardin Classfication PFO
•
,
i
Acres in Workspace 0.060
•
��
Acres Permanent Impact 0.029
Acres Temporary Impact
0.031
�.
\
�•�
Trenched pipeline crossing / permanent
Nk
`
maintenance within new easement.
•�\.-:;
,x', ��
Impact Description
0 50 100 `.
Wetland is emergent within existing
(IN FEET) ,
permanent easement.
REFERENCE: JURISDICTIONAL FEATURE LOCATION WAS DETERMINED USING GPS UNITS CAPABLE OF SUB -METER ACCURACY,
Additional Notes
BUT HAVE NOT BEEN SURVEYED BYA REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR. PROPOSED WORKS PACES, ACCESS ROADSAND PIPE
LOCATIONS WERE PROVIDED BY MAGNOLIA RIVER. THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. ALL FEATURE LOCATIONS
DISPLAYED ARE APPROXIMATED. THEYARE NOT BASED ON CIVIL SURVEY INFORMATION, UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE.
SCALE:
DATE:
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS:
FIGURE NO.
1 " = 50 '
3-9-2017
WA10 Wetland Crossing
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:
#S&ME
LINE 22 PIPELINE REPLACEMENT
15
7435-16-042
DDH
PIEDMONT NATURAL GAS
HARNETT AND SAMPSON CO., NORTH CAROLINA
0
3
0
w
0

1
LEGEND N
I I I I BORED PIPE INSTALLATION
TRENCHED PIPE INSTALLATION
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
®JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
EXISTING PIPELINE ROW
PROPOSED NEW ROW
TEMPORARY WORKSPACE
TEMPORARY ACCESS EASEMENT
WETLAND IMPACT AREAS:
MR WETLAND IMPACT AVOIDED
m
6
N
1 VVAd tR
Wetland Crossing ID
WA8
Local Waterway
Mingo Swamp 3
%
Longitude
78.592589°W a
a
Latitude
35.267434°N Q
/
WAM Classification
Riverine Swamp Forest o
'
Cowardin Classfication
3
PFO
/
w
Acres in Workspace
1.211
i
Acres Permanent Impact
0 0
Acres Temporary Impact
0
No impact- pipe will be installed by HDD
Impact Description
0 300 600 `��i/ •,'��
(IN FEET)
REFERENCE: JURISDICTIONAL FEATURE LOCATION WAS DETERMINED USING GPS UNITS CAPABLE OF SUB -METER ACCURACY, Additional Notes
BUT HAVE NOT BEEN SURVEYED BYA REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR. PROPOSED WORKSPACES, ACCESS ROADSAND PIPE ♦����;T
LOCATIONS WERE PROVIDED BY MAGNOLIA RIVER. THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. ALL FEATURE LOCATIONS ^
DISPLAYEDARE APPROXIMATED. THEYARE NOT BASED ON CIVIL SURVEY INFORMATION, UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE. VII1'Q
Pipe will be installed within existing
easement; no additional maintenance
clearing will be required.
SCALE: DATE: JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS:
1 " = 300' 3-9-2017 WA8 Wetland Crossing
PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY: #S&ME LINE 22 PIPELINE REPLACEMENT
7435-16-042 DDH PIEDMONT NATURAL GAS
61 HARNETT AND SAMPSON CO., NORTH CAROLINA
NO.
16

LEGEND
N
R
INSTALLATION
.� ,;` °
yam• TRENCHED PIPE
♦`♦
- x OF DISTURBANCE
,�♦♦
_.,LIMITS
X: >--.STREAM CENTERLINE
♦♦.� 1
STREAM BANKS r
^♦
r ®JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
♦ 1
♦♦`.��•.
I� EXISTING PIPELINE ROW
PROPOSED NEW ROW
`♦
s
TEMPORARY WORKSPACE 3
�• " ,-IIIWTEMPORARYACCESSEASEMENT a
♦♦`♦
'
�i" ' `"AIL WETLAND IMPACT AREAS:
=TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACT w
♦ �♦
g
♦���, ,`
, Wetland Crossing ID WA9
Local Waterway IJT to Mingo Swamp x
x
Longitude 78.59666°W s
in
`.♦
�•�
1 Latitude 35.270938°N Q
\
WAM Classification Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh o
♦
�
3
Cowardin Classification PEM
WA9
o
Acres In Workspace 0.004
Acres Permanent Impact 0
i
Acre s Te m pora ry I m pa ct 0.004
Temporary ground disturbance
Impact Description
0 50 100_- -_- -__- -'
�_ �"c
- -- "--
Wetland is emergent within proposed
new maintained easment.
-----«--------------------------
REFERENCE: JURISDICTIONAL FEATURE LOCATION WAS DETERMINED USING GPS UNITS CAPABLE OF SUB -METER ACCURACY, Additional Notes
BUT HAVE NOT BEEN SURVEYED BYA REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR. PROPOSED WORKS PACES, ACCESS ROADSAND PIPE
LOCATIONS WERE PROVIDED BY MAGNOLIA RIVER. THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. ALL FEATURE LOCATIONS '..�
DISPLAYED ARE APPROXIMATED. THEY ARE NOT BASED ON CIVIL SURVEY INFORMATION, UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE.
•
'JURISDICTIONAL
SCALE:
DATE:
IMPACTS:
FIGURE NO.
1 " = 50 '
3-9-2017
WA9 Wetland Crossing
#S&ME
PIPELINE
17
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:
LINE 22 REPLACEMENT
7435-16-042
DDH
PIEDMONT NATURAL GAS
HARNETT AND SAMPSON CO., NORTH CAROLINA

1/
50 100
(IN FEET)
i
REFERENCE: JURISDICTIONAL FEATURE LOCATION WAS DETERMINED USING GPS UNITS CAPABLE OF SUB -METER ACCURACY,
BUT HAVE NOT BEEN SURVEYED BY REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR. PROPOSED WORKSPACES, ACCESS ROADS AND PIPE
LOCATIONS WERE PROVIDED BY MAGNOLIA RIVER. THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. ALL FEATURE LOCATIONS
DISPLAYEDARE APPROXIMATED. THEYARE NOT BASED ON CIVIL SURVEY INFORMATION, UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE.
WA6
SCALE:
1 "=50'
PROJECT NO:
7435-16-042
DAT E:
3-9-2017
BY:#S&ME
DRAWN BY:
DDH
LEGEND
I I I I BORED PIPE INSTALLATION
-� TRENCHED PIPE INSTALLATION
_: LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
>-- STREAM CENTERLINE
STREAM BANKS
®JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
PROPOSED NEW ROW
TEMPORARY WORKSPACE
TEMPORARYACCESS EASEMENT
WETLAND IMPACT AREAS:
10 WETLAND IMPACT AVOIDED
Wetland Crossing ID
WA6
Local Waterway
UT to Black River 3
Longitude
78.624412°W s
Latitude
a
35.291728°N Q
WAM Classification
Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh o
Cowardin Classfication
3
PEM
Acres in Workspace
0.015 w
Acres Permanent Impact
0 0
Acres Temporary Impact
0 v
No impact; pipeline under wetland will be
installed by conventional bore
Impact Description
None.
Additional Notes
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS:
WA6 Wetland Crossing
LINE 22 PIPELINE REPLACEMENT
PIEDMONT NATURAL GAS
HARNETT AND SAMPSON CO., NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE NO.

0 50 100
(IN FEET) �.
REFERENCE: JURISDICTIONAL FEATURE LOCATION WAS DETERMINED USING GPS UNITS CAPABLE OF SUB -METER ACCURACY,
BUT HAVE NOT BEEN SURVEYED BY REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR. PROPOSED WORKSPACES, ACCESS ROADS AND PIPE
LOCATIONS WERE PROVIDED BY MAGNOLIA RIVER. THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. ALL FEATURE LOCATIONS
DISPLAYEDARE APPROXIMATED. THEYARE NOT BASED ON CIVIL SURVEY INFORMATION, UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE.
LEGEND N
BORED PIPE INSTALLATION
TRENCHED PIPE INSTALLATION
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
>-- STREAM CENTERLINE
STREAM BANKS
®JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
PROPOSED NEW ROW
TEMPORARY WORKSPACE
WETLAND IMPACT AREAS:
= PERMANENT WETLAND IMPACT
Wetland Crossing ID
WA5
Local Waterway
UT to Juniper Creek x
Longitude
78.623165°W a
Latitude
35.297168°N
WAM Classification
Bottomland Hardwood o
Cowardin Classfication
3
PFO
Acres in Workspace
0.050
Acres Permanent Impact
0.05 0
Acres Temporary Impact
0
Impact Description
Permanent conversion of forested
vegetation to emergent
Pipe will be installed via HDD; 30'
permanent maintenance corridor will be
established over new pipe.
Additional Notes
SCALE: DATE: JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS: FIGURE NO.
1 " = 50 ' 3-9-2017 WA5 Wetland Crossing
PROJECT NO: DRAWN BY: #S&ME LINE 22 PIPELINE REPLACEMENT 19
7435-16-042 DDH PIEDMONT NATURAL GAS
1111 HARNETTAND SAMPSON CO., NORTH CAROLINA

'�� ;; �••
LEGEND
-
N
-TRENCHED PIPE INSTALLATION
• r
- LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
• WA3
----
CULVERTS
/ �•`� ,•.�
> - - STREAM CENTERLINE
/WA2
.� , ,, •�
STREAM BANKS
•.•''; �`�
®JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
=
I `
EXISTING PIPELINE ROW
+'
PROPOSED NEW ROW
i ••
TEMPORARY WORKSPACE
t
i ••� '< •'.
WETLAND IMPACT AREAS:
1 ••
=PERMANENT WETLAND IMPACT
TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACT
1
Wetland Crossing ID WA4
t •�
1 •
Local Waterway 1 LIT to Juniper Creek
1
•
`
Longitude 78.629743°W
Latitude 35.307228°N
1 `•
y
{ % •.
WAM Classification Headwater Forest
N •.
D
Cowardin Classification PFO/PEM
Acres in Workspace 0.111
•
�• ,'••
Acres Permanent Impact 0.054
Acres Temporary Impact 0.057
`•
•
`
�•
Trenched pipeline crossing / permanent
WA4
maintenance within new easement.
1 •
•.
Impact Description
0 50 100 `
�.
Wetland is emergent within existing
•.
permanent easement.
(IN FEET) `
REFERENCE: JURISDICTIONAL FEATURE LOCATION WAS DETERMINED USING GPS UNITS CAPABLE OF SUB -METER ACCURACY, •�
Additional Notes
BUT HAVE NOT BEEN SURVEYED BY A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR. PROPOSED WORKSPACES, ACCESS ROADS AND PIPE •�
LOCATIONS WERE PROVIDED BY MAGNOLIA RrVER. THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. ALL FEATURE LOCATIONS
•
DISPLAYEDARE APPROXIMATED. THEYARE NOT BASED ON CIVILSURVEY INFORMATION, UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE. •
SCALE:
DATE:
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS:
FIGURE NO
1 " = 50 '
3-9-2017
WA4 Wetland Crossing
#S&ME
20
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:
LINE 22 PIPELINE REPLACEMENT
7435-16-042
DDH
PIEDMONT NATURAL GAS
L
HARNETTAND SAMPSON CO., NORTH CAROLINA
3

as
a,a
a,
i
a
� • S a
• a
0 50 100 iy ,�•��
i
(IN FEET) •a'k�'* WA
REFERENCE: JURISDICTIONAL FEATURE LOCATION WAS DETERMINED USING GPS UNITS CAPABLE OF SUB -METER ACCURACY,
BUT HAVE NOT BEEN SURVEYED BYA REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR. PROPOSED WORKSPACES, ACCESS ROADS AND PIPE
LOCATIONS WERE PROVIDED BY MAGNOLIA RIVER. THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. ALL FEATURE LOCATIONS
DISPLAYEDARE APPROXIMATED. THEYARE NOT BASED ON CIVIL SURVEY INFORMATION, UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE.
SCALE: DATE:
1 " = 50 ' 3-9-2017
#S&MEPROJECT NO: DRAWN BY:
7435-16-042 DDH
LEGEND
TRENCHED PIPE INSTALLATION
:.
-LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
CULVERTS
> —— STREAM CENTERLINE
STREAM BANKS
EDJURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
EXISTING PIPELINE ROW
PROPOSED NEW ROW
WETLAND IMPACT AREAS:
MW PERMANENT WETLAND IMPACT
Wetland Crossing ID
WA3
Local Waterway
UT to Juniper Creek x
a
Longitude
78.630001°W a
Latitude
35.30762°N a
WAM Classification
Headwater Forest o
Cowardin Classfication
v
PFO
Acres in Workspace
0.004
w
Acres Permanent Impact
0 0
Acres Temporary Impact
0.004
Impact Description
Temporary ground disturbance /
permanent maintenance within new
easement.
Wetland is emergent within existing
permanent easement.
Additional Notes
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS: FIGURE NO.
WA3 Wetland Crossing 2''
LINE 22 PIPELINE REPLACEMENT 1
PIEDMONT NATURAL GAS
HARNETT AND SAMPSON CO., NORTH CAROLINA

