20201401 Ver 1_05_PJD_20201113

PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION

urisdictional Determination Reauest
US Army Corps
of Engineers.
Wilmington District
This form is intended for use by anyone requesting a jurisdictional determination (JD) from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (Corps). Please include all supporting
information, as described within each category, with your request. You may submit your request
via mail, electronic mail, or facsimile. Requests should be sent to the appropriate project
manager of the county in which the property is located. A current list of project managers by
assigned counties can be found on-line at:
http://www.saw.usace.aimy.mil/Missions/Re ul�atoiyPermitProi4ram/Contact/CountyLocator.aspx,
by calling 910-251-4633, or by contacting any of the field offices listed below. Once your
request is received you will be contacted by a Corps project manager.
ASHEVILLE & CHARLOTTE REGULATORY
FIELD OFFICES
US Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
General Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
RALEIGH REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
General Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
INSTRUCTIONS:
WASHINGTON REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
2407 West Fifth Street
Washington, North Carolina 27889
General Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
WILMINGTON REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
General Number: 910-251-4633
Fax Number: [phone]
All requestors must complete Parts A, B, C, D, E, F and G.
NOTE TO CONSULTANTS AND AGENCIES: If you are requesting a JD on behalf of a
paying client or your agency, please note the specific submittal requirements in Part H.
NOTE ON PART D — PROPERTY OWNER AUTHORIZATION: Please be aware that
all JD requests must include the current property owner authorization for the Corps to
proceed with the determination, which may include inspection of the property when
necessary. This form must be signed by the current property owner(s) or the owner(s)
authorized agent to be considered a complete request.
NOTE ON PART D - NCDOT REQUESTS: Property owner authorization/notification for
JD requests associated with North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
projects will be conducted according to the current NCDOT/USACE protocols.
NOTE TO USDA PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS: A Corps approved or preliminary JD
may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of
1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in
USDA programs, you should also request a certified wetland determination from the local
office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
Version: May 2017 Page 1

Jurisdictional Determination Request
A. PARCEL INFORMATION
Street Address: Multiple Parcels Near Cleveland Road (Route
City, State: Clayton, North Carolina
County: Johnston
Parcel Index Number(s) (PIN): Multiple Parcels
B. REQUESTOR INFORMATION
Name: Sara Kent
Mailing Address: Burns & McDonnell
3650 Mansell Rd, Alpharetta, GA, Suite
Telephone Number: 770-510-4511
Electronic Mail Address: [e-mail]
Select one:
❑ I am the current property owner.
❑ I am an Authorized Agent or Environmental Consultanti
❑ Interested Buyer or Under Contract to Purchase
❑ Other, please explain.
C. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION'
Name: See attached parcels
Mailing Address: Clayton, North Carolina
Telephone Number:
Electronic Mail Address:
1 Must provide completed Agent Authorization Form/Letter.
z Documentation of ownership also needs to be provided with request (copy of Deed, County GIS/Parcel/Tax Record).
Version: May 2017 Page 2

Jurisdictional Determination Request
D. PROPERTY ACCESS CERTIFICATION',4
By signing below, I authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) to enter upon the property herein described for the purpose of conducting on -
site investigations, if necessary, and issuing a jurisdictional determination pursuant to Section
404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. I, the
undersigned, am either a duly authorized owner of record of the property identified herein, or
acting as the duly authorized agent of the owner of record of the property.
Sara Kent
Print Name
Capacity: ❑ Owner ❑✓ Authorized Agents
4/ 10/2020
Date
Signature
E. REASON FOR JD REQUEST: (Check as many as applicable)
❑ I intend to construct/develop a projector perform activities on this parcel which would be
designed to avoid all aquatic resources.
❑ I intend to construct/develop a projector perform activities on this parcel which would be
designed to avoid all jurisdictional aquatic resources under Corps authority.
❑✓ I intend to construct/develop a projector perform activities on this parcel which may
require authorization from the Corps, and the JD would be used to avoid and minimize
impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources and as an initial step in a future permitting
process.
❑ I intend to construct/develop a projector perform activities on this parcel which may
require authorization from the Corps; this request is accompanied by my permit application
and the JD is to be used in the permitting process.
❑ I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities in a navigable water of the
U.S. which is included on the district Section 10 list and/or is subject to the ebb and flow of
the tide.
❑ A Corps JD is required in order obtain my local/state authorization.
❑ I intend to contest jurisdiction over a particular aquatic resource and request the Corps
confirm that jurisdiction does/does not exist over the aquatic resource on the parcel.
❑ I believe that the site may be comprised entirely of dry land.
❑ Other:
s For NCDOT requests following the current NCDOT/USACE protocols, skip to Part E.
a If there are multiple parcels owned by different parties, please provide the following for each additional parcel on a
continuation sheet.
s Must provide agent authorization form/letter signed by owner(s).
Version: May 2017 Page 3

Jurisdictional Determination Request
F. JURISDICTIONAL DETERNIINATION (JD) TYPE (Select One)
0 I am requesting that the Corps provide a preliminM JD for the property identified herein.
A Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) provides an indication that there may
be "waters of the United States" or "navigable waters of the United States"on a property.
PJDs are sufficient as the basis for permit decisions. For the purposes of permitting, all
waters and wetlands on the property will be treated as if they are jurisdictional "waters of
the United States". PJDs cannot be appealed (33 C.F.R. 331.2); however, a PJD is
"preliminary" in the sense that an approved JD can be requested at any time. PJDs do
not expire.
❑ I am requesting that the Corps provide an approved JD for the property identified herein.
An Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) is a determination that
jurisdictional "waters of the United States" or "navigable waters of the United
States" are either present or absent on a site. An approved JD identifies the limits of
waters on a site determined to be jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act and/or
Rivers and Harbors Act. Approved JDs are sufficient as the basis for permit
decisions. AJDs are appealable (33 C.F.R. 331.2). The results of the AJD will be
posted on the Corps website. A landowner, permit applicant, or other "affected
party" (33 C.F.R. 331.2) who receives an AJD may rely upon the AJD for five years
(subject to certain limited exceptions explained in Regulatory Guidance Letter 05-
02).
❑ I am unclear as to which JD I would like to request and require additional information
to inform my decision.
G. ALL REQUESTS
Map of Property or Project Area. This Map must clearly depict the boundaries of the
review area.
✓� Size of Property or Review Area 58.3 acres.
❑✓ The property boundary (or review area boundary) is clearly physically marked on the site.
Version: May 2017 Page 4

Jurisdictional Determination Request
H. REQUESTS FROM CONSULTANTS
Project Coordinates (Decimal Degrees): Latitude:
35.599492
Longitude:-78.566498
A legible delineation map depicting the aquatic resources and the property/review area.
Delineation maps must be no larger than 1 Ix 17 and should contain the following: (Corps
signature of submitted survey plats will occur after the submitted delineation map has been
reviewed and approved).6
■ North Arrow
■ Graphical Scale
■ Boundary of Review Area
■ Date
■ Location of data points for each Wetland Determination Data Form or tributary
assessment reach.
For Approved Jurisdictional Determinations:
■ Jurisdictional wetland features should be labeled as Wetland Waters of the US, 404
wetlands, etc. Please include the acreage of these features.
■ Jurisdictional non -wetland features (i.e. tidal/navigable waters, tributaries,
impoundments) should be labeled as Non -Wetland Waters of the US, stream, tributary,
open water, relatively permanent water, pond, etc. Please include the acreage or linear
length of each of these features as appropriate.
■ Isolated waters, waters that lack a significant nexus to navigable waters, or non -
jurisdictional upland features should be identified as Non -Jurisdictional. Please
include a justification in the label regarding why the feature is non jurisdictional (i.e.
"Isolated", "No Significant Nexus", or "Upland Feature"). Please include the acreage
or linear length of these features as appropriate.
For Preliminary Jurisdictional Determinations:
Wetland and non -wetland features should not be identified as Jurisdictional, 404,
Waters of the United States, or anything that implies jurisdiction. These features can be
identified as Potential Waters of the United States, Potential Non -wetland Waters of
the United States, wetland, stream, open water, etc. Please include the acreage and
linear length of these features as appropriate.
Completed Wetland Determination Data Forms for appropriate region
(at least one wetland and one upland form needs to be completed for each wetland type)
6 Please refer to the guidance document titled "Survey Standards for Jurisdictional Determinations" to ensure that the
supplied map meets the necessary mapping standards. hM2://www.saw.usace.4rmy.mil/Missions/Regulatoly-Permit-
Pro gram/Jurisdiction/
Version: May 2017 Page 5