LEGEND
_JI -- TRENCHED PIPE INSTALLATION
-LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
>—— STREAM CENTERLINE
STREAM BANKS
®JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
EXISTING PIPELINE ROW
PROPOSED NEW ROW
WETLAND IMPACT AREAS:
TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACT
Wetland Crossing ID I WA2
Local Waterway
♦
Longitude
78.630477°W s
•
Latitude
35.308243°N P
WAM Classification
Headwater Forest
permanent easement.
♦
(IN FEET) `
I
♦
REFERENCE: JURISDICTIONAL FEATURE LOCATION WAS DETERMINED USING GPS UNITS CAPABLE OF SUB`METERACCURACY,
Additional Notes
i
•
LOCATIONS WERE PROVIDED BY MAGNOLIA RIVER. THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. ALL FEATURE LOCATIONS
•
DISPLAYE DARE APPROXIMATED. THEYARE NOT BASED ON CIVIL SURVEY INFORMATION, UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE.
I
SCALE:
DATE:
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS:
FIGURE NO.
1 " = 50 '
3-9-2017
WA2 Wetland Crossing
#S&ME
22
♦
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:
LINE 22 PIPELINE REPLACEMENT
7435-16-042
DDH
PIEDMONT NATURAL GAS
HARNETT AND SAMPSON CO., NORTH CAROLINA
LEGEND
_JI -- TRENCHED PIPE INSTALLATION
-LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
>—— STREAM CENTERLINE
STREAM BANKS
®JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
EXISTING PIPELINE ROW
PROPOSED NEW ROW
WETLAND IMPACT AREAS:
TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACT
Wetland Crossing ID I WA2
Local Waterway
LIT to Juniper Creek 3
a
Longitude
78.630477°W s
• ♦
Latitude
35.308243°N P
WAM Classification
Headwater Forest
I Cowardin Classfication 1 PFO 1�
Acres in Workspace 0.007
w
Acres Permanent Impact 0
Acres Temporary Impact 0.007 V
Temporary ground disturbance
Impact Description
0 50 100 `•
1i�,
• ♦
as`,
Wetland is emergent within existing
••
permanent easement.
(IN FEET) `
I
REFERENCE: JURISDICTIONAL FEATURE LOCATION WAS DETERMINED USING GPS UNITS CAPABLE OF SUB`METERACCURACY,
Additional Notes
BUT HAVE NOT BEEN SURVEYED BYA REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR. PROPOSED WORKSPACES, ACCESS ROADSAND PIPE
LOCATIONS WERE PROVIDED BY MAGNOLIA RIVER. THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. ALL FEATURE LOCATIONS
DISPLAYE DARE APPROXIMATED. THEYARE NOT BASED ON CIVIL SURVEY INFORMATION, UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE.
I
SCALE:
DATE:
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS:
FIGURE NO.
1 " = 50 '
3-9-2017
WA2 Wetland Crossing
#S&ME
22
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:
LINE 22 PIPELINE REPLACEMENT
7435-16-042
DDH
PIEDMONT NATURAL GAS
HARNETT AND SAMPSON CO., NORTH CAROLINA

LEGEND
�.• `�
N p
-TRENCHED PIPE INSTALLATION
'� �•
� LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
�"` `• �•
,•.
>-- STREAM CENTERLINE
•`� �`
STREAM BANKS
`
®JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
=EXISTING PIPELINE ROW
�•
PROPOSED NEW ROW
WETLAND IMPACT AREAS:
r
PERMANENT WETLAND IMPACT
•
WA -1'
TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACT
_
` ,
N
N
CJ
d
3
Wetland Crossing ID WA1
Local Waterway UT to Juniper Creek a
Longitude 78.630509°W s
1�
1
` '
0
Latitude 35.308598°N Q
`
o
WAM Classification Headwater Forest =
0
*
3
Cowardin Classfication PFO / PEM
r
Acres in Workspace 0.087
w
�, •
`
I
Acres Permanent Impact 0.054 0
Acres Temporary Impact 0.032
Temporary ground disturbance /
•
trenched pipeline crossing
`
Impact Description
�•
0 50 100
�.
MOMWA2
,
Wetland is emergent within existing
`
permanent easement.
(IN FEET) •
I
REFERENCE: JURISDICTIONAL FEATURE LOCATION WAS DETERMINED USING GPS UNITS CAPABLE OF SUB -METER ACCURACY,
Additional Notes
BUT HAVE NOT BEEN SURVEYED BY A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR. PROPOSED WORKSPACES, ACCESS ROADS AND PIPE
1
LOCATIONS WERE PROVIDED BY MAGNOLIA RIVER. THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. ALL FEATURE LOCATIONS
DISPLAYED ARE APPROXIMATED. THEY ARE NOT BASED ON CIVIL SURVEY INFORMATION, UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE.
SCALE:
DATE:
JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS:
FIGURE NO.
1 " = 50 '
3-9-2017
WA1 Wetland Crossing
$S&ME
23
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY:
LINE 22 PIPELINE REPLACEMENT
7435-16-042
DDH
PIEDMONT NATURAL GAS
HARNETT AND SAMPSON CO., NORTH CAROLINA

' � �� � . �:' �'� yrs.,• �• r- ! �1 ; z,,, • �:
• \ •' t • • •
r' ✓ �„
, >�•�.�, _,jam -r i - � �r���� 1 � , -' � r
iN R4SBC
_ � "� '� �`� 1�'• ". .r'''. 1„� s,i .�`•. � .. - �i �,l• �: `,_ �� r�' � �.��•� tr■ 1 1 : 7.• T �'t i r^ r:� r' �� Vr rr� �� '� � I
• 4-4
\• ./, t � ��v !!' ��>,w,rK�i�$'��► ��„ •wl�'x7�-; .11'If��r f r ry'�`_... "'•-'�' .� r �r
•I fCr '+t /. itiS,�t"T..,AjlklYr -!�� .•�_'+a-yi� ~►_� 'L'.�4 1
:N 4, � �• �� .►�M;'. r var��°��Q:f}r r „� •,� "�rtj� •{ "'�•• ����f'I ►y; ,
• .` C �' C �6 r"'y rr•L'r+{.�y f'rf77 �, •SPG ( .r- • • ;,
y�
'r��. q• � /' +s. • ,, �7'�;r�� �' �.'� � � .max t t "�" •,fig � '�'� •
- l
1,17 '
A44I• • ; /l r 5 r moi''` :
• 1.'' �\
Al
Got
• ►� r ,� f fi ,3S ``r
r r t
• �� � � �� 1� it Y(r a���
F
® NWI Wetlands •
Proposed Pipe Centerline ' • •' • • +
REFERENCE: 2013 NCONEMAP AERIAL ORTHOIMAGERY LAYER AND THE 2016 USFWS NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY 4 0 = 2,000 - 4,000
NI.Z11iiw1:�
• GEODATABASE FOR NC. THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. ALL FEATURE LOCATIONS DISPLAYED ARE , ^. � •
APPROXIMATED. THEY ARE NOT BASED ON CIVIL SURVEY INFORMATION, UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE.
ET) PFOIC
E e 01C
PF04��
PUBHx *� T i PF04C
R4SBC
R4SBC'
PF01Ch #
PUBHh
PUSCx
RSUBH PF01/2F
PUBHh
R4SBC PUBHx •
R4SBCx
PF01C
PF01A
R4SBC
„PF01/2Fh
PUBHh
PF01Fh
�• PUBHx ~
'F01A I PF01C "
PF01A
PUBHh
r .t PF07/46
PF01A
PF01A
011 ull _
PF01A PF01/4C
lift
R4SBC ( PF01A' '`5
PUBHh
$2U1311-1
r <
PuBu-
•
PF01A PUBHh'
k , Ui
■
PF01A PEM1C
UJ
R4SBC PF01C . •
PUBHx r PUBHh '
•
PUBHx
'
X
PF01C , . •
PF01A ' ' . r
PF01ACCIJ a
PUBHx PAB4Fx k LIJ
'
+� R4SBC •
u
PF01/4A R4SBC PF01C '
-04A / rll
R4SBC P:01A
C R4SBC PF01A{ ,:..
f t- ,.
f' R4SBC ' P_UBHx PF01C FIGURE NO.
PUBHx
24
01C
ouiou t�

0:\PROJECTS\2016\7435-16-042\Line22\NHD_PCN.mxd plotted by asteele 03-14-2017

TV -4
..4
ri
01 " b77
A.
7
j
Ry
3 1 ®r
r
_Fr r
A4 0�
-vv, 4
lot
F
V,
t
-A
Ar
1A
ZP
.01f
Ikk
41
1w
A.
LAI,
Proposed Pipe Centerline
FEMA Flood Zone
0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard
1 %Annual Chance Flood Hazard, BFE Determined
REFERENCE: 2013 NCONEMAP AERIAL ORTHOIMAGERY LAYER AND THE NCFLOODMAP FEMA GEODATABASES FOR HARNETT 000
.16,2,000
AND SAMPSON COUNTIES. THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. ALL FEATURE LOCATIONS DISPLAYED ARE
APPROXIMATED. THEY ARE NOT BASED ON CIVIL SURVEY INFORMATION, UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE.
(IN FEET)
-J
Z
_j
0
Z L)
W
2 U)
ELI <
L.0 0 (9
Z ,<Z
0
., < Z
0 a w -
N 0
W < Z
0 Z Z 0
0 _w: i 12 -
ata LLJ E- <
L
C-4 ❑ U)
w
C14 W
Z
W Z <
U.
w
Z
elf
FIGURE NO.
26

Average
NCDWQ
Linear Feet
Impact
Cowardin
Perennial or
Stream
Impact
Stream ID
Stream Name
Type of Impact
Stream
of Stream in
Latitude
Longitude
Map No.
Classification
Intermittent
Width
Length
Score
Workspace
(feet)
Temporary disturbance / trenched
SA9
6
UT to Mingo Swamp
R4
Intermittent
23
3
57
57
35.2568
-78.584293
pipeline crossing
Temporary disturbance / trenched
SAS
7
UT to Mingo Swamp
R4
Intermittent
26.5
4
46
46
35.27048
-78.595968
pipeline crossing
Temporary disturbance / trenched
SA7
8
UT to Mingo Swamp
R4
Intermittent
22.5
3
76
76
35.27144
-78.597116
pipeline crossing
Temporary disturbance /trenched
SA6
9
UT to Mingo Swamp
R4
Intermittent
19.75
4
40
40
35.2753
-78.599606
pipeline crossing
Temporary disturbance / trenched
SA5
10
UT to Black River
R3
Perennial
31.5
5
68
68
35.29221
-78.62461
pipeline crossing
None - HDD pipe installation;
SA4
11
UT to Juniper Creek
R4
Intermittent
Equipment crossing may occur with
28
4
41
0
35.29706
-78.623128
temporary bridging
Temporary disturbance / trenched
SA3
12
UT to Juniper Creek
R3
Perennial
30.5
6
170
170
35.30198
-78.62662
pipeline crossing
None - HDD pipe installation;
SA2
13
Juniper Creek
R3
Perennial
Equipment crossing may occur with
38.5
12
20
0
35.30418
-78.627247
temporary bridging
Temporary disturbance / trenched
SA1
14
UT to Juniper Creek
R4
Intermittent
19.5
3
71
71
35.30763
-78.630049
pipeline crossing

WETLAND IMPACT TABLE
Total
Temporary
Permanent
Wetland
Impact
NCWAM
Cowardin
Wetland
Impact Description
Impact
Impact
Latitude
Longitude
ID
Map No.
Classification
Classification
Acres in
(Acres)
(Acres)
Workspace
Temporary ground disturbance/ trenched pipeline
Headwater
WA10
15
PFO
crossing / permanent conversion of forested
0.06
0.031
0.029
35.264812
-78.58972
Forest
vegetation to emergent in new utility corridor.
No impact- pipe will be installed by HDD within
Riverine
WA8
16
PFO
the existing easement and no additional
1.211
0
0
35.267434
-78.59259
Swamp Forest
maintenance clearing will be required.
Non -tidal
Temporary ground disturbance/ trenched pipeline
WA9
17
Freshwater
PEM
0.004
0.004
0
35.270938
-78.59666
Marsh
crossing.
Non -tidal
No impact; pipeline under wetland will be
WA6
18
Freshwater
PEM
0.015
0
0
35.291728
-78.62441
installed by conventional bore
Marsh
Permanent conversion of forested vegetation to
Bottomland
emergent - pipe will be installed via HDD; 30'
WAS
19
PFO
0.05
0
0.05
35.297168
-78.62317
Hardwood
permanent maintenance corridor will be
established over new pipe.
Temporary ground disturbance/ trenched pipeline
Headwater
WA4
20
PFO / PEM
crossing / permanent conversion of forested
0.111
0.057
0.054
35.307228
-78.62974
Forest
vegetation to emergent in new utility corridor.
Temporary ground disturbance/ trenched pipeline
Headwater
WA3
21
PFO
crossing / permanent conversion of forested
0.004
0.004
0
35.30762
-78.63
Forest
vegetation to emergent in new utility corridor.
Headwater
Temporary ground disturbance/ trenched pipeline
WA2
22
PFO
0.007
0.007
0
35.308243
-78.63048
Forest
crossing.
Headwater
Temporary ground disturbance / trenched
WA1
23
PFO / PEM
0.087
0.032
0.054
35.308598
-78.63051
Forest
pipeline crossing
TOTAL (ac):
1.549
0.135
0.187

uoi.;euuo;ui uol.;eeul.iea
III xipueddV

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: PNG Line 22 City/County: Dunn / Harnett Sampling Date: 9-16-16
Applicant/Owner: Piedmont Natural Gas (easement only) State: NC Sampling Point: WA1 - up
Investigator(s): W Cole Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0-5
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): P, 133A Let: 35.308487 Long: -78.630364 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Ly: Lynchburg sandy loam NWI classification: N/A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
Surface Water (Al) Aquatic Fauna (1313)
High Water Table (A2)
1❑ -t
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
❑ Drainage Patterns (B10)
Q Saturation (A3)
1L ---1f
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (616)
Q Water Marks (B1)
1U -f
IJ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (132)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3)
1Q
L-1 Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
❑ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: WA1 - up
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 10' x 50' )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 Pinus taeda
50 Y FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A)
2 Nyssa biflora
30 Y OBL
Total Number
Species Acrosss Dominant
5 All Strata: (B)
3 Quercus nigra 10 N FAC
4.- Magnolia grandiflora
5 N FAC
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7.
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
8.
95 =Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
50% of total cover: 47.5
20% of total cover: 19
FACW species x2=
FAC species x3=
Saolina/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1 Arundinaria tecta
5 Y FACW
FACU species x4=
UPL species x 5 =
2
Column Totals: (A) (B)
3.
4•
Prevalence Index = B/A =
5•
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7•
_ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
8.
3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
5 = Total Cover
_
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover: 2.5
20% of total cover: 1
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
1
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3•
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
4.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
5
height.
6.
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
7
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
8.
Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
g.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
10.
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
11.
height.
12.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1 Smilax rotundifolia
15 Y FAC
2 Vitis rotundifolia
10 Y FAC
3.
4.
5•
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
25 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 12.5
20% of total cover: 5
Present? Yes X No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

SOIL
needed to document the indicator or
Sampling Point: WA1 - up
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc Texture Remarks
0-4 10YR 4/2 100 SL sandy loam
4-8 2.5Y 4/3 100 _
8-18+ 10YR 5/4 90 7.5YR 4/4 10 C
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sa
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
U Histosol (Al)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
HStratified Layers (A5)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
D 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
D Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
n Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
D Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR 0, S)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
D Sandy Redox (S5)
D Stripped Matrix (S6)
❑ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
SCL sandy Gay loam
PL SC sandy clay
ns. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
❑
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
P2
cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR 0)
---II
Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
�
T
EJ
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
lJ
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 153B)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
Redox Depressions (F8)
T❑�I
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Marl (F10) (LRR U)
7u�
D Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR 0, P, T)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: PNG Line 22 City/County: Dunn/Hamett Sampling Date: 9-16-16
Applicant/Owner: Piedmont Natural Gas (easement only) State: NC Sampling Point: WA1 - wet
Investigator(s): W COTe Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0-2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): P/1 33A Let: 35.308623 Long: -78.630451 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Ly: Lynchburg sandy loam NWI classification: N/A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
headwater forest
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauired)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (66)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that aooly)
Surface Water (Al) ❑ Aquatic Fauna (613)
High Water Table (A2)
Marl Deposits (615) (LRR U)
Drainage Patterns (610)
Q Saturation (A3)
1❑ -f
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Q Water Marks (61)
11'Z
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Q Sediment Deposits (62)
1I�-If
LJ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (63)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
a Algal Mat or Crust (134)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Q Iron Deposits (65)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑✓ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
✓❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
includes capillaryfrin e
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: WA1 -wet
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 50'x50' )
1 Nyssa biflora
° Cover Species? Status
60 Y OBL
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 9 (A)
2
3.
Acer rubrum
Pinus taeda
20 Y FAC
10 N FAC
Total Number of Dominant 9
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4.
5•
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
7.
8
90 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 45
20% of total cover: 18
FACW species x 2 =
SaDlino/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1 Viburnum nudum
40 Y FACW
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x5=
Column Totals: (A) (B)
2 Ligustrum sinense 10 Y FAC
3.
4.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
5•
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7.
_ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
8.
3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0+
50 = Total Cover+
_
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)
50% of total cover: 25
20% of total cover: 10
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1 Woodwardia areolata
15 Y OBL
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2
Osmundastrum cinnamomeum
10 Y FACW
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3
Microstegium vimineum
10 Y FAC
Tree —Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
4.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
5
height.
6.
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
7
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
8.
Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
9.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
10.
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 It in
11.
height.
12.
35 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 17.5
20% of total cover: 7
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1
Toxicodendron radicans
10 Y FAC
2
Smilax rotundifolla
10 Y FAC
3.
4.
5
Hydrophytic
50% of total cover: 10
20 = Total Cover
20% of total cover: 4
Vegetation
Present? Yes X No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: WA1 - wet
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Tvce Loc
Texture Remarks
0-6 10YR 2/2 95
10YR 3/4 5 C PL
loam
6-10 10YR 4/1 60
5Y 7/1 40 D M
SL sandy loam
10-18+ 10YR 4/1 60
10YR 6/1 30 D M
SCL sandy clay loam
10YR 4/4 10 C PL
'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric
Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,
unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
Histosol (Al)
LI Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
J,
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
t�J'1
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)TL�J
T -I Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5)
✓ Depleted Matrix (F3)
J✓
u Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 153B)
H5
cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Muck Presence U)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
7❑I Red Parent Material (TF2)
u Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF1 2)
D
(A8) (LRR
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Mari (F10) (LRR U)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
D
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
0
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR 0, S)
Delta Ochric (1717) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
0
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
E] Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA
149A, 153C, 153D)
❑
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM —Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: PNG Line 22 City/County: Dunn/ Harnett Sampling Date: 9-16-16
Applicant/Owner: Piedmont Natural Gas (easement only) State: NC Sampling Point: WA5 - Upl
Investigator(s): W Cole Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hilislope, terrace, etc.): hilislope Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 2-5
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): P, 133A Let: 35.29703 Long: -78.62341 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Bb: Bibb loam, frequently flooded NWI classification: N/A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X wkhin a Wetland? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reguiMM
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (66)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
(Primary
Surface Water (Al) 11 Aquatic Fauna (1313)
High Water Table (A2)
0 Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
❑ Drainage Patterns (1310)
Q Saturation (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
0 Moss Trim Lines (616)
❑_ Water Marks (131)
1L ---If
1'7 Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (132)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
a Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (133)
1L--Jf
IJ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_
a Algal Mat or Crust (134)
Q Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
a Iron Deposits (65)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
a Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67)
❑ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Q Water -Stained Leaves (69)
❑ Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: WA5 - Upl
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size:
)
° over Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 Acer rubrum
40 Y FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 6 (A)
2 Quercus nigra 30 Y FAC
3 Liquidamabar styraciflua
10 N FAC
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 7(B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5•
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 65.7 (AIB)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
8.
80 = Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
50% of total cover: 40
20% of total cover: 16
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
Saolina/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1 Ligustrum sinense
45 Y FAC
FACU species x 4 =
2 Arundinaria tecta
10 N FACW
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
3.
4•
Prevalence Index = B/A =
5•
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6.
❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Q 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
7•
8.
3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
I --I
1__t Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)
55 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 27.5
20% of total cover: 11
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
1 Microstegium vimineum
20 Y FAC
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2 Polystichum acrostichoides
5 Y FACU
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3'
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
4.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
5
height.
6•
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
7
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
8.
g.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
10.
11.
height.
12.
25 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 12.5
20% of total cover: 5
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
)
1 Vitis rotundifolia
10 Y FAC
2 Smilax rotundifolia 10 Y FAC
3.
4.
5•
Hydrophytic
20 = Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover: 10
20% of total cover: 4
Present? Yes X No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

SOIL
(Describe to the
the Indicator or
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tvce Loc
0-4 10YR 4/3 100
4-14+ 10YR 6/4 100
Sampling Point: WA5 - Upl
Texture Remarks
SL sandy loam
SL sandy loam
'Type: C=Concentration D=Depletion RM=Reduced Matrix MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :
Histosol (Al)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
eStratified Layers (A5)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
8 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
0 Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
eCoast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR 0, S)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
D Stripped Matrix (S6)
D Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (If observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Marl (F10) (LRR U)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR 0, P, T)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 1506)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
T�-I Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
u Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (1720)
(MCRA 1538)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF
D Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
DOther (Explain in Remarks)
3lndicetors of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydro
logy must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: PNG Line 22 City/County: Dunn / Hamett Sampling Date: 9-16-16
Applicant/Owner: Piedmont Natural Gas (easement only) State: NC Sampling Point: WA5 - wet
Investigator(s): W COTe Section, Township, Range:
Landfonn (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0-2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): P, 133A Let: 35.29722 Long: -78.62363 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Bb: Bibb loam, frequently flooded NWI classification: PF01A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary
Indicators (minimum of two required)
Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
Drainage Patterns (610)
Moss Trim Lines (1376)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that aggly)
❑
IIIPrimary
Surface Water (Al) 11 Aquatic Fauna (613)
High Water Table (A2) 10 Marl Deposits (615) (LRR U)
Q Saturation (A3) 11L---iff Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C7)
Q Water Marks (131) 1LJ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Sediment Deposits (132) 1L -Jt Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Drift Deposits (B3) L -i Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑
LLL..1ll
8
❑
❑
Iron Deposits (135)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑
Shallow Aquitard (133)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑✓
FAC -Neutral Test (135)
❑✓ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑
Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
includes capillaryfrim e
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: WA5 - wet
4•
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 50'x50' )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1
Nyssa biflora
40
Y OBL
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 8
(A)
2
Acer rubrum
30
Y FAC
50% of total cover: 22.5 20% of total cover: 9
3.
Persea borbonia
15
N FACW
Total Number of Dominant 8
Species Across All Strata:
(B)
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4.
30 Y FACW
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3 Boehmeria cylindrica
Percent Dominant cies
oOBL, FAC:
Tree —Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
—
5•
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
5
That Are FACW, of r 100
(A/g)
6.
7
8.
g•
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 It tall.
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 It in
10.
11.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
12.
7.
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
8
85
= Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
50% of total cover: 42.5
20% of total cover: 17
FACW species x2=
FAC species x 3 =
SaDlina/Shrub
Stratum (Plot size: )
1
Ligustrum sinense
30
Y FAC
FACU species x4=
2
Arundinaria tecta
15
Y FACW
UPL species x5=
Column Totals: (A)
(B)
3.
4•
Prevalence Index = B/A =
5•
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7.
_ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
8.
3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0+
45 = Total Cover+
_
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)
50% of total cover: 22.5 20% of total cover: 9
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
)
'indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
1 Microstegium vimineum
30 Y FAC
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2 Persicaria pensylvanica
30 Y FACW
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3 Boehmeria cylindrica
10 N FACW
Tree —Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
4.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
5
height.
6.
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
7
8.
g•
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 It tall.
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 It in
10.
11.
height.
12.
70 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 35 20% of total cover: 14
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1 Vitis rotundifolia 10 Y FAC
2 Smilax rotundifolia 10 Y FAC
3.
4.
5 Hydrophytic
20 = Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 10 20% of total cover: 4 Present? Yes X No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