Jurisdictional Determination Request
F4Completed appropriate Jurisdictional Determination form
• PJDs, please complete a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Form' and include the
Aquatic Resource Table
• AJDS• please complete an Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form'.
Vicinity Map
Aerial Photograph
F4 USGS Topographic Map
0 Soil Survey Map
Other Maps, as appropriate (e.g. National Wetland Inventory Map, Proposed Site
Plan, previous delineation maps, LIDAR maps, FEMA floodplain maps)
Landscape Photos (if taken)
NCSAM and/or NCWAM Assessment Forms and Rating Sheets
❑ NC Division of Water Resources Stream Identification Forms
hJ Other Assessment Forms
' www.saw.usace.4rmy.mil/Portals/59/docs/regulatory/readocs/JD/RGL 08-02_App A Prelim _JD_Form fillable.pdf
8 Please see hM2://www.saw.usace.4M.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Permit-Program/Jurisdiction/
Principal Purpose: The information that you provide will be used in evaluating your request to determine
whether there are any aquatic resources within the project area subject to federaljurisdiction under the regulatory
authorities referenced above.
Routine Uses: This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other federal, state, and local
government agencies, and the public, and may be made available as part of a public notice as required by federal
law. Your name and property location where federal jurisdiction is to be determined will be included in the
approved jurisdictional determination (AJD), which will be made available to the public on the District's website
and on the Headquarters USAGE website.
Disclosure: Submission of requested information is voluntary; however, if information is not provided, the
request for an AJD cannot be evaluated nor can an AJD be issued.
Version: May 2017 Page 6

Appendix 2 - PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD: 7/8/2020
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD: Sara Kent - Burns & McDonnell 3650 Mansell Rd, Suite 300, Alpharetta, GA 30022
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington District, SAW-2020-00375
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES AND/OR
AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: NC County/parish/borough: ,Johnston City: Clayton
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format):
Lat.: 35.599492 Long.:-78.566498
Universal Transverse Mercator: Zone 17S; 720856, 3941927
Name of nearest waterbody: Swift Creek
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑■ Office (Desk) Determination. Date: May 3, 2019
❑0 Field Determination. Date(s): April 15-16; July 22, 2019; May 20, 2020
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES IN REVIEW AREA WHICH "MAY BE" SUBJECT TO REGULATORY
JURISDICTION.
Site
number
Latitude
(decimal
degrees)
Longitude
(decimal
degrees)
Estimated amount
of aquatic resource
in review area
(acreage and linear
feet, if applicable)
Type of aquatic
resource (i.e., wetland
vs. non -wetland
waters)
Geographic authority
to which the aquatic
resource "may be"
subject (i.e., Section
404 or Section 10/404)
See
Attached
Table

1) The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in
the review area, and the requestor of this PJD is hereby advised of his or her option
to request and obtain an approved JD (AJD) for that review area based on an
informed decision after having discussed the various types of JDs and their
characteristics and circumstances when they may be appropriate.
2) In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a
Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring "pre -
construction notification" (PCN), or requests verification for a non -reporting NWP or
other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an AJD for the
activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware that: (1) the permit applicant has
elected to seek a permit authorization based on a PJD, which does not make an
official determination of jurisdictional aquatic resources; (2) the applicant has the
option to request an AJD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit
authorization, and that basing a permit authorization on an AJD could possibly result
in less compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) the
applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting the terms
and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4) the applicant can
accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the terms and
conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has
determined to be necessary; (5) undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject
permit authorization without requesting an AJD constitutes the applicant's acceptance
of the use of the PJD; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered
individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps permit
authorization based on a PJD constitutes agreement that all aquatic resources in the
review area affected in any way by that activity will be treated as jurisdictional, and
waives any challenge to such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance
or enforcement action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7)
whether the applicant elects to use either an AJD or a PJD, the JD will be processed
as soon as practicable. Further, an AJD, a proffered individual permit (and all terms
and conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be administratively
appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331. If, during an administrative appeal, it
becomes appropriate to make an official determination whether geographic
jurisdiction exists over aquatic resources in the review area, or to provide an official
delineation of jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review area, the Corps will
provide an AJD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable. This PJD finds
that there "may be" waters of the U.S. and/or that there "may be" navigable waters of
the U.S. on the subject review area, and identifies all aquatic features in the review
area that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following
information:

SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for PJD (check all that apply)
Checked items should be included in subject file. Appropriately reference sources
below where indicated for all checked items:
❑ Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor:
Map:
❑ Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor.
❑ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rationale:
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
❑ U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:
❑ Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State/local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
G
100-year Floodplain Elevation is:
Photographs: ❑ Aerial (Name & Date):
or ❑ Other (Name & Date):
(National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Other information (please specify):
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily
been verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for later jurisdictional
determinations.
Signature and date of
Regulatory staff member
completing PJD
Sara Kent Digitally signed by Sara Kent
Date: 2020.04.10 14:21:21-04'00'
Signature and date of
person requesting PJD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)'
' Districts may establish timeframes for requestor to return signed PJD forms. If the requestor does not respond
within the established time frame, the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is
necessary prior to finalizing an action.

Site
Latitude
Longitude
Cowardin
Estimated
Class of
Geographic
Number
Class
amount of
aquatic
authority to
aquatic
resource
which the
resource in
aquatic
review area
resource
"may be"
subject (i.e.,
Section 404
or Section
10/404
W-01
-78.55259806
35.60310806
PFO
2.17
Wetland
Section 404
W-02
-78.5487569
35.60567786
PFO
0.26
Wetland
Section 404
W-03
-78.54995467
35.61019087
PFO
5.54
Wetland
Section 404
W-03
-78.54939658
35.60822608
PSS
4.40
Wetland
Section 404
W-03
-78.54951881
35.60883479
PEM
3.15
Wetland
Section 404
W-04
-78.55175645
35.61267291
PFO
0.13
Wetland
Section 404
W-05
-78.55108835
35.61312897
PFO
0.09
Wetland
Section 404
W-06
-78.56430418
35.59688638
PFO
0.08
Wetland
Section 404
W-07
-78.55613833
35.60040777
PSS
0.02
Wetland
Section 404
W-07
-78.5559543
35.60046593
PUB
0.09
Wetland
Section 404
W-08
-78.55399817
35.60133695
PFO
0.28
Wetland
Section 404
S-1
-78.55229081
35.60306851
N/A
1,227.93
Perennial
Section 404
linear feet
Stream
S-2
-78.55242695
35.61266282
N/A
15.80
Intermittent
Section 404
linear feet
Stream
S-3
-78.55010788
35.60371817
N/A
784.51
Perennial
Section 404
linear feet
Stream

BURNS Ss
�!ME-DONNELL
July 8, 2020
Mr. Christopher Hopper
Regulatory Specialist
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Re: Wetland Delineation Report
Line 472
Johnston County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Hopper:
Burns & McDonnell Consultants, Inc. (Burns & McDonnell) was retained by Piedmont Natural
Gas Company Inc. (client) to provide wetland delineation services for the proposed Line 472
natural gas line (Project). The following sections provide information on the proposed Project
and summarize the completed wetland delineation.
INTRODUCTION
The client proposes to construct an approximate 1.5-mile-long natural gas pipeline in Johnston
County, North Carolina. The project is east of Interstate 40 (I-40), south of North Carolina
Highway 42 (Route 42), and is accessible from Cleveland Road (Route 1010) at its southern
terminus, and Route 42 at its northern terminus. A Vicinity Map illustrating the Project location
is included in Appendix A (Figure A-1). Potential construction activities associated with the
Project may include initial clearing and grubbing, grading, and installation and maintenance of a
below ground natural gas pipeline.
The proposed Project has the potential to impact wetlands or other waterbodies that may be
under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) as designated by Section
404 of the Clean Water Act. In an effort to avoid and minimize potential impacts to regulated
waterbodies, Burns & McDonnell conducted a wetland delineation within a 300 foot wide
corridor that followed the length of the proposed pipeline route from Route 1010 to Route 42
(Survey Area) to determine the boundaries and extent of wetlands and other waterbodies
including streams, ditches, ponds, etc.
METHODS
The following discussions summarize the methods used to review existing data and conduct the
wetland delineation.
Existing Data Review
Burns & McDonnell reviewed available background information for the Survey Area prior to
conducting a site visit. This available background information included the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic map, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) National
7201 Glen Forest Drive, Suite 100 \ Richmond, VA 23226
0 804-200-6300 \ F 804-200-6303 \ burnsmcd.com