SOIL
Profile
needed to document the indicator or
Sampling Point: WA5 -wet
of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tvce Loc Texture Remarks
0-3 10YR 4/3 100 SL sandy loam
3-13+ 10YR 4/2 90 7.5YR 5/6 10 C PL SL sandy loam
'Type: C=Concentration D=Depletion RM=Reduced Matrix MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric
Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,
unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
❑
Histosol (A1)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U)1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR 0)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
❑
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR 0) T Reduced Vertiic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
D Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5)
TEl
✓ Depleted Matrix (F3) tJ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 153B)
n
DMuck
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
U)
Parent Material (TF2)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 'E]Very
Redox Depressions (F8) u Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Presence (A8) (LRR
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Marl (F10) (LRR U) D Other (Explain in Remarks)
13
Depleted Below Dark Surface (All 1)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
❑
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
E1 Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR 0, P, T) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Q Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR 0, S)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic.
❑
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 1506)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
HAnomalous
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
trictive Layer (If observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: PNG Line 22 City/County: Sampson Co. Sampling Date: 10-4-16
ApplicanttOwner: Piedmont Natural Gas (easement only) State: NC Sampling Point: W8 - up
Investigator(s): W Cole Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): 5%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): T, 133A Lat_ 35.26557 Long: -78.59013 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Udorthents, loamy 1/ NWI classification: N/A
Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary
Indicators (minimum of two required)
Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reauireda check all that aooly)
❑
Surface Water (Al) 1:1 Aquatic Fauna (1313)
❑
High Water Table (A2)
0 Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
❑
Drainage Patterns (B10)
❑ Saturation (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
II
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
❑_ Water Marks (61)
1uf
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
8
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (62)1L-Jf
1IJf
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (63)
IJ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Q Algal Mat or Crust (134)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
8
❑
Geomorphic Position (132)
Q Iron Deposits (135)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑
Shallow Aquitard (133)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑
FAC -Neutral Test (135)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑
Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1 Carya tomentosa
2 Quercus nigra
3 Quercus alba
q Oxydendrum arboreum
5 Pinus taeda
6.
7.
8.
50% of total cover: 40
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1 Quercus alba
2 Symplocos tinctoria
3 Ligustrum sinense
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Sampling Point: W8 -Up
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
x 1 =
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
FACU species
40
Y
NL
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3
(A)
15
Y
FAC
4.
15
Y
FACU
Total Number of Dominant
7
6.
Species Across All Strata:
(B)
10 N FACU
5
N
FAC
Percent of Dominant Species o
10.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 42.9 k
(A/13)
85 = Total Cover
20% of total cover: 16
20 Y FACU
5 N FAC
5 N FAC
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
Total % Cover of:
Multiply by:
30 = Total Cover
x 1 =
50% of total cover: 15
20% of total cover: 6
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
)
FACU species
1 Polystichum acrostichoides
UPL species
5 Y FACU
2 Arundinaria tecta
(A) (B)
5 Y FACW
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
10 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 5
20% of total cover: 2
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
)
1 Vitis rotundifolia
5 Y FAC
2 Parthenocissus quinquefolia
5 Y FACU
3.
4.
5.
10 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 5
20% of total cover: 2
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
Total % Cover of:
Multiply by:
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x 2 =
FAC species
x 3 =
FACU species
x4=
UPL species
x 5 =
Column Totals:
(A) (B)
Prevalence Index =
B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
_ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 It in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No X
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

SOIL
(Describe to
the Indicator or confirm the absence
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tvce Loc
0-4 10YR 3/2 100
4-16+ 7.5YR 5/6 100
Sampling Point: W8 - Up
Texture Remarks
SL sandy loam
SL sandy loam
'Type: C=Concentration D=Depletion RM=Reduced Matrix MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric SOils':
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR 0, S)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
tractive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
2 cm Muck (A70) (LRR S)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF;)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Marl (F10) (LRR U)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
T-1 Reduced Verfic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
TUI Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
u Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
(MCRA 1536)
T
u Very Shallow Dark Surface (TIF 12)
DOther (Explain in Remarks)
3lndicetors of hydro
phytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: PNG Line 22 City/County: Sampson Co. Sampling Date: 10-4-16
Applicant/Owner: Piedmont Natural Gas (easement only) State: NC Sampling Point: W8 -Wet
Investigator(s): W Cole Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0-2'x°
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): P, 133A Let: 35.26568 Long: -78.59025 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Udorthents, loamy 1/ NWI classification: PF01C
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary
Indicators (minimum of two reauired)
Surface Soil Cracks (66)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required* check all that aoaly)
❑
Surface Water (Al) El Aquatic Fauna (613)
High Water Table (A2)
0 Mari Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
�❑
"'Drainage
Patterns (610)
Q Saturation (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
✓
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
II Water Marks (B1)
101�f
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
❑
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
�LJ-r
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (63)
1LJ
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (64)
iI-�-I
LJ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑
Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Iron Deposits (65)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑
Shallow Aquitard (133)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery
(67)
❑✓
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
✓❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
❑
Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes X
No Depth (inches): 1' deep
Water Table Present? Yes X
No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes X
No Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: W8 -Wet
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size:
)
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 Nyssa aquatica
40 Y OBL
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 6 (A)
2 Acer rubrum
20 Y FAC
3. Parsee borbonia
10 N FACW
Total NumberDominant 6
Species Acrosss All Strata: (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7.
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
8
70 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 35
20% of total cover: 14
FACW species x 2 =
Saplina/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
FAC species x 3 =
1 Ligustrum sinense
10 Y FAC
FACU species x4=
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
2
3
4.
5•
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7.
_ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
8.
3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0'
_Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
10 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 5
20% of total cover: 2
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
1 Woodwardia areolata
20 Y OBL
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2 Clethra alnifolia
20 Y FACW
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3 Saururus cemuus
10 N OBL
Tree —Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
4 Arisaema triphyllum
10 N FACW
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
5
height.
6.
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
7,
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
8.
Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
g,
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
10.
11.
height.
12.
60 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 30
20% of total cover: 12
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
)
1 Smilx bona-nox
5 Y FAC
2.
3.
4.
5•
Hydrophytic
5 = Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover: 2.5
20% of total cover: 1
Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

SOIL
to
the indicator or conflrrn the absence of
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tvce Loc Texture
0-4 10YR 2/1 100 organic
4-14+ 10YR 3/2 100 organic
Sampling Point: W8 -wet
Remarks
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
Q✓ Histosol (Al)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
n Stratified Layers (A5)
D Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
L] Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
0 Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR 0, S)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
HSandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) --11 Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ]E
lJ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
LJ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 1536)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
T❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
Redox Depressions (F8)
u Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Marl (F10) (LRR U)
D Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MCRA 151)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (CRR O, P, T)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Umbric Surface (F13) (CRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Delta Ochric (F17) (MCRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 1506)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: PNG Line 22 City/County: Harnett Co. Sampling Date: 10-4-16
Applicant/Owner: Piedmont Natural Gas (easement only) State: NC Sampling Point: W9 - Up
Investigator(s): W Cole Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 3-5'x°
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): P, 133A Let: 35.27095 Long: -78.59684 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Vaucluse gravelly loamy sand, 2-8% slopes NWI classification: N/A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary
Indicators (minimum of two reggjMM
Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
❑
Surface Water (Al) ❑ Aquatic Fauna (613)
❑
LJ High Water Table (A2)
0 Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
Drainage Patterns (610)
Q Saturation (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Q Water Marks (131)0
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
❑
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (62)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (133)
1L -J -f
I --I Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑
Geomorphic Position (132)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑
FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (69)
❑
Sphagnum moss (138) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point:
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
% Cover e i ? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 5 (B)
2.
3.
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 60 (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7.
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
8.
OBL species x 1 =
= Total Cover
FACW species x 2 =
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
FAC species x 3 =
SaDlina/Shrub
Stratum (Plot size: )
1
Ligustrum sinense
20 Y FAC
FACU species x4=
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
2 Liquidambar styraciflua 10 Y FAC
3.
4•
Prevalence Index = B/A =
5.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7.
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
8.
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0'
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
30 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 15
20% of total cover: 6
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
1
Solidago canadensis
30 Y FACU
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2
Eupatorium capillifolium
15 Y FACU
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3'
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
4.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
5
height.
6.
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
7
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
8.
Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
g.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine —All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
10.
11.
height.
12.
45 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 22.5
20% of total cover: g
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1
Lonicera japonica
5 Y FAC
2.
3.
4.
5•
Hydrophytic
5 = Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover: 2.5
20% of total cover: 1
Present? Yes No X
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

SOIL
Profile Description: (Describe to
document the indicator or confirm the
Sampling Point: W'9 - Up
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tvce Loc Texture Remarks
0-4 10YR 3/2 100 SL sandy loam
4-12 10YR 5/4 100
12-16+ 10YR 4/6 100
SL sandy loam
SCL sandy clay loam
'Type: C=Concentration D=Depletion RM=Reduced Matrix MS=Masked Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric
Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,
unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soil93:
❑
Histosol (Al)
0 Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Epipedon (A2)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
eHistic
❑
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
8 Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) T -I Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
0 Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
-I Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Tu
Depleted Matrix (F3) u Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 153B)
❑I
n
D
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Muck Presence U)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (TF2)
T
Redox Depressions (F8) tJ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF1 2)
D
(A8) (LRR
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
❑ Marl (F10) (LRR U) Other (Explain in Remarks)
D
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
0 Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
❑
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR 0, P, T) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Q Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic.
D
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
n
Sandy Redox (S5)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
n
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
trictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/Site: PNG Line 22 City/County: Harnett Co. Sampling Date: 10-4-16
Applicant/Owner: Piedmont Natural Gas (easement only) State: NC Sampling Point: W9 - Wet
Investigator(s): W Cole Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hilislope, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0-2%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): P, 133A Lat: 35.2708 Long: -78.59663 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Vaucluse gravelly loamy sand, 2-8% slopes NWI classification: N/A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
Nontidal Freshwater Marsh (NCWAM)
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary
Indicators (minimum of two required)
Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
❑
IIIPrimary
Surface Water (Al) El Aquatic Fauna (1313)
❑
✓ High Water Table (A2)
IT ---TI Marl Deposits (615) (LRR U)
❑
Drainage Patterns (610)
IJ Saturation (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
II
Moss Trim Lines (616)
Q Water Marks (131)
1❑
IJ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (62)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
8
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (63)
1Q -f
I --I Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
1:1 Algal Mat or Crust (64)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Q Iron Deposits (65)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑
Shallow Aquitard (133)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery
(137)
❑
FAC -Neutral Test (135)
✓❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑
Sphagnum moss (138) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes X
No Depth (inches): deep
Water Table Present? Yes X
No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes X
No Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: W9 -Wet
60 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 30 20% of total cover: 12
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5 Hydrophytic
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: Present? Yes X No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
% Cover
SDecies?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5•
That Are 013L, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7.
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
8.
OBL species x 1 =
= Total Cover
FACW species x 2 =
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
FAC species x3=
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1 Salix nigra
20
Y
OBL
FACU species x4=
2 Baccharis halimifolia
15
Y
FAC
UPL species X5=
3 Liquidambar styraciflua
5
N
FAC
Column Totals: (A) (B)
4 Pinus taeda
5
N
FAC
Prevalence Index = B/A =
5•
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
6.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7•
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
8•
3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
45
= Total Cover
_
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover: 22.5
20% of total cover:
g
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
1 Andropogon virginicus
20
Y
OBL
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2. Juncus effusus
15
Y
OBL
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3 Persicaria pensylvanica
10
N
FACW
Tree —Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
4 Ludwigia altemifolia
10
N
OBL
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
5 Carex lurida
5
N
OBL
height.
6.
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
7.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
8•
Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
g.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
10.
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
11.
height.
12.
60 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 30 20% of total cover: 12
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5 Hydrophytic
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: Present? Yes X No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

SOIL
(Describe to the depth needed to
or
Sampling Point: W9 -Wet
of Indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tvce Loc Texture Remarks
0-3 2.5 YR 4/2 85 7.5YR 5/6 15 C PL SCL sandy clay loam
3-16+ 10YR 7/1 90 5YR 5/8 10 C PL SL sandy loam
'Type: C=Concentration D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric
Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,
unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solle:
❑
Histosol (Al)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR 0)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
❑
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR 0) T -I Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Tu1
✓ Depleted Matrix (F3) u Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 153B)
H5
cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Muck Presence U)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7) T❑ -1 Red Parent Material (TF2)
Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
(A8) (LRR
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
nu
Mari (F10) (LRR U) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑ Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
L]
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR 0, P, T) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR 0, S)
Lj Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic.
❑
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
HSandy
Redox (S5)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
trictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

NC Division of Water Quality -Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and
Perennial Streams and Their Origins v. 4.11
NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:9-16-16
Project/Site: Line 22
Latitude:35.3081
Evaluator:A. Steele
county: Harnett
Longitude: -78.63008
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent 19.5
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other
if 2:19 or rennial if 2:30*
Intermittent
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 8 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
10
20
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
00
1 •
20
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0 0
10
20
30
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1 •
2 0
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
00
1 •
20
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0 •
1 0
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
00
10
2 •
3
8. Headcuts
0 •
10
20
3
9. Grade control
0
0. •
10
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0. •
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0 •
Yes = 3
"artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
R_ Hvelmloav (Subtotal = 6.5
12. Presence of Baseflow
0 0
11 •®
20
30
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0 •
1 _
20
3
14. Leaf litter
1.50
1 •
0.
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
00
0.5 •
10
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
00 1
0.5
1 •
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
1.5
Yes = 3
0
C. Bioloav (Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3
20
1 M
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 •
20
10
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 •
1
20
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks 0 •
1
20
3
22. Fish 0 •
0.5
10
1.5
23. Crayfish 0 .
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians 00
0.5•
1
§
1.5
25. Algae 0 .
0.5 •
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.7500BL = 1.500ther = 0(E)
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch: Feature being evaluated is a constructed ditch draining WA1.
41

NC Division of Water Quality -Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and
Perennial Streams and Their Orisons v. 4.11
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 9-16-16
Project/Site: Line 22
Latitude: 35.304212
evaluator:A. Steele
county: Harnett
Longitude: -78,627223
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent 38.5
Stream Determination (circle one)
Perennial
Other
e.g. Quad Name: A2
if;- 19 or perennial if t 30•
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
00
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 19.5
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1" Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
20
3 •
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
00
1 •
20
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
00
10
2 0
30
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2 •
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
00
10
20
3 •
6. Depositional bars or benches
0-0
1 10
2 •
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0-0
1 1 •
20
3
8. Headcuts
0 •
10
20
3
9. Grade control
0
0.
1 •
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.
10
1.5 •
11. Second or greater order channel
No=00
Yes = 3 G
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloov (Subtotal = 9 )
12. Presence of Baseflow
00
10
20
3 Q
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0 •
1
20
3
14. Leaf litter
1. •
1
0.
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1 •
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
00
0.5 •
1 Q
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
0.5 • 1
Yes = 3
0
C. Biolo Subtotal = 10
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3 •
20 10
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3 •
2 10
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1 • 2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0 •
10 2
3
22. Fish
00
0.5 1
•
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5 • 1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5 • 10
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5 1
• 1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.7500BL = 1.500ther = 0
•perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
41

NC Division of Water Quality -Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and
Perennial Streams and Their Origins v. 4.11
Nr nWO Ctream identification Form Version 4.11
Date:9-16-16
Project/site: Line 22
Latitude:35.301991
evaluator: A. Steele
County: Harnett
Longitude: -78.626633
Total Points:
least intermittent 30.5
StDetermination (circle one)
Stream
Other
SA3
Stream is at
Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
if a 19 or perennial if z 30'
20
3
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 12.5 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18, Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
10
20
3 •
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
00
1 •
20
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
00
1®
2 O
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2 0
3 •
5. Active/relict floodplain
0 •
10
20
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
00
1 •
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
26. Wetland plants in streambed
1 •
2
3
8. Headcuts
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0.
to
1 •
1.5
10. Natural valley
0. •
10
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
I
No = 0 •
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
R W r1minnv M ihtntal = 10 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
00
10
20
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
00
1 •
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.50
1 •
0.
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
00
0.5
1 •
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
00
0.5
1 •
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3 •
10
r` ninlnnv /Ci 1htntal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 •
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 •
20
10
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0
1 •
2Q
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks 0
•
10
2
3
22. Fish 0 •
0.50
1
1.5
23. Crayfish 0 •
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians 00
0.5 •
10
1.5
25. Algae 00
0.5 •
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.7500BL = 1.500ther = 0
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
41

NC Division of Water Quality -Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and
Perennial Streams and Their Origins v. 4.11
NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:9/16/16
Project/Site: Line 22
Latitude: 35.29707
Evaluator:A. Steele
county: Harnett
Longitude: -78.62318
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent 28
Stream Determination (circle one)
Intermittent
Other d
e.g. Quad Name: A4
if z 19 or perennial ifi 30'
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
00
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 14 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18. Continuity of channel bed and bank
00
10
2 •
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
00
1 •
20
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
00
1(D
20
30
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1 •
2 0
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
08
10
2 •
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
00
1 •
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
00
10
2 •
3
8. Headcuts
00
10
20
3 •
9. Grade control
0 •
0.
10
1.5
10. Natural valley
00
0.50
1 •
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0 •
Yes = 3
Sketch:
"artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B_ Hvdroloav (Subtotal = e.5 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
00
10
20
3 0
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
00
1 •
20
3
14. Leaf litter
1.50
1 Q
0. •
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
00
0.5 •
10
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
00
0.5 •
10
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
0.5
Yes = 3
•
C_ Bioloov (Subtotal= 5.5 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2 •
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3 •
20
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0 •
1
20
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0 •
10
2
3
22. Fish
0 •
0.50
10
1.5
23. Crayfish
0•
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5 •
1
§
1.5
25. Algae
0§
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75QOBL
= 1.500ther = 0 (2)
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
41

NC Division of Water Quality -Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and
Perennial Streams and Their Origins v. 4.11
Nf 111Wn Stream identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 9/16/16
Project/Site: Line 22
Latitude: 35.29222
Evaluator:A. Steele
County: Harnett
Longitude: -78,6246
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent 31.5
Stream Determination (circle one)
Perennial
Other
e. Quad Name: SA5
9•
if 2: 19 or perennial if 2: 30`
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
00
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 12 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18, Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2 •
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
00
1 •
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
00
10
2 (D
30
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1 0
2 •
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
08
1 •
20
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
00
1
2 •
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0 •
10
20
3
8. Headcuts
•
010
FACW = 0.7500BL = 1.500ther = 0
20
3
9. Grade control
0
1 0.
1 •
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.
1 1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0 •
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
R HvHmInnv fRuhtntal = 10 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
00
10
20
____20
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1 •
1
3
14. Leaf litter
1.50
1 Q
0.
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0 _
0.5
1 •
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
00
050
1 •
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
0.5
Yes = 3
0
r.. Rinlnnv (Riihtntal = 9.5 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3 •
20
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3 •
20
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1 •
20
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0 •
10
20
3
22. Fish
00
0.5
1 •
1.5
23. Crayfish
0 •
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5 •
10
1.5
25. Algae
00
0.5
1 •
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.7500BL = 1.500ther = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
41

NC Division of Water Quality -Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and
Perennial Streams and Their Origins v. 4.11
NC nWO Stream identification Form Version 4.11
Date:9/16/16
Project/Site: Line 22
Latitude: 35.27544
evaluator:A. Steele
county: Harnett
Longitude: -7$.59932
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent 19.75
Stream Determination (circle one)
Intermittent
Other
e.g. Quad Name: SA6
if a 19 or perennial if i 30`
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 6.5 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18, Continuity of channel bed and bank
00
1 •
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1 •
20
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
00
1(D
20
30
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0 •
1
2 0
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1 •
20
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
00
1 •
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
00
1 •
20
3
8. Headcuts
0 •
10
20
3
9. Grade control
0 •
0.50
10
1.5
10. Natural valley
01
0. •
10
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0 •
Yes = 3
Sketch:
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
R HvrimInnv /iRuhtntni = 7 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
00
10
2 Q
30
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1 •
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.50
10
0.
0 •
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5 •
10
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
00 1
0.5 0
in
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No=00
0.5
Yes = 3
0
t^. Rinlnnv fSiihtntal = 6.25 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
20
1 •
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3 •
20
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
00
1 •
2
3 _&__
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0 •
1
2
3
22. Fish
0 •
0.5
10
1.5
23. Crayfish
0 •
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5 •
1
1.5
25. Algae
0 •
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.7500BL
= 1.500ther = 00
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
41

NC Division of Water Quality -Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and
Perennial Streams and Their Origins v. 4.11
NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 10-4-16
Project/Site: Line 22
Latitude: 35.27144
Evaluator: Steele
County: Harnett County
Longitude: -78.5971
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent 22.5
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other
if Z 19 or perennial if a 30*
Intermittent
e.g. Quad Name: I
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 6.5 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 e. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2 •
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0 •
10
20
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
00
1 0
20
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1 0
2 0
3 •
5. Active/relict floodplain
0 •
10
20
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0 •
1 0
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0•
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0 •
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0 •
0.
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0. •
1 0 1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0 •
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B_ Hvdroloov (Subtotal = to 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
00
10
20
31 •)
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
00
1 •
20
3
14. Leaf litter
1. .
10
0.
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5 •
10
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
00
0.5
1 •
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No=00
23. Crayfish
Yes = 3
0
C. Bioloav (Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2 Q
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3 •
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0 •
1
20
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0 •
10
20
3
22. Fish
0 •
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0 •
0.50
10
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5 • 1
10
1.5
25. Algae
00
0.5 • 1
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.7500BL = 1.500ther = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
41

NC Division of Water Quality -Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and
Perennial Streams and Their Origins v. 4.11
NC nWn Stream identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 10-4-16
Project/Site: Line 22
Latitude: 35.27038
Evaluator: Steele
county: Harnett County
Longitude: -78.59617
Total Points:
intermittent 26.5
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other C Q Q
SAA
Stream is at least
Intermittent
e.g. Quad Name:
if z 19 or perennial if 2 30'
2 •
3
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 10.5 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1 0
2 •
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
00
10
2 •
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
00
1 ID
20
30
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1 •
23
8
5. Active/relict floodplain
08
1 •
2 0
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
00
1 •
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
00
1 •
20
3
8. Headcuts
0 •
1
20
3
9. Grade control
0
0. •
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.
1 •
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0 •
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
R_ Hvriminav (Subtotal = tt 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
00
10
20
3 ©•
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
00
1
2 •
3
14. Leaf litter
1.50
1 •
0.
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
00
0.5
1 •
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
00
0.5
1 •
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
24. Amphibians 0
Yes = 3
•
C_ Rinlnav (Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3
20
1 •
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 •
20
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0
•
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks 0
•
1
20
3
22. Fish 0 •
0.50
10
1.5
23. Crayfish 00.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians 0
0.5 •
1
1.5
25. Algae 0
0.5 •
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.7500BL = 1.500ther = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
41