BURNS Ss
�!ME-DONNELL
Mr. Christopher Hopper
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
July 8, 2020
Page 2
Wetland Inventory (NWI) map, and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) 2014 Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) digital data for
Johnston County. Maps generated from this available data are included as Figures A-2 and A-3
in Appendix A.
Determining wetland presence or absence based only on background information, including NWI
maps, cannot be assumed to be an accurate assessment of potentially occurring jurisdictional
wetlands. Wetland identification criteria differ between the USACE and other agencies. For
example, wetlands shown on a NWI map may not be under the jurisdiction of the USACE, and
USACE jurisdictional wetlands are not always included on the NWI maps. Therefore, a field
determination is necessary to identify any wetlands, streams, or other waterbodies that may be
present.
Wetland Delineation Field Survey
A wetland delineation of the Survey Area was completed in accordance with the 1987 Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and the 2010 Regional Supplement to the Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Version 2.0
(Regional Supplement). Sample plots were established at multiple locations and Wetland
Determination Data Forms from the Regional Supplement were completed to characterize the
Survey Area (Appendix B). Vegetation, soil conditions, and hydrologic indicators were recorded
at each of these sample plots. Locations of sample plots and other identified features were
surveyed in the field by Burns & McDonnell using a sub -meter accuracy GPS unit. Natural color
photographs were taken onsite and are included in Appendix C.
RESULTS
The following sections describe the results of the existing data review and the completed wetland
delineation.
Existing Data Review
The existing USGS topographic map was reviewed to familiarize Burns & McDonnell wetland
personnel with the topography of the Survey Area and potential locations of wetlands and other
waterbodies (Figure A-1). The USGS topographic map indicates the Survey Area consists of
primarily forested land with multiple drainage features flowing to the east into Swift Creek
(Figure A-1).
The USFWS NWI map indicates multiple palustrine forested (PFO) wetlands located within the
boundaries of the Survey Area. These features are mainly located along the northern half of the
Survey Area (Figure A-2).
The NRCS SSURGO digital data indicates the Survey Area is underlain primarily by Nankin
fine sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, Rion sandy loam, 15 to 40 percent slopes, Wagram loamy
sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes, Wedowee sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, and Wehadkee loam, 0

BURNS Ss
�!ME-DONNELL
Mr. Christopher Hopper
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
July 8, 2020
Page 3
to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded. Wehadkee loam is considered hydric in Johnston County,
Virginia (Figure A-3).
Wetland Delineation Field Survey
In April 2019 and May 2020, Patrick Meier, wetland specialist with Burns & McDonnell,
conducted a wetland delineation of the Survey Area to identify the presence of wetlands,
streams, and other waterbodies. The Survey Area was largely composed of agricultural field and
forested areas.
Vegetation: Typical woody species within the Survey Area consisted of American beech (Fergus
grandifolia), loblolly pine (Pious taeda), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), American holly
(Ilex opaca), American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana), and red maple (Acer rubrum). Typical
herbaceous species within the Survey Area consisted of broom sedge (Andropogon virginicus),
tall goldenrod (Solidago altissima), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), Japanese stilt
grass (Microstegium vimineum), and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica).
Soils: Typical soil colors ranged from dark brown (1 OYR 3/2) to light gray (5Y 5/2) with a
typical texture of sandy clay loam.
Hydrology: The primary sources of hydrology within the Survey Area were ground water table
and surface runoff. Typical indictors of hydrology included high water table and surface
saturation.
Delineated Areas: Wetlands
Eight wetlands were identified during the wetland delineation. Table 1 provides the type and size
of the wetlands delineated within the Survey Area. The wetlands are also described below and
shown in Figure A-4.

BURNS Ss
�!ME-DONNELL
Mr. Christopher Hopper
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
July 8, 2020
Page 4
Table 1: Type and Size of Wetlands Delineated within the Survey Area
Wetland Number
Wetland Type'
Size (acres)
W-01
PFO
2.17
W-02
PFO
0.26
W-03
PFO
5.54
PSS
4.40
PEM
3.15
W-04
PFO
0.13
W-05
PFO
0.09
W-06
PFO
0.08
W-07
PSS
0.02
PUB
0.09
W-08
PFO
0.28
Total:
15.09
(a) PFO = palustrine forested; PSS = palustrine scrub -shrub; PEM = palustrine emergent
Wetland 01 (W-01); PFO: W-01 is a 2.17 acre wetland near the center of the Survey Area
(Figure A-4; Photographs C-5 and C-6 in Appendix C). This wetland is within a drainage
associated with stream channel 01 (S-01). Dominant vegetation in W-01 included loblolly pine,
sweetgum, American hornbeam, silver maple (Acer saccharinum), Southern lady fern (Athyrium
asplenioides). Wetland hydrology was indicated by soil saturation and high water table.
Observed soils were dark brown (IOYR 3/2) and light brown (2.5Y 6/4) in color with a sandy
clay loam texture. Hydric soil was indicated by a dark surface with redoximorphic features.
Wetland 02 (W-02). W-02 is a 0.26-acre PFO wetland located along the eastern limits of the
Survey Area where the alignment turns to the north. (Figure A-4; Photographs C-15 and C-16).
Vegetation in W-02 consisted of sweetgum, red maple, netted chain -fern (Woodwardia
areolata), lamp rush (Juncus effusus), giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), shallow sedge (Carex
lurida). Wetland hydrology was indicated by soil saturation, geomorphic position, and positive
FAC neutral test. Observed soils were dark gray (IOYR 4/2) and very light grey (2.5Y 7/2) in
color with a sandy clay loam texture. Hydric soil was indicated by a depleted matrix with redox
concentrations.
Wetland 03 (W-03); PFO; PSS; PEM. W-03 is a 13.09-acre wetland complex within the northern
portion of the Survey Area south of Route 42. W-03 is composed of 5.54 acres of PFO, 4.40