NC Division of Water Quality -Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and
Perennial Streams and Their Origins v. 4.11
NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 10-4-16
Projectlsite: Line 22
Latitude: 35.25676
Evaluator: Steele
county: Sampson County
Longitude: -78.58432
Total Points:
Stream is least intermittent 23
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other Q
A9
at
Intermittent
e.g. Quad Name:
if a 19 or Perennial if t 30'
20
3
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 8.5
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1e, Continuity of channel bed and bank
00
10
2 •
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
00
1 •
20
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
00
1(D
20
30
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1 •
2 0
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
00
•
20
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
00
1 •
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0 •
10
20
3
8. Headcuts
0 •
10
20
3
9. Grade control
00
0. •
11:11.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.
1 •
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0 •
Yes = 3
e artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. H drolo Subtotal = 10
12. Presence of Baseflow
00
10
20
3 0
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
00
1 •
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.50
1 •
0.
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1 •
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
00
0.5
1 •
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
0.5
Yes = 3
0
C. Bioloov (Subtotal = 4.5 )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
20
1 •
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3 •
20
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0 •
10
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0 •
10
2
3
22. Fish
0 •
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0 •
0.5
10
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5 •
10
1.5
25. Algae
0 •
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.7500BL = 1.500ther = 0(!)
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
41

Ns-
ve
W.4
Ns-

S&ME PNG Line 36 Magnolia River Project SWE Project No. 7435-16-042
Lillington, North Carolina Taken by: W. Cole, A. Steele I Date Taken: 9, 10, 11 - 2016

V J 4' I
`IIti
• f'
Vii"` -C- _ _ _
_.
•� 4 �ycr .
a
OView
of perennial stream SA5 at Flag
S5.6 looking
upstream.
•
e
t y^
3
12
iew of perennial stream SA5 and culvert at Flag S5.13.
S&ME PNG Line 36 Magnolia River Project SWE Project No. 7435-16-042
Llllington, North Carolina Taken by: W. Cole, A. Steele I Date Taken: 9, 10, 11 - 2016

A�
yy y
.ice. y� •�-.
it
0i
i5kw�
r�
s
a t
13 iew of intermittent stream SA7 at Flag ST looking
upstream.
S7.4 looking
downstream.
M
� �' ,1' ♦ �a F i
� /
r .
►war �,
�
` 1
J
rr 4
_ e
-1 r'll
15
View of intermittent stream SA8 and culvert at Flag S8.9
looking upstream.
16
S&ME PNG Line 36 Magnolia River Project SWE Project No. 7435-16-042
Lillington, North Carolina Taken by: W. Cole, A. Steele I Date Taken: 9, 10, 11 - 2016
4
yy y
.ice. y� •�-.
0i
i5kw�
r�
s
14
iew of intermittent stream SA7 at Flag
S7.4 looking
downstream.
•1
J
rr 4
_ e
-1 r'll
16
iew of intermittent stream SA8 and culvert at Flag S8.9
looking downstream.
S&ME PNG Line 36 Magnolia River Project SWE Project No. 7435-16-042
Lillington, North Carolina Taken by: W. Cole, A. Steele I Date Taken: 9, 10, 11 - 2016
4

18 r iew of wetland WA8 at flag W8.21.
'iew of intermittent stream SA8 at Flag S8.15 looking
pstream.
S&ME PNG Line 36 Magnolia River Project SWE Project No. 7435-16-042
Lillington, North Carolina Taken by: W. Cole, A. Steele Date Taken: 9, 10, 11 - 2016
5
�Z11►v ~r'V
K
+W
a►-
r' t
'iew of intermittent stream SA8 at Flag S8.15 looking
pstream.
S&ME PNG Line 36 Magnolia River Project SWE Project No. 7435-16-042
Lillington, North Carolina Taken by: W. Cole, A. Steele Date Taken: 9, 10, 11 - 2016
5

• _
22 View of intermittent stream SA9 at Flag S9.6 looking
upstream.
so. i • �5-
t �
h
24 View of wetland WA9 at Flag W9.15.
S&ME I PNG Line 36 Magnolia River Project SWE Project No. 7435-16-042
Lillington, North Carolina Taken bv: W. Cole, A. Steele I Date Taken: 9, 10, 11 - 2016
".9
k-
- rs,
21
iew of intermittent stream S8 at Flag S8.15 looking
upstream.
pp �
l
23
View of intermittent stream SA9 at Flag S9.6 looking
downstream.
• _
22 View of intermittent stream SA9 at Flag S9.6 looking
upstream.
so. i • �5-
t �
h
24 View of wetland WA9 at Flag W9.15.
S&ME I PNG Line 36 Magnolia River Project SWE Project No. 7435-16-042
Lillington, North Carolina Taken bv: W. Cole, A. Steele I Date Taken: 9, 10, 11 - 2016
".9

Appendix IV
N.C. Natural Heritage Program Report

Natural and
Cultural Resources
March 13, 2017
Ashley Steele
S&ME, Inc.
3201 Spring Forest Road
Raleigh, NC 27616
RE: PNG Line 22; 7435-16-042
Dear Ashley Steele:
ROY COOPER
Go-witor
SUSI H. HA113ILTON
serremn
NCNHDE-3113
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide information
about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
A query of the NCNHP database, based on the project area mapped with your request, indicates that there are
no records for rare species, important natural communities, natural areas, or conservation/managed areas
within the proposed project boundary. Please note that although there may be no documentation of natural
heritage elements within the project boundary, it does not imply or confirm their absence; the area may not have
been surveyed. The results of this query should not be substituted for field surveys where suitable habitat exists.
In the event that rare species are found within the project area, please contact the NCNHP so that we may
update our records.
The attached 'Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that have been
documented within a one -mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these records suggests that
these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area if suitable habitat exists and is
included for reference. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed area within a one -mile radius of the
project area, if any, are also included in this report.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation planning, project
review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria for regulatory decisions.
Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published without prior written notification to the
NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP
data may not be redistributed without permission.
The NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional correspondence if a Dedicated Nature
Preserve (DNP), Registered Heritage Area (RHA), Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF) easement,
or Federally -listed species are documented near the project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance, please
contact Matthew Hebb at matthew.hebb&ncdcr.gov or 919.707.8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
-^'Nothing Compares
State of North Carolina I Department of Natural and cultural Resources I Natural Heritage Program
121 W. Jones Street I Raleigh, NC 27603
1651 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, NC 27699-1651
WWW.nCnhpArK 1919.707-6107

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
PNG Line 22
Project No. 7435-16-042
March 13, 2017
NCNHDE-3113
Element Occurrences Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Taxonomic
EO ID
Scientific Name
Common Name
Last
Element
Group
Status
Rank
Rank
Observation
Occurrence
Significantly
G5
S2?
Low
Date
Rank
Dragonfly or
33705
Lestes vidua
Carolina Spreadwing
2004 -Pre
H?
Damselfly
Low
Rare
Dragonfly or
33771
Somatochlora georgiana
Coppery Emerald
2004 -Pre
H?
Damselfly
Rare
5 -Very
---
Dragonfly or
33751
Somatochlora georgiana
Coppery Emerald
2004 -Pre
H?
Damselfly
3 -Medium
---
Significantly
G3G4
Dragonfly or
33781
Stylurus ivae
Shining Clubtail
2004 -Pre
H?
Damselfly
---
Endangered
G5?
S1
3 -Medium
Freshwater Fish
31796
Enneacanthus chaetodon
Blackbanded Sunfish
1962-08-17
H
Vascular Plant
9599
Buchnera americana
American Bluehearts
1950-07-02
H
Vascular Plant
1197
Macbridea caroliniana
Carolina Bogmint
2001-08-24
F
Vascular Plant
28371
Sclerolepis uniflora
One -flower Hardscale
1968 -Pre
H
Vascular Plant 5639 Solidago verna Spring -flowering 1938-06 H
Goldenrod
Vascular Plant 7832 Solidago verna Spring -flowering 1951-06 X?
Goldenrod
No Natural Areas are Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Accuracy
Federal
State
Global
State
Status
Status
Rank
Rank
5 -Very
---
Significantly
G5
S2?
Low
Rare
5 -Very
---
Significantly
G3G4
S2?
Low
Rare
5 -Very
---
Significantly
G3G4
S2?
Low
Rare
5 -Very
---
Significantly
G4
S2S3
Low
Rare
3 -Medium
---
Significantly
G3G4
S3
Rare
4 -Low
---
Endangered
G5?
S1
3 -Medium
Species of
Endangered
G2G3
S2
Concern
4 -Low
---
Significantly
G4
S2
Rare
Throughout
5 -Very
---
Significantly
G3
S3
Low
Rare Other
3 -Medium
---
Significantly
G3
S3
Rare Other
Managed Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Area Name Owner Owner Type
NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund Easement NC DNCR, Clean Water Management Trust State
Fund
Sandhills Area Land Trust Easement Sandhills Area Land Trust Private
Page 2 of 4

Managed Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Area Name Owner Owner Type
North Carolina Rails -to -Trails Preserve North Carolina Rails -to -Trails Private
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at httos://ncnhde.natureserve.ora/contenUhelo. Data query generated on March 13, 2017; source: NCNHP, Q1 January 2017. Please resubmit your
information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 3 of 4

NCNHDE-3113: PNG Line 22
March 13, 2017
E] Project Boundary
Buffered Project Boundary
Managed Area (MAREA)
Page 4 of 4
161,065
0 0.6 1 2 ml
0 0.75 1.5 3 km
!krrr:n. I wr � k L :rain I-Irrnvli. irm nnn M (:iap fY kX] .kY.`i
IAO
, fWti, AI<i:AV, f:aol l(1af, I::N, <.ldnnrrr AI rCNrin.tnM tinny, 1 M .M.Ip.1n
ArET. Eu1 C'Ln ;hag tfagl. ViAleLVO Mopmyl-dia C OpWvStvetWp
wt- kftm. sM the GIG Uw Comm. nlTr
r
a
JvrresGora fid
� /
`
A$
•'�+1i wt
F'km
�
R J
�� f
C r"Ch
o
• s
qox`O�
a
? � unn
1 P
Susan
�� D
r
o
T Vic°
o a�G°1e�a
Aaa
Chwom
VO
IZ a°
-:
00"
NSC
��
!
Z�
C'
i
Jlln Rp
W+Ki.
S
or
March 13, 2017
E] Project Boundary
Buffered Project Boundary
Managed Area (MAREA)
Page 4 of 4
161,065
0 0.6 1 2 ml
0 0.75 1.5 3 km
!krrr:n. I wr � k L :rain I-Irrnvli. irm nnn M (:iap fY kX] .kY.`i
IAO
, fWti, AI<i:AV, f:aol l(1af, I::N, <.ldnnrrr AI rCNrin.tnM tinny, 1 M .M.Ip.1n
ArET. Eu1 C'Ln ;hag tfagl. ViAleLVO Mopmyl-dia C OpWvStvetWp
wt- kftm. sM the GIG Uw Comm. nlTr

Appendix V
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Correspondence

Joey Lawler
From: Ellis, John <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2016 11:28 AM
To: Joey Lawler; Leigh Mann
Subject: Re: FW: PNG LINE 36 REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Joey,
The list from NC -NHP is a good starting point for known occurrences. You should go to this website -
https://www.fws. og v/raleigh/species/cntylist/nc counties.html - and check the county lists for Harnett and
Sampson if it extends across the county line. See what species are listed and compare their habitat requirements
to what is on the ground or in the water along your proposed project corridor. If suitable habitat does occur then
surveys should be conducted for that species. This would include both the portions of the project that are being
co -located and that which is going on new location. Please note that for some plants, there are specific time
frames for conducting surveys.
Thanks,
John
John
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 8:52 AM, Joey Lawler <JLawlerksmeinc.com> wrote:
Good morning sir — I wanted to follow up with you and see if you had any comments on this project I emailed
to you a while back. Thanks and let me know when you get an opportunity —j
Joey Lawler, P.W.S.
Project Manager
*S&ME
ENGINEERING INTEGRITY
S&ME, Inc.
9751 Southern Pine Boulevard
Charlotte NC 28273 Map
Ph: 704.523.4726
Fax: [phone]
Mobile: [phone]
jlawler(cilsmeinc.com
www.smeinc.com

S&ME, Inc. moves up seven spots in 2016 ENR Top 500 to 82.
This electronic message is subject to the terms of use set forth at www.smeinc.com/email. If you received this message in error please advise the sender by
reply and delete this electronic message and any attachments. Please consider the environment before printing this email.
From: Joey Lawler
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 12:10 PM
To: 'john ellisgfws.gov' <john ellisgfws.gov>
Subject: PNG LINE 36 REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Good afternoon John: Is this request for comment/recommendations something you can accept via email, or
would you prefer a hardcopy as well?
Just let me know — thanks! j
Joey Lawler, P.W.S.
Project Manager
$MME
ENGINEERING INTEGRITY
S&ME, Inc.
9751 Southern Pine Boulevard
Charlotte NC 28273 Map
Ph: 704.523.4726
Fax: [phone]
Mobile: [phone]
ilawler(a�smeinc.com
www.smeinc.com
S&ME, Inc. moves up seven spots in 2016 ENR Top 500 to 82.
This electronic message is subject to the terms of use set forth at www.smeinc.com/email. If you received this message in error please advise the sender by
reply and delete this electronic message and any attachments. Please consider the environment before printing this email.