BURNS Ss
�!ME-DONNELL
Mr. Christopher Hopper
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
July 8, 2020
Page 5
acres of PSS, and 3.15 acres of PEM wetlands (Figure A-4; Photographs C-9 and C-10).
Vegetation in W-03 consisted of sweetgum, American hornbeam, red maple, American sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis), lizard's -tail (Saururus cernuus), lamp rush, and netted chain -fern.
Wetland hydrology was indicated by high water table and saturation. Observed soils were light
grey (2.5Y 4/2 and 5Y 5/2) in color with a sandy clay loam texture. Hydric soil was indicated by
a depleted matrix with redox concentrations.
Wetland 04 (W-04). W-04 is a 0.13-acre PFO wetland at the northern terminus of the Survey
Area (Figure A-4). Vegetation in W-04 consisted of red maple, sweetgum, box elder (Acer
negundo), Japanese stilt grass (Microstegium vimineum), lamp rush, and Frank's sedge (Carex
frankii). Wetland hydrology was indicated by drainage patterns and FAC-neutral test. Observed
soils were dark gray (IOYR 4/2) and light grey (2.5Y 4/2) in color with a sandy texture. Hydric
soil was indicated by a depleted matrix with redox concentrations.
Wetland 05 (W-05). W-05 is a 0.09-acre PFO wetland at the northern terminus of the Survey
Area (Figure A-4). Vegetation within W-05 consisted of red maple, sweetgum, silver maple,
American hornbeam, Japanese stilt grass, Southern lady fern, and horsebrier (Smilax
rotundifolia). Wetland hydrology was indicated by soil saturation, drainage patterns, and
geomorphic position. Observed soils were dark grey (10YR 4/2) and grey (10YR 5/1) in color
with a sandy loam texture. Hydric soil was indicated by a depleted matrix with redox
concentrations.
Wetland 06 (W-06). W-06 is a 0.08-acre PFO wetland at the southwestern terminus of the Survey
Area (Figure A-4; Photographs C-1 and C-2). Vegetation within W-06 consisted of red maple,
sweetgum, box elder, Japanese stilt grass, and lamp rush. Wetland hydrology was indicated by
drainage patterns, geomorphic position, and FAC-neutral test. Observed soils were dark grey
(IOYR 4/2) in color with a sandy loam texture. Hydric soil was indicated by a depleted matrix
with redox concentrations.
Wetland 07 (W-07); PSS, PUB. W-07 is a 0.11-acre wetland near the center of the Survey Area
(Figure A-4). W-07 consists of 0.02-acre of PSS and 0.09-acre of PUB wetlands. Vegetation
within W-07 consisted of black willow (Salix nigra), wart -removing -herb (Murdannia keisak),
and lamp rush. Wetland hydrology was indicated by surface water and saturation. Observed soils
were light grey (IOYR 5/1) in color with a sandy clay loam texture. Hydric soil was indicated by
a depleted matrix with redox concentrations.
Wetland 08 (W-08). W-08 is a 0.28-acre PFO wetland near the center of the Survey Area along
stream 5-03 (Figure A-4). Vegetation within W-08 consisted of red maple, sweetgum, Japanese
stilt grass, and lamp rush. Wetland hydrology was indicated by high water table and saturation.
Observed soils were dark grey (IOYR 4/2) in color with a sandy loam texture. Hydric soil was
indicated by a depleted matrix with redox concentrations.

BURNS Ss
�!ME-DONNELL
Mr. Christopher Hopper
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
July 8, 2020
Page 6
Delineated Areas: Streams
Three stream channels were observed within the Survey Area during the wetland delineation.
Table 2 provides the classification and length. Details of the stream channel are described below
and displayed on Figure A-4.
Table 2: Type and Size of Wetlands Delineated within the Survey Area
Stream Number
Stream Type a
Length (linear feet)
S-1
Perennial
1,227.93
S-2
Intermittent
15.80
S-3
Perennial
748.51
Stream-1 (S-1): S-1, an unnamed tributary to Swift Creek, is located within W-01 near the
center of the Survey Area. The stream flows to the east and northeast where it leaves the Survey
Area and eventually discharges into Swift Creek (Figure A-4; Photographs C-19 and C-20). The
channel averaged approximately 10 feet wide and with 0.5-foot deep banks within the western
half and rapidly narrows to approximately 2 feet wide with 2-foot deep banks within the eastern
portion of the channel. Substrate within the channel consisted of an unconsolidated sandy gravel
mix. Riparian vegetation consisted of American hornbeam, silver maple, red maple, Southern
lady fern, and horsebrier.
Stream-2 (S-2): S-1, an unnamed tributary to Swift Creek, is located within W-04 at the northern
terminus of the Survey Area. The stream flows to the west where it eventually leaves the Survey
Area (Figure A-4; Photographs C-21 and C-22). The channel averaged approximately 2 feet wide
and banks averaged 2 feet deep. Substrate within the channel consisted of an unconsolidated
sandy gravel mix. Riparian vegetation consisted of American hornbeam, red maple, Southern
lady fern, and horsebrier.
Stream-3 (S-3): S-3, an unnamed tributary to Swift Creek, is within W-08 near the center of the
Survey Area. The stream flows to the northeast where it eventually discharges into S-1 (Figure
A-4). The channel averaged approximately 3 feet wide and banks averaged 1-foot deep.
Substrate within the channel consisted of an unconsolidated sandy gravel mix. Riparian
vegetation consisted of American hornbeam, red maple, sweetgum, netted chain -fern, lamp rush,
and horsebrier.

BURNS Ss
�!ME-DONNELL
Mr. Christopher Hopper
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
July 8, 2020
Page 7
SUMMARY
Burns & McDonnell conducted a wetland delineation of the Survey Area on May 19, 2020 to
determine the presence of wetlands, stream channels, and other waterbodies. Eight wetlands and
three stream channels were identified. On behalf of Piedmont Natural Gas Company Inc., Burns
& McDonnell respectfully requests a preliminary jurisdictional confirmation of the resources
identified in the Survey Area from the USACE. If an onsite determination is needed, please
contact me at [phone] or by email at [e-mail] to coordinate a site visit or
to discuss any questions regarding this delineation.
Sincerely,
/ W/', / -Y' < YL "
Patrick K. Meier
Wetland Specialist
Attachments:
Appendix A: Figures
Appendix B: Regional Wetland Determination Data Forms: Eastern Mountains and
Piedmont Region
Appendix C: Site Photographs
Cc: Tina Woodward — Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc.

Appendix A - FIGURES

now
c�
i
..
!
140
U6 TO
—
At
�.
v
�t-I—
I
ti
HDD Centerline
Figure A-1
NORTH
General Location Map
PI eline Centerline
p
BURNS
%M_DONNELLL'
Line 472 Replacement Project
Duke Energy / Piedmont
Study Area 0 2,000
4,000
Natural Gas
Feet
Johnston County, North Carolina
Source: Esri, Duke Energy / Piedmont Natural Gas, Burns & McDonnell Consultinq, Inc.
Issued: 8/5/2020

V
0
N
N
00
x
x
E
N
N
8
9
Fi
1
r
VF
w
000
of
HDD Centerline NWI Wetland Type Figure A-2
Pipeline Centerline =Riverine voRrH
NWI, NHD, and Topographic Map
Q Survey Area PSS NBURNS Line 472 Replacement Project
NHD Stream PFO M5DONNELL' Duke Energy / Piedmont
PUB 0 400 800 Natural Gas
Johnston County, North Carolina
Feet
Source: Esri, FWS NVN, USGS NHD, Duke Energy / Piedmont Natural Gas, Burns & McDonnell Consultinq, Inc. Issued: 8/5/2020

AaA - Altavista fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded �. ;d�1.�.�1+11*V
10� �00000�
AsA - Augusta sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded `►��,►o�� VNo�o�o�o��
NkB - Nankin fine sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes
RnF - Rion sandy loam, 15 to 40 percent slopes
To - Tomotle sand loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, rare) flooded
Y Y p p Y
UcC - Uchee loamy coarse sand, 6 to 12 percent slopes
WaB - Wagram loamy sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes`
WoD - Wedowee sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes A
Wt - Wehadkee loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded WoB,
'`o � ''_ _ -•'w�`� - " ' - ''" �- ' �O`��$�� poi 10
.�- '-,�'�•�,•: - i„- � aril'. �0000-oo �oo
r . "� .. F � •`... f a 0000�'0000�
� Y � I0000000��o�
- •; ;e+" ' f 'tea- v �'s F �: l0000i
-f A s �7 r A• _. t RnF
n. a
mv or --
or
NkB
"
A RAW
OF
',►�I �.�e�
oo O UcC
NkB
�L oR '
q�1
�'►�
s� � ''�
'
��o�o o���
�> �� 0oo�o6po�o�t
000000<
i�o�o�o�o��
�00000000000000000000O
RriF
�1
Ot'
• c€• � _
All
A��k �o �o�o�o�o�o���
►00000000000♦
►�5'
WaB 0000�
�'��. . ���0�6��®��o�'�➢�o�o�o�0�0�0�0�1�
►000000�000000WaB► 00000�
--'++�oioioioioioioi`o .tee.
; ��oioioioioioioioi000i.0oi0000`.
"�•►�+00000ioeoioioioioioioioi'e�ioioi®0000
�? 9,� �,.�0000000000�.e�0000000000�.
':.
.
;7
'+oioi!ooioioioioi!ooiosoioioi�"�1�,
+oar?• -7A�.� •l00000• i
� ._'y�000000000000000000000!
Ao�r000000♦
+��:oyl�o�oeo�o�o�o��
i
,. � F.� �,ti �.. • ��o�o�o�o�� �
•r,' 000000� ,�
� Y •� i0000000��
"� i,..
*•
.. ~Y , ^ �..� .. ?�`''ioioioioi � f,
� �� '' ioioso�o�o�s�o;•
A.
�.
HDD Centerline
Figure A-3
r 3
Pipeline Centerline NORTH
SSURGO
Soil Unit Map
Survey Area
�♦ Line 472 Replacement Project
BlJRNS p 1
\ DONNELL Duke
Energy / Piedmont
Hydric Soil 0 400 800
Natural Gas
t
r� Non-Hydric Soil
Feet
Johnston County, North Carolina
urns & iwcuonneii Lonsulung, Inc.

a �r-rnm-vo
SP-PKM-05
9
:)
v
-03
7 �-
i
i
v
T
9
9
n
i
=
n
1
LL
r -
iLL
0 Sample Plot (SP)
Delineated Wetland Delineated Stream
Figure A-4
LL HDD Centerline
Type (W) Type (S)
Wetland Delineation Map
Pipeline Centerline
PUB - Intermittent
NORTH
Line 472 Replacement Project
oStudyArea
PEM Perennial
=
`% BURNS
Duke Energy / Piedmont
Pss\M�DOMNER.L"
50ft Riparian Zone
- PEO
Natural Gas
® Zone 1
0 125
250
Johnston County, North Carolina
r 1 Zone 2
006iiiiiii
Feet
Page 1 of 4
Source: Esri. Duke
Enerav / Piedmont Natural Gas. Burns & McDonnell
Issued: 6/26/2020

.4
el
7 1
V ,
V
O
V
O
9
T /
9
9
W-Oo.
n ?
S 03 a a #
T I J !
r 0 Sample Plot (SP) Delineated Wetland Delineated Stream Figure A-4
' Type (W) Type (S)
HDD Centerline Wetland Delineation Map
'- Pipeline Centerline PUB - Intermittent Line 472 Replacement Project
PEM Perennial NORTH % BURNS
StudyArea` Duke Energy /Piedmont
v PSS \\M_ DONNELL"
50ft Riparian Zone - PFO Natural Gas
® Zone 1 0 125 250 Johnston County, North Carolina
a r Zone 2 006iiiiiii Feet Page 2 of 4
L
Source: Esri. Duke Enerav / Piedmont Natural Gas. Burns & McDonnell Issued: 6/26/2020

J
SP-PKM-01
v F
OPP-
AL
r rv.3
INA
' lr
p� 'f
AW
i F
S- i}
w
\1\1
Sample Plot (SP) Delineated Wetland Delineated Stream
HDD Centerline Type (W) Type (S)
Figure A-4
Wetland Delineation Map
t
PUB Inermittent
Pipeline Centerline
NORTH
Line 472 Replacement Project
C.
J
PEM Perennial
StudyAreaPss
�gURNS
NM5DONNELL-
Duke Energy / Piedmont
-fro'o'
50ft Riparian Zone
Natural Gas
Zone PFO o 125 250
Johnston County, North Carolina
Zone 2 Feet
Page 4 of 4
Source: Esri, Duke Energy / Piedmont Natural Gas, Burns & McDonnell Issued: 6/26/2020

Appendix B - REGIONAL WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORMS:
EASTERN MOUNTAINS AND PIEDMONT REGION