Appendix Vi
N.C. State Historic Preservation Office Correspondence

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Rmwm M. dartos. Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory
Cecretary SUSS KILIUz
October 4, 2016
Joey Lawler
S&ME. Inc.
9751 Southern Pine Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28723
ilawlerQsmeinc.com
Re: Piedmont Natural Gas Line 36 Pipeline Replacement, S&ME 7435-16-042,
Harnett and Sampson Counties, ER 16-1508
Dear Mr. Lawler:
Offx a of Archival and tLunry
Deputy Secretory Kevin Cherty
Thank you for your letter of August 19, 2016, concerning the above project. We appreciate too your email
of September 1, 2016, providing shapeliles of the route. These greatly aided our review.
There are no known archaeological sites within the project boundaries. I lowever, the project area has never
been systematically surveyed to determine the location or significance of archaeological resources.
We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to identify and
evaluate the significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed
project. Potential effects on unknown resources must be assessed prior to the initiation of construction
activities. Those segments of the 8 -mite and 5.75 -mile stretches of proposed pipeline replacement, both
upgrades to existing and new route, recommended for survey are marked in green on the attached maps.
Those segments for which we recommend no survey are marked in purple.
Though we do not anticipate it being affected by line replacement, we wish to alert you in the presence of
site 31 SP8 at the southeast end of the 5.75 -mile line, less than .10 mile outside it. Unassessed for its
eligibility to the National Register of I listorie Places, it included bifaces or prcj1ectile points. There was also
a report of human bone or teeth on the "M. Stone land." Unfortunately, we have no additional information
on the site, which was recorded in 1973, so cannot provide better substantiation for this assertion. The
recommendation made at the time was for monitoring. The site's UTM coordinates (in NAI) 27) are an
Easting ol'719270 and Northing of 3904880, in Zone 17.
Location; 109 Gast Jones Streit. Faleirh N(- 2755 %Uiling Addrnx 4617 bled Smice Center, Raleigh NC 27699.4617 Tekphof*44x (919) 90-657M741,599

Please ask that your contractor contact reviewing archaeologist, Susan Myers (susan.mXers!,nedcr.goy.
919/807-6556) prior to the initiation of fieldwork. This may take place during their visit to the Office of
State Archaeology to conduct background research.
Two copies of the resulting archaeological survey report, as well as one copy of the appropriate site forms,
should be forwarded to us for review and comment as soon as they are available and well in advance of any
construction activities.
A list of archaeological consultants who have conducted or expressed an interest in contract work in North
Carolina is available at http://www.archaeology.ncdcr.gov/nc.arch/resource/consultants.htm. The
archaeologists listed, or any other experienced archaeologist, may be contacted to conduct the
recommended survey.
We have determined that the project as proposed will not have an effect on any historic structures.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 ol'the National Historic Preservation Art and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 500.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. Il'you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
environmcntal.review&cdcr.gor. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
c- '6 �,
cccl
Q, -Ramona M. Bartos
attachments (two maps)

CZ'L- o ` 1
A i
H
a u i - _ Janajuung a
' R 'j ja aldi d .'AeAjhs Jot pit9yetuwooai = u aj
JUBLJ Sa euil el w- sa►dad
1 S
6`k4 E
i
MH `)
� � N
Fa
114
04
u gWaay �I'i ~ ul 4
fir �► —r 7 j t' '� ap
�►�
,1
/ i l rats �-�) .�Q �r ^; �.,*_ J�, .,►
Z S I -t Rq' � z - C,

Line 36 Pipeline Replacement Project
Phase I Archaeological Survey
Harnett and Sampson Counties, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7435-16-042; ER No. 16-1508
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
On behalf of Magnolia River of NC, PLLC, S&ME, Inc. (S&ME) has completed a Phase I archaeological
survey for the proposed Line 36 Pipeline Replacement Project in Harnett and Sampson counties, North
Carolina (Figure 1.1). Two noncontiguous sections of the alignment were investigated; one is
approximately 5.75 miles in length and the other is approximately 8.5 miles in length. The 5.75 mile
corridor begins just north of Green Path Road at an existing valve site in Sampson County and travels
generally northwest crossing Mingo Swamp into Harnett County. This segment of the alignment continues
northwest and terminates roughly 0.2 -mile west of the community of Dunn at an existing station (Figures
1.2 and 1.3). The 8.5 mile portion of the pipeline corridor begins just north of Erwin Chapel Road at an
existing valve site. The alignment continues northwest crossing Route 421 and continuing to just south of
the community of Buies Creek, where the alignment shifts to a more eastward direction and follows the
Cape Fear River, terminating at an existing station roughly 0.5 -mile north of the community of Lillington
(Figures 1.4 through 1.6).
In response to a scoping letter submitted by S&ME to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO), the SHPO requested that an archaeological survey be conducted along the segments of
the corridor marked in green on the maps included with the response letter (Letter from SHPO to Joey
Lawler, dated October 4, 2016, Appendix A). The letter from SHPO also stated that the project would have
no effect on aboveground historic resources, therefore an architectural survey was not undertaken for this
project. Comments were also made to bring notice the proximity to the alignment of site 31SP8, which
reportedly contained human bone; however, SHPO did not anticipate the project affecting this site. The
following work was conducted in response to the SHPO letter and was carried out in general accordance
with the agreed-upon scope, terms, and conditions presented in Work Order No. 4, Change Order No. 02,
dated October 10, 2016.
Fieldwork for the project was conducted intermittently from December 5 through 14, 2016. This work
included a Phase I survey of approximately 14.25 miles of pipeline right-of-way (ROW). The Area of
Potential Effects (APE) for direct effects for the proposed undertaking consists of a 100 -ft wide corridor
surrounding the proposed pipeline route; indirect effects were not assessed as there would be no effect
on aboveground historic resources.
As a result of the investigations, no previously recorded archaeological sites were re -located and five
archaeological sites, four isolated finds, and one cemetery were identified (31HT1244**, 31HT1245,
31HT1246, 31HT1247/1247**, 31HT1248, 31HT1249**, 31HT1250**, 31HT1251**, 31HT1252, and 31SP425)
(Figures 1.2 through 1.6, Table 1.1). Nine of the ten resources are recommended not eligible for inclusion
in the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP).
Site 31SP425 is a large prehistoric habitation site with intact stratigraphy that overlooks Mingo Swamp;
the site is located approximately 90 meters south of previously recorded site 31SP8, which is located on
the same land form. Additional work is recommended at site 31SP425 to determine the NRHP eligibility of
the site and if sites 31SP8 and 31SP425 can be joined. The proposed pipeline corridor and temporary
work space are located in either existing pipeline ROW, which has been previously disturbed, or to the
south of the existing ROW, where one positive shovel test was identified containing two artifacts. The
majority of the site is located to the north and east of the existing ROW. As the project is currently
proposed, it is the opinion of S&ME, that the project will not have an adverse impact to the site. However,
January 2017

Line 36 Pipeline Replacement Project
Phase I Archaeological Survey
Harnett and Sampson Counties, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 7435-16-042; ER No. 16-1508
S&ME recommends that a qualified archaeologist be on site to monitor during initial earth moving
activities in this area. If the alignment shifts, additional fieldwork or consultation with the SHPO may be
necessary.
Although recommended not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, cemeteries are protected from disturbance
and desecration under North Carolina state law (GS 14-148 and GS 14-149), and avoidance of site
31HT1244**, the Godwin -Reaves Cemetery, a late nineteenth through twentieth century family cemetery,
is recommended. Current plans for the pipeline replacement project have the edge of the permanent
ROW approximately 67 feet from the edge of the cemetery and the edge of the temporary workspace
approximately 50 feet from the edge of the cemetery. The area surrounding the cemetery will not be used
for staging and vegetation will not be cleared to the east of the temporary work space. The area where
the proposed ROW and work space will be located has been disturbed and altered, partially by the
existing pipeline ROW and partially in the creation of a dirt/sand overflow parking area for the adjacent
medical facility. As the project is currently planned, S&ME feels that avoidance measures have been
established and recommends no additional work at site 31HT1244**; however, if plans change additional
work may be necessary.
It is the opinion of S&ME that the significant cultural resources and areas recommended for additional
work are being sufficiently avoided along the currently proposed pipeline corridor and we recommend
that no additional cultural resource investigations are necessary at this time. However, if the alignment
changes additional cultural resource investigations and consultation with the SHPO may be necessary.
Table 1.1 Summary of
sites i
the Phase I
31HT1244**
Godwin -Reaves Cemetery
Not Eligible
Avoidance
31HT1245
Prehistoric lithic isolate
Not Eligible
No Further Work
31HT1246
Prehistoric lithic scatter
Not Eligible
No Further Work
31HT1250**
Prehistoric lithic isolate; 20th C. artifact
Not Eligible
No Further Work
31HT1247/1247**
outbuilding and artifact scatter
Not Eligible
No Further Work
31HT1251**
scatter
Not Eligible
No Further Work
31HT1248
Prehistoric lithic isolate
Not Eligible
No Further Work
31HT1249**
Late 191h to late 201h century house site
Not Eligible
No Further Work
Late 191h to late 201h century
31HT1250**
Not Eligible
No Further Work
outbuilding and artifact scatter
31HT1251**
Historic nail isolate
Not Eligible
No Further Work
31HT1252
Middle Archaic isolated find
Not Eligible
No Further Work
31SP425
Prehistoric habitation site
Not Assessed
Avoidance/Additional Work
January 2017 ii