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Line 472 City/County: Johnston County Sampling Date: 4/15/2019
Applicant/Owner: Piedmont Natural Gas Company Inc. State: NC Sampling Point: SP-PKM-01
Investigator(s): P. Meier Section, Township, Range: N/A
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.) Drainage Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%)
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): 136 Lat: 35.597016 Long:-78.564224 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Gilead sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes NWI Classification: N/A
Are climate/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ® Yes ❑ No (If no, explain in Remarks)
Vegetation Soil Hydrology
Significantly Disturbed? ❑ ❑ ❑
Naturally Problematic? ❑ ❑ ❑
Are "Normal Circumstances" present? ® Yes ❑ No
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Yes No Remarks: Wetland W-06 at southwest terminus.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® ❑
Hydric Soil Present? ® ❑
Wetland Hydrology Present? ® ❑
Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? ® ❑
HYDROLOGY
n
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
® High Water Table (A2)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
® Drainage Patterns (1310)
® Saturation (A3)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
❑ Water Marks (131)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (133)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (1313)
❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Depth
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous
Yes
No
(inches):
inspections, etc.), if available:
Surface Water Present?
❑
Water Table Present?
®
❑
10
Saturation Present?
®
❑
4
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
®
❑
Remarks: Wetland hydrology indicators A2, A3, and B10 are met.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants
Sampling Point: SP-PKM-01
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum
(Plot size:
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
Acer rubrum
5 %
Y
FAC
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 8 (A)
2.
Liquidambarstyraciflua
5 %
Y
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 8 (B)
3.
Pinus taeda
5 %
Y
FAC
4.
%
Percent of Dominant Species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B)
5
%
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7.
%
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
15 %
=Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum
(Plot size:
OBL species 15 % x 1 = 15
1.
Acer rubrum
10 %
Y
FAC
FACW species 30 % x 2 = 60
2.
Acer negundo
5 %
Y
FAC
FAC species 48 % x 3 = 144
3.
Ligustrum sinense
3 %
N
FACU
FACU species 13 % x 4 = 52
4.
UPL species 0% x 5 = 0
5.
%
6
%
Column Totals: 106 % (A) 271 (B)
7.
%
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.56
18 %
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Herb Stratum
(Plot size:
❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
1.
Microstegium viminium
15 %
Y
FAC
2.
Juncus effusus
20 %
Y
FACW
® Dominance Test is >50%
3.
Saururus cernuus
15 %
Y
OBL
® Prevalence Index is <_3.0'
4.
Woodwardia areolata
10 %
N
FACW
El Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
5.
Carex lurida
5 %
N
OBL
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
6.
Dichanthelium clandestinum
3 %
N
FAC
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
7.
%
8
%
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
9.
%
10.
%
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
11.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm)
12.
%
or more in diameter at breast height (DBH),
68 %
= Total Cover
regardless of height.
Woody
Vine Stratum
(Plot size:
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
1.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
2.
%
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
3.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
4.
%
height.
5.
%
0 %
=Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ElNo
Remarks: Dominance test and prevalence index are met.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point:
SP-PKM-01
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist)
0-8 10YR 5/2 90 10YR 5/6
8-20 2.5Y 4/2 95 10YR 4/6
Redox Features
% Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks
10 C M Sandy Clay Loam
5 C M Clay Loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains
Hydric Soil Indicators:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
❑ Dark Surface (S7)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
® Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present, unless
disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed): Hydric Soil Present?
Type: Depth (inches): ® Yes ❑ No
Remarks: Hydric soil indicator F3 is met.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Line 472 City/County: Johnston County Sampling Date: 4/15/2019
Applicant/Owner: Piedmont Natural Gas Company Inc. State: NC Sampling Point: SP-PKM-02
Investigator(s): P. Meier Section, Township, Range: N/A
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.) Flat Local relief (concave, convex, none): Convex Slope (%)
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): 136 Lat: 35.59782011 N Long: 78.56150417W Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Nankin fine sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes NWI Classification: N/A
Are climate/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ® Yes ❑ No (If no, explain in Remarks)
Vegetation Soil Hydrology
Significantly Disturbed? ❑ ❑ ❑
Naturally Problematic? ❑ ❑ ❑
Are "Normal Circumstances" present? ® Yes ❑ No
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Yes No Remarks: Forested upland near southwest terminus.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® ❑
Hydric Soil Present? ❑
Wetland Hydrology Present? ❑
Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? ❑
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Drainage Patterns (1310)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
❑ Water Marks (131)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (133)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (1313)
❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations: Depth Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous
Yes No (inches): inspections, etc.), if available:
Surface Water Present? ❑
Water Table Present? ❑
Saturation Present? ❑
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? ❑
Remarks: Saturation at surface, but not at depth. No water table observed. No hydrology indicators met.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants
Sampling Point: SP-PKM-02
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum
(Plot size:
% Cover
Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1. Pinus taeda
75 %
Y FAC
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
2.
%
Total Number of Dominant
3
%
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
4.
%
Percent of Dominant Species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 67% (A/B)
5
%
6.
%
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7.
%
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
75 %
=Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum
(Plot size:
OBL species 0 % x 1 = 0
1. Pinus taeda
5 %
Y FAC
FACW species 0 % x 2 = 0
2. Ilex opaca
5 %
Y FACU
FAC species 80 % x 3 = 240
3.
%
FACU species 5 % x 4 = 20
4.
UPL species 0% x 5 = 0
5.
%
6
%
Column Totals: 85 % (A) 260 (B)
7.
%
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.06
10 %
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Herb Stratum
(Plot size:
❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
1
%
2.
%
® Dominance Test is >50%
3.
%
❑ Prevalence Index is <_3.0'
4.
El Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
5
%
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
6.
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
7.
%
8
%
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
9.
%
10.
%
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
11.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm)
12.
%
or more in diameter at breast height (DBH),
0 %
= Total Cover
regardless of height.
Woody Vine Stratum
(Plot size:
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
1.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
2
%
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
3.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
4.
%
height.
5.
%
0 %
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No
Remarks: Dominance test met. Please note prevalence index is greater than 3.0.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: SP-PKM-02
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) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-15 10YR 5/4 100 Sandy Loam
15-20 7.5YR 5/6 100 Sandy Clay Loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains
Hydric Soil Indicators:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
❑ Dark Surface (S7)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present, unless
disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed): Hydric Soil Present?
Type: Depth (inches): ❑ Yes ® No
Remarks: No hydric soil indicators are met.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Line 472 City/County: Johnston County Sampling Date: 4/15/2019
Applicant/Owner: Piedmont Natural Gas Company Inc. State: NC Sampling Point: SP-PKM-03
Investigator(s): P. Meier Section, Township, Range: N/A
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.) Drainage Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): 136 Lat: 35.60356948N Long: 78.55358672W Datum
Slope (%): 2
Soil Map Unit Name: Wehadkee loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequent flooded NWI Classification: PF01 A
Are climate/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ® Yes ❑ No (If no, explain in Remarks)
Vegetation Soil Hydrology
Significantly Disturbed? ❑ ❑ ❑
Naturally Problematic? ❑ ❑ ❑
Are "Normal Circumstances" present? ® Yes ❑ No
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Yes No Remarks: PFO wetland near flag B-4.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® ❑
Hydric Soil Present? ® ❑
Wetland Hydrology Present? ® ❑
Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? ® ❑
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
® High Water Table (A2)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Drainage Patterns (1310)
® Saturation (A3)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
❑ Water Marks (131)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (133)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
® Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (1313)
❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Depth
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous
Yes
No (inches):
inspections, etc.), if available:
Surface Water Present?
❑
Water Table Present?
®
❑ 10
Saturation Present?
®
❑ 0
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
®
❑
Remarks: Wetland hydrology indicators A2, A3, and D2 are met.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants
Sampling Point: SP-PKM-03
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum
(Plot size:
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
Pinus taeda
30 %
Y
FAC
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 7 (A)
2.
Carpinus caroliniana
20 %
Y
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 8 (B)
3.
Acer saccharinum
20 %
Y
FACW
4.
Acer rubrum
10 %
N
FAC
Percent of Dominant Species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 88% (A/B)
5.
Liquidambar styraciflua
5 %
N
FAC
6.
Liriodendron tulipifera
5 %
N
FACU
prevalence Index worksheet:
7.
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
90 %
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum
(Plot size:
OBL species 0 % x 1 = 0
1.
Carpinus caroliniana
20 %
Y
FAC
FACW species 30 % x 2 = 60
2.
Acer saccharinum
10 %
Y
FACW
FAC species 115 % x 3 = 345
3.
Acer rubrum
10 %
Y
FAC
FACU species 18 % x 4 = 72
4.
UPL species 0% x 5 = 0
5.
%
6
%
Column Totals: 163 % (A) 477 (B)
7.
%
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.93
40 %
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Herb Stratum
(Plot size:
❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
1.
Athyrium asplenioides
10 %
Y
FAC
2.
Polystichum acrostichoides
10 %
Y
FACU
® Dominance Test is >50%
3.
Vitis rotundifolia
5 %
N
FAC
® Prevalence Index is <_3.0'
4.
Chasmanthium laxum
5 %
N
FAC
❑ Morphological paaseparate Provide supporting
5.
Parthenocissus quinquefolia
3 %
N
FACU
data in Remarks or onsheet)
6.
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
7.
%
8
%
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
9.
%
10.
%
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
11.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm)
12.
%
or more in diameter at breast height (DBH),
33 %
= Total Cover
regardless of height.
Woody
Vine Stratum
(Plot size:
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
1.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
2.
%
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
3.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
4.
%
height.
5.
%
0 %
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No
Remarks: Dominance test and prevalence index are met.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: SP-PKM-03
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) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-5 10YR 3/2 90 7.5YR 5/8 10 C M Sandy Clay Loam
5-20 2.5Y 6/4 100
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains
Hydric Soil Indicators:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
❑ Dark Surface (S7)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
® Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present, unless
disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed): Hydric Soil Present?
Type: Depth (inches): ® Yes ❑ No
Remarks: Hydric soil indicator F6 is met.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Line 472 City/County: Johnston County Sampling Date: 4/15/2019
Applicant/Owner: Piedmont Natural Gas Company Inc. State: NC Sampling Point: SP-PKM-04
Investigator(s): P. Meier Section, Township, Range: N/A
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.) Drainage/Slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Convex Slope (%)
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): 136 Lat: 35.60363154N Long: 78.55346677W Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Wehadkee loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequent flooded NWI Classification: N/A
Are climate/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ® Yes ❑ No (If no, explain in Remarks)
Vegetation Soil Hydrology
Significantly Disturbed? ❑ ❑ ❑
Naturally Problematic? ❑ ❑ ❑
Are "Normal Circumstances" present? ® Yes ❑ No
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Yes No Remarks: Upland near flag B-4.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® ❑
Hydric Soil Present? ❑
Wetland Hydrology Present? ❑
Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? ❑
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Drainage Patterns (1310)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
❑ Water Marks (131)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (133)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (1313)
❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations: Depth Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous
Yes No (inches): inspections, etc.), if available:
Surface Water Present? ❑
Water Table Present? ❑
Saturation Present? ❑
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? ❑
Remarks: No wetland hydrology indicators are met
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants
Sampling Point: SP-PKM-04
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum
(Plot size:
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
Pinus taeda
60 %
Y
FAC
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A)
2.
Quercus alba
5 %
N
FACU
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 6 (B)
3.
Liquidambar styraciflua
5 %
N
FAC
4.
%
Percent of Dominant Species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 83% (A/B)
5
%
6.
%
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7.
%
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
70 %
=Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum
(Plot size:
OBL species 0 % x 1 = 0
1.
Acer rubrum
20 %
Y
FAC
FACW species 0 % x 2 = 0
2.
Carpinus caroliniana
20 %
Y
FAC
FAC species 118 % x 3 = 354
3.
Liquidambar styraciflua
10 %
Y
FAC
FACU species 10 % x 4 = 40
4.
UPL species 0% x 5 = 0
5.
%
6
%
Column Totals: 128 % (A) 394 (B)
7.
%
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.08
50 %
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Herb Stratum
(Plot size:
❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
1.
Polystichum acrostichoides
5 %
Y
FACU
2.
Chasmanthium laxum
3 %
Y
FAC
® Dominance Test is >50%
3.
%
❑ Prevalence Index is <_3.0'
4.
El Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
5
%
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
6.
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
7.
%
8
%
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
9.
%
10.
%
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
11.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm)
12.
%
or more in diameter at breast height (DBH),
8 %
= Total Cover
regardless of height.
Woody
Vine Stratum
(Plot size:
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
1.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
2.
%
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
3.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
4.
%
height.
5.
%
0 %
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No
Remarks: Dominance test is met. Note that prevalence index is greater than 3.0.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: SP-PKM-04
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) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-12 10YR 7/4 100 Sandy Loam
12-20 7.5YR 5/6 100 Clav
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains
Hydric Soil Indicators:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
❑ Dark Surface (S7)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present, unless
disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed): Hydric Soil Present?
Type: Depth (inches): ❑ Yes ® No
Remarks: No hydric soil indicators are met.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Line 472 City/County: Johnston County Sampling Date: 4/16/2019
Applicant/Owner: Piedmont Natural Gas Company Inc. State: NC Sampling Point: SP-PKM-05
Investigator(s): P. Meier Section, Township, Range: N/A
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.) Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): 136 Lat: 35.61140428N Long: 78.55095375W Datum
Slope (%): 2
Soil Map Unit Name: Augusta sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occas. flood NWI Classification: PFO1 C
Are climate/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ® Yes ❑ No (If no, explain in Remarks)
Vegetation Soil Hydrology
Significantly Disturbed? ❑ ❑ ❑
Naturally Problematic? ❑ ❑ ❑
Are "Normal Circumstances" present? ® Yes ❑ No
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Yes No Remarks: PFO wetland near northern terminus.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® ❑
Hydric Soil Present? ® ❑
Wetland Hydrology Present? ® ❑
Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? ® ❑
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
® High Water Table (A2)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Drainage Patterns (1310)
® Saturation (A3)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
❑ Water Marks (131)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (133)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (1313)
❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations: Depth Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous
Yes No (inches): inspections, etc.), if available:
Surface Water Present? ❑
Water Table Present? ® ❑ 5
Saturation Present? ® ❑ 0
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? ® ❑
Remarks: Wetland hydrology indicators A2 and A3 are met
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants
Sampling Point: SP-PKM-05
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum
(Plot size:
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
Acer rubrum
20 %
Y
FAC
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A)
2.
Liquidambar styrac/flua
20 %
Y
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 8 (B)
3.
Faqus grandifolia
20 %
Y
FACU
4.
Liriodendron tulipifera
10 %
N
FACU
Percent of Dominant Species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 63% (A/B)
5
%
6.
%
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7.
%
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
70 %
=Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum
(Plot size: )
OBL species 0 % x 1 = 0
1.
Carpinus caroliniana
30 %
Y
FAC
FACW species 20 % x 2 = 40
2.
Acer rubrum
10 %
Y
FAC
FAC species 110 % x 3 = 330
3.
Ilex opaca
10 %
Y
FACU
FACU species 80 % x 4 = 320
4.
UPL species 0% x 5 = 0
5.
%
6
%
Column Totals: 210 % (A) 690 (B)
7.
%
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.29
50 %
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Herb Stratum
(Plot size:
❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
1.
Lonicera Japonica
40 %
Y
FACU
2.
Athyrium asplenioides
10 %
N
FAC
® Dominance Test is >50%
3.
Woodwardia areolata
10 %
N
FACW
❑ Prevalence Index is <_3.0'
4.
Juncus effusus
10 %
N
FACW
El Morphological (Provide supporting
5.
Sedge sp.
10 %
N
FAC
data in Remarks or onpaa
separate
6.
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
7.
%
8
%
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
9.
%
10.
%
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
11.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm)
12.
%
or more in diameter at breast height (DBH),
80 %
= Total Cover
regardless of height.
Woody
Vine Stratum
(Plot size:
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
1.
Smilax rotundifolia
10 %
Y
FAC
Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
2.
%
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
3.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
4.
%
height.
5.
%
10 %
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No
Remarks: Dominance test is met.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: SP-PKM-05
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) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-6 2.5Y 4/2 100 Sandy Clay Loam
6-20 5Y 5/2 80 2.5 5/4 20 C M Sandy Clay Loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains
Hydric Soil Indicators:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
❑ Dark Surface (S7)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
® Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present, unless
disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed): Hydric Soil Present?
Type: Depth (inches): ® Yes ❑ No
Remarks: Hydric soil indicator F3 is met.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Line 472 City/County: Johnston County Sampling Date: 4/16/2019
Applicant/Owner: Piedmont Natural Gas Company Inc. State: NC Sampling Point: SP-PKM-06
Investigator(s): P. Meier Section, Township, Range: N/A
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.) Slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Convex Slope (%)
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): 136 Lat: 35.61141427N Long: 78.55095901 W Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Rion sandy loam, 15 to 40 percent slopes NWI Classification: N/A
Are climate/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ® Yes ❑ No (If no, explain in Remarks)
Vegetation Soil Hydrology
Significantly Disturbed? ❑ ❑ ❑
Naturally Problematic? ❑ ❑ ❑
Are "Normal Circumstances" present? ® Yes ❑ No
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Yes No Remarks: Upland near flag F-4.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ❑
Hydric Soil Present? ❑
Wetland Hydrology Present? ® ❑
Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? ❑
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Drainage Patterns (1310)
® Saturation (A3)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
❑ Water Marks (131)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (133)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (1313)
❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations: Depth Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous
Yes No (inches): inspections, etc.), if available:
Surface Water Present? ❑
Water Table Present? ❑
Saturation Present? ® ❑ 0
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? ® ❑
Remarks: Wetland hydrology indicators A2 is met
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants
Sampling Point: SP-PKM-06
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum
(Plot size:
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
Liriodendron tulipifera
30 %
Y
FACU
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
2.
Prunus serotina
20 %
Y
FACU
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 9 (B)
3
%
4.
%
Percent of Dominant Species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 44% (A/B)
5
%
6.
%
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7.
%
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50 %
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum
(Plot size:
OBL species 0 % x 1 = 0
1.
Acer rubrum
10 %
Y
FAC
FACW species 0 % x 2 = 0
2.
Ilex opaca
10 %
Y
FACU
FAC species 65 % x 3 = 195
3.
Liriodendron tulipifera
10 %
Y
FACU
FACU species 121 % x 4 = 484
4.
Liquidambar styraclflua
5 %
N
FAC
o
UPL species 0 /o x 5 = 0
5.
%
6
%
Column Totals: 186 % (A) 679 (B)
7.
%
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.65
35 %
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Herb Stratum
(Plot size:
❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
1.
Lonicera japonica
40 %
Y
FACU
2.
Vitis rotundifolia
20 %
Y
FAC
❑ Dominance Test is >50%
3.
Microstegium viminium
20 %
Y
FAC