Z
Bunnievel
s
t�
Lr
Coats
Erwin F%+04�
Derrr�'� Qlyd
� C
~�00
S�
FDunn
D
4r�
b
�Wnron A10
Linden
ri
Sources: Esri, HERE, Del-orme, USES, Intermap, INCREMENT P,
NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri
(Thailand), Mapmylndia, NGCC, O OpenStreetMap contributors, and
the GIS User Community
Figure 1.1. Overview map showing the two sections of proposed pipeline corridor. 0 1.5 3
Base Map: ESRI World Street Map. Miles
Proposed Pipeline Corridor

i PVk r �,
Site 31HT1251••
••' 17/6 r Rittio To.a14
. ♦ .`.
1171 -b T - -
Ilk. CM
TV
�• ♦ "�, =� + Site 31SP8 i•
� �• _ ifiri
i �. srt r J � - •• `
8 Site 31SP425
!6
�" 1 �la w 31SP9
CP 0 r.
Co-yragh •© '4:3 Na Tonal,,,, aphic, ociety, i -cubed
Figure 1.2. Topographic map showing cultural resources within a 0.25 -mile search radius of the
proposed pipeline corridor.
Base Map: Dunn 7.5' topographic quadrangle.
N
Proposed Pipeline Corridor _
Q 0.25 -mile Search Radius
Previously Recorded Archaeological Site���
Newly Recorded Archaeological Site
0 0.25 0.5
Miles

t -
• Site 31HT11
FAM
Site 31HT1252
I 119f) � T
- M ••++Copyright O 2013 National Ge jE
Figure 1.3. Topographic map showing cultural resources within a 0.25 -mile search radius of the
proposed pipeline corridor.
Base Map: Dunn and Erwin 7.5' topographic quadrangles.
N
Proposed Pipeline Corridor __
Q 0.25 -mile Search Radius
Previously Recorded Archaeological Site����
Newly Recorded Archaeological Site
0 0.25
Miles
•
Site 31HT1025 ,
Q
3
i
a
0
FAM
Site 31HT1252
I 119f) � T
- M ••++Copyright O 2013 National Ge jE
Figure 1.3. Topographic map showing cultural resources within a 0.25 -mile search radius of the
proposed pipeline corridor.
Base Map: Dunn and Erwin 7.5' topographic quadrangles.
N
Proposed Pipeline Corridor __
Q 0.25 -mile Search Radius
Previously Recorded Archaeological Site����
Newly Recorded Archaeological Site
0 0.25
Miles

l�
rot r
rt,,
yt1. ►Site 1H 1250**
�t� (• ~=!" "�opyrigNt:.®"2,,13 Na;tonal Geographic So
s%
Figure 1.4. Topographic map showing cultural resources within a 0.25 -mile search radius of the
proposed pipeline corridor.
Base Map: Coats and Erwin 7.5' topographic quadrangles.
N
Proposed Pipeline Corridor
00.25 -mile Search Radius - S&ME
Newly Recorded Archaeological Site
0 0.25 0.5
Miles

Figure 1.5. Topographic map showing cultural resources within a 0.25 -mile search radius of the 0 0.25 0.5
proposed pipeline corridor.
Miles
Base Map: Coats and Lillington 7.5' topographic quadrangles.
N
Proposed Pipeline Corridor
Q 0.25 -mile Search Radius
Previously Recorded Archaeological Site����
Newly Recorded Archaeological Site

+... _ `�.�•�, +�^-� - -.777. � • .. A _
`' t3►► '
� t >
:t _ r•
Site 31 HT1 246
O
Site 31 HT968
.�'l•�:_� n o _ � /cam l
Site 31HT1247/1247••
i Site 31HT186 • � ���
r
Site 31HT185 �j�
Figure 1.6. Topographic map showing cultural resources within a 0.25 -mile search radius of the
proposed pipeline corridor.
Base Map: Lillington 7.5' topographic quadrangle.
N
Proposed Pipeline Corridor
Q 0.25 -mile Search Radius
f♦ Previously Recorded Archaeological Site����
Newly Recorded Archaeological Site
Society, i-cdbed
0 0.25 0.5
Miles
==Ilk
a
o�
lot
=L•- 9 Ar
f i I
t
t
,,ti�,i1h►a
1
�
Site 31HT1247/1247••
i Site 31HT186 • � ���
r
Site 31HT185 �j�
Figure 1.6. Topographic map showing cultural resources within a 0.25 -mile search radius of the
proposed pipeline corridor.
Base Map: Lillington 7.5' topographic quadrangle.
N
Proposed Pipeline Corridor
Q 0.25 -mile Search Radius
f♦ Previously Recorded Archaeological Site����
Newly Recorded Archaeological Site
Society, i-cdbed
0 0.25 0.5
Miles

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary Susi H. Hamilton
March 6, 2017
Kimberly Nagle
S&ME, Inc.
134 Suber Road
Columbia, SC 29210
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Re: Phase I Archaeological Survey, Piedmont Natural Gas Line 36 Pipeline Replacement,
S&ME 7435-16-042; Harnett and Sampson Counties, ER 16-1508
Dear Ms. Nagle:
Thank you for your letter of January 20, 2017, transmitting the archaeological survey report for the above
project.
During the course of the survey, ten sites were located within the project area.
Site 31 SP425, a prehistoric habitation site, is primarily to the north and east of the ROW, as proposed. To
its north by 90 meters is 31 SP8, a site that is likely contemporaneous, if not part of the same site. As
proposed, the project is not expected to have an effect on 31 SP425. We support your recommendation for
monitoring initial earth moving in the vicinity of 31 SP425 as a cautionary measure. If this takes place,
please provide a letter describing any observations made during monitoring.
If the proposed alignment shifts, potentially affecting 31 SP425, please consult with us to ascertain if
additional archaeological investigations at the site are warranted. Such work would likely involve
archaeological testing to evaluate 31 SP425 for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and to
establish if it and 31 SP8 are, in fact, the same site.
The following properties are determined not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places:
31HT1244**, 31HT1245, 31HT1246, 31HT1247&1247**, 31HT1248, 31HT1249**, 31HT1250**,
31HT1251**, and 31HT1252, due to lack of integrity and inability to contribute further to an understanding
of the prehistory or history of the region.
Though not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, 31HT1244**, the Godwin -Reaves
Cemetery, will be avoided and protected from disturbance per the provisions of NC GS 65 and NCGS 14-
148 and NC GS 14-149. We understand that the edge of the permanent pipeline ROW will be no closer
than 67 feet, and the temporary project workspace no closer than 50 feet. If plans change, moving any
construction -related activities closer to the cemetery, please contact us.
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

S&ME has recommended that no further archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this
project as proposed. We concur with this recommendation since the project will not involve significant
archaeological resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
environmental.reviewkncdcr. og_v. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
61"(Ramona M. Bartos
cc: Joey Lawler, S&ME, jlawler cgsmeinc.com

Appendix VI11
Restoration Plan

RESTORATION PLAN
PNG Line 22 Replacement
Harnett and Sampson Counties, North Carolina
The proposed project has been designed to avoid and minimize jurisdictional impacts where
practicable. As part of mitigation for unavoidable impacts, the following plan shall be
implemented to restore temporarily -affected wetlands and streams. This plan entails restoration
of temporarily -disturbed areas to their original contours and conditions to the degree practicable
upon project completion. No fills or spoils of any kind will be placed within wetlands or along the
stream banks. Further, disturbed wetland areas and streambanks will be permanently stabilized
with a native vegetative cover. The measures outlined below will be specified in the contract
documents prepared for construction of the proposed project.
Proposed restoration activities will include the removal of placed fill material and restoration of
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. Excavated topsoil will
be stockpiled separately, kept viable, and then replaced uniformly over the area of excavation
from which it was removed. The native seed mix identified in Table 1 below will be utilized within
temporarily -disturbed portions of the easement comprised of wetlands.
Table 1: Wetland Seed Mix
The native seed mix identified in Table2l below will be utilized on temporarily -disturbed
streambanks.
Table 2: Riparian Seed Mix
El mus vir inicus
Virginia wild rye
20
Species
El mus ri arius
Common Name
Riverbank wild rye
Percentage of Mix
20
Panicum ri idulum
Redtop Panicgrass
8
Panicum dichotomiflorum
Smooth Panicgrass
14
Carex vul inoidea
Fox sed e
12
Panicum vir atum
Switchgrass
23
Dichanthelium clandestinum
Deer ton ue
8
Bidens aristoso
Showy Tickseed Sunflower
7
Juncus effusus, NC Ecotype
Soft rush
4
pensylvanicum
PA Smartweed
2
_Polygonum
S ar anium amricanum
Eastern bur reed
2
100
The native seed mix identified in Table2l below will be utilized on temporarily -disturbed
streambanks.
Table 2: Riparian Seed Mix
El mus vir inicus
Virginia wild rye
20
A rostis perennans
Autumn bentgrass
15
Panicum vir atum
Switchgrass
15
Rudbeckia hirta
Black-eyed susan
10
Coreo sis lanceolata
Lanceleaf Coreo sis
10
Andro 0 on gerardii
Big bluestem
10
Juncus effusus
Soft rush
5
Schizach rium sco arium
Little bluestem
5
Sor Nostrum nutans
I Indian grass
5
Tri locum dactyloides
I Eastern Gamma
5

The appropriate seed mix shall be applied be applied to all disturbed wetlands or streambanks
and extend 10 feet landward and within high ground areas. The recommended application rate
for each mix is 25 lbs. per acre. In areas where streams and wetland overlap, wetland seed mix
shall be used exclusively.
Appropriate native substitutions to the species identified in Tables 1 and 2 may be made based on
availability and approval of an S&ME Biologist.
To provide quicker cover, the mixes specified in Tables 1 and 2 should also be augmented with the
appropriate cover/companion species, as identified in Table 3.
Table 3: Cover/Companion Crops
Species
Common
Secale cereale
Cereal or
Early Spring
301bs/acre
Grows 3-4' tall, but not a strong
Winter rye
or Fall
a competitor.
Lolium perenne
Perennial
Early Fall or
30 lbs/acre
Shorter rye; lasts about 2 years,
e
Spring
then dies out.
Llrocloa ramose
Brown Top
Spring
301bs/acre
Good germination; dies off with
Millet
Summer
host; does not tolerate mowing.
Additional information related to streambank restoration activities is included on the Typical
Stream and Wetland Crossing Details.
Restoration Plan Prepared By:
S&ME, Inc.
9711 Southern Pine Blvd.
Charlotte, N.C. 28273
704.523.4726
Contact: Joey Lawler, PWS
[e-mail]
NC Suppliers of native seed and plant material:
Mellow Marsh Farm
1312 Woody Store Road
Siler City, N.C. 27344
919.742.1200
919.742.1280 fax
www.mellowmarshfarm.com

Appendix VI11
N.C. Division of Mitigation Services Acceptance Letter

Mitigation Services
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Joshua Whitesides, PE
Piedmont Natural Gas
4720 Piedmont Row Drive
Charlotte, NC 28210
Project: PNG Line 22 Pipeline Replacement
ROY COOPER.
,1111:
MICHAEL S. REGAN
March 10, 2017
Expiration of Acceptance: September 10, 2017
County: Sampson/Harnett
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) is willing to accept
payment for compensatory mitigation for impacts associated with the above referenced project as indicated in the
table below. Please note that this decision does not assure that participation in the DMS in -lieu fee mitigation
program will be approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation for project impacts. It is the responsibility
of the applicant to contact permitting agencies to determine if payment to the DMS will be approved. You must
also comply with all other state, federal or local government permits, regulations or authorizations associated with
the proposed activity including G.S. § 143-214.11.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter and is not transferable. ff we have not
received a copy of the issued 404 Permit/401 Certification/CAMA permit within this time frame, this
acceptance will expire. It is the applicant's responsibility to send copies of the permits to DMS. Once DMS
receives a copy of the permit(s) an invoice will be issued based on the required mitigation in that permit and
payment must be made prior to conducting the authorized work. The amount of the in -lieu fee to be paid by an
applicant is calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and policies listed on the DMS website.
Based on the information supplied by you in your request to use the DMS, the impacts for which you are
requesting compensatory mitigation credit are summarized in the following table. The amount of mitigation
required and assigned to DMS for this impact is determined by permitting agencies and may exceed the impact
amounts shown below.
Impact
River
Basin
CU Location
(8 -digit HUC)
Stream (feet) Wetlands (acres) Buffer I
(Sq. Ft.)
Buffer II
(Sq. Ft.)
Cold
Cool
I Warm Riparian Non -Riparian I Coastal Marsh
Cape Fear
03030006
0
0
0 0.19 0 1 0 0
0
Upon receipt of payment, DMS will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation. The mitigation
will be performed in accordance with the In -Lieu Fee Program instrument dated July 28, 2010 and 15A NCAC
02B .0295 as applicable. Thank you for your interest in the DMS in -lieu fee mitigation program. If you have any
questions or need additional information, please contact Kelly Williams at [phone].
Sincerely,
James. B Stanfill
Asse anagement Supervisor
cc: Ashley Steele/Joey Lawler- agents
State of North Carolina Environmental Quality Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh NC 27699-1652 , 217 W. loins Street, Suite 3010
919 707 8976 T