❑ Prevalence Index is <_3.0'
4.
Podophyllum peltatum
5 %
N
FACU
El Morphological (Provide supporting
5.
Rubus arqutus
3 %
N
FACU
data in Remarks or onpaa
separate
6.
Asplenium platyneuron
3 %
N
FACU
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
7.
%
8
%
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
9.
%
10.
%
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
11.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm)
12.
%
or more in diameter at breast height (DBH),
91 %
= Total Cover
regardless of height.
Woody Vine Stratum
(Plot size:
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
1.
Vitis rotundifolia
10 %
Y
FAC
Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
2.
%
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
3.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
4.
%
height.
5.
%
10 %
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ❑ Yes ® No
Remarks: No indicators of hydrophytic vegetation are met.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: SP-PKM-06
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) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-10 2.5Y 4/3 100 Sandy Loam
10-20 2.5Y 5/6 100 Sandv Loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains
Hydric Soil Indicators:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
❑ Dark Surface (S7)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present, unless
disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed): Hydric Soil Present?
Type: Depth (inches): ❑ Yes ® No
Remarks: No hydric soil indicators are present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Line 472 City/County: Johnston County Sampling Date: 5/29/2019
Applicant/Owner: Piedmont Natural Gas Company Inc. State: NC Sampling Point: SP-PKM-07
Investigator(s): P. Meier Section, Township, Range: N/A
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.) Flat Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): 136 Lat: 35.612808 Long:-78.551798 Datum
Slope (%): 0
Soil Map Unit Name: Altavista fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes NWI Classification: PF01 C
Are climate/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ® Yes ❑ No (If no, explain in Remarks)
Vegetation Soil Hydrology
Significantly Disturbed? ❑ ❑ ❑
Naturally Problematic? ❑ ❑ ❑
Are "Normal Circumstances" present? ® Yes ❑ No
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Yes No Remarks: Wetland near flag G-25.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® ❑
Hydric Soil Present? ® ❑
Wetland Hydrology Present? ® ❑
Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? ® ❑
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
® Drainage Patterns (1310)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
❑ Water Marks (131)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (133)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (1313)
® FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations: Depth Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous
Yes No (inches): inspections, etc.), if available:
Surface Water Present? ❑
Water Table Present? ❑
Saturation Present? ❑
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? ® ❑
Remarks: Wetland hydrology indicators 1310 and D5 are met
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants
Sampling Point: SP-PKM-07
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum
(Plot size:
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
Acer rubrum
5 %
Y
FAC
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 7 (A)
2.
Liquidambar styrac/flua
5 %
Y
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 7 (B)
3
%
4.
%
Percent of Dominant Species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 88% (A/B)
5
%
6.
%
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7.
%
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
10 %
=Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum
(Plot size:
OBL species 15 % x 1 = 15
1.
Acer rubrum
10 %
Y
FAC
FACW species 20 % x 2 = 40
2.
Acer negundo
5 %
Y
FAC
FAC species 73 % x 3 = 219
3.
Liquidambar styraciflua
5 %
Y
FAC
FACU species 13 % x 4 = 52
4.
Llgustrum sinense
3 %
N
FACU
°
UPL species 0 /o x 5 = 0
5.
%
6
%
Column Totals: 121 % (A) 326 (B)
7.
%
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.69
23 %
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Herb Stratum
(Plot size:
❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
1.
Microstegium viminium
40 %
Y
FAC
2.
Juncus effusus
20 %
Y
FACW
® Dominance Test is >50%
3.
Solidago altissimia
10 %
N
FACU
® Prevalence Index is <_3.0'
4.
Carex frankii
10 %
N
OBL_
El Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
5.
Carex crinita
5 %
N
OBL
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
6.
Dichanthelium clandestinum
3 %
N
FAC
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
7.
%
8
%
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
9.
%
10.
%
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
11.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm)
12.
%
or more in diameter at breast height (DBH),
88 %
= Total Cover
regardless of height.
Woody
Vine Stratum
(Plot size:
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
1.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
2.
%
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
3.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
4.
%
height.
5.
%
0 %
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No
Remarks: Dominance test and prevalence index are met.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: SP-PKM-07
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) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-4 10YR 4/2 100 Sand
4-8 10YR 6/3 100 Sand
8-20 2.5Y 4/2 95 10YR 4/6
5 C M Sandy Loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
® Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
El Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present, unless
disturbed or problematic
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed): Hydric Soil Present?
Type: Depth (inches): ® Yes ❑ No
Remarks: Hydric soil indicator F3 is met.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Line 472 City/County: Johnston County Sampling Date: 5/30/2019
Applicant/Owner: Piedmont Natural Gas Company Inc. State: NC Sampling Point: SP-PKM-08
Investigator(s): P. Meier Section, Township, Range: N/A
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.) Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): 136 Lat: 35.605164 Long:-78.548836 Datum
Slope (%): 0
Soil Map Unit Name: Wehadkee loam, 0-2% slopes, frequently flooded NWI Classification: PF01 C
Are climate/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ® Yes ❑ No (If no, explain in Remarks)
Vegetation Soil Hydrology
Significantly Disturbed? ❑ ❑ ❑
Naturally Problematic? ❑ ❑ ❑
Are "Normal Circumstances" present? ® Yes ❑ No
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Yes No Remarks: Wetland near flag H-6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® ❑
Hydric Soil Present? ® ❑
Wetland Hydrology Present? ® ❑
Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? ® ❑
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Drainage Patterns (1310)
❑ Saturation (A3)
® Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
❑ Water Marks (131)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (133)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
® Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (1313)
® FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations: Depth Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous
Yes No (inches): inspections, etc.), if available:
Surface Water Present? ❑
Water Table Present? ❑
Saturation Present? ❑
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? ® ❑
Remarks: Wetland hydrology indicators C3, D2, and D5 are met.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants
Sampling Point: SP-PKM-08
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum
(Plot size:
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
Acer rubrum
60 %
Y
FAC
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 8 (A)
2.
Ulmus americana
20 %
Y
FACW
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 8 (B)
3
%
4.
%
Percent of Dominant Species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B)
5
%
6.
%
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7.
%
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
80 %
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum
(Plot size:
OBL species 0 % x 1 = 0
1.
Acer rubrum
20 %
Y
FAC
FACW species 75 % x 2 = 150
2.
Ulmus americana
20 %
Y
FACW
FAC species 165 % x 3 = 495
3.
Liquidambar styraciflua
10 %
Y
FAC
FACU species 0 % x 4 = 0
4.
UPL species 0 % x 5 = 0
5.
%
6
%
Column Totals: 240 % (A) 645 (B)
7.
%
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.69
50 %
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Herb Stratum
(Plot size:
❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
1.
Microstegium viminium
60 %
Y
FAC
2.
Arundinaria gigantea
20 %
Y
FACW
® Dominance Test is >50%
3.
Onoclea sensibilis
10 %
N
FACW
® Prevalence Index is <_3.0'
4.
Persicaria pensylvanica
5 %
N
FACW
El Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting
5.
Smilax rotundifolia
5 %
N
FAC
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
6.
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
7.
%
8
%
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
9.
%
10.
%
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
11.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm)
12.
%
or more in diameter at breast height (DBH),
100 %
= Total Cover
regardless of height.
Woody
Vine Stratum
(Plot size:
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
1.
Smilax rotundifolia
10 %
Y
FAC
Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
2.
%
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
3.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
4.
%
height.
5.
%
10 %
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No
Remarks: Dominance test and prevalence index are met.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: SP-PKM-08
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) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-4 10YR 4/2 85 10YR 3/6 10 C M Loam
10YR 3/6 5 C PL
4-8 2.5Y 7/2 100
8-20 10YR 5/2 90 10YR 3/4 10 C
Sand
M Sandy Loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Dark Surface (S7)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
® Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
El Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present, unless
disturbed or problematic
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed): Hydric Soil Present?
Type: Depth (inches): ® Yes ❑ No
Remarks: Hydric soil indicator F3 is met.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Line 472 City/County: Johnston County Sampling Date: 5/30/2019
Applicant/Owner: Piedmont Natural Gas Company Inc. State: NC Sampling Point: SP-PKM-09
Investigator(s): P. Meier Section, Township, Range: N/A
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.) Slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): 136 Lat: 35.605198 Long:-78.549033 Datum
Slope (%): 5
Soil Map Unit Name: Rion sandy loam, 15-40% slopes NWI Classification: PF01 C
Are climate/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ® Yes ❑ No (If no, explain in Remarks)
Vegetation Soil Hydrology
Significantly Disturbed? ❑ ❑ ❑
Naturally Problematic? ❑ ❑ ❑
Are "Normal Circumstances" present? ® Yes ❑ No
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Yes No Remarks: Upland near flag H-6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® ❑
Hydric Soil Present? ❑
Wetland Hydrology Present? ❑
Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? ❑
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
❑ Surface Water (Al)
❑ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
❑ High Water Table (A2)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
❑ Drainage Patterns (1310)
❑ Saturation (A3)
❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
❑ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
❑ Water Marks (131)
❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
❑ Sediment Deposits (132)
❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
❑ Drift Deposits (133)
❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
❑ Iron Deposits (135)
❑ Geomorphic Position (D2)
❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
❑ Aquatic Fauna (1313)
❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations: Depth Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous
Yes No (inches): inspections, etc.), if available:
Surface Water Present? ❑
Water Table Present? ❑
Saturation Present? ❑
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? ❑
Remarks: No wetland hydrology indicators are met
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants
Sampling Point: SP-PKM-09
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum
(Plot size:
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
Carpinus caroliniana
40 %
Y
FAC
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
2.
Ilex opaca
20 %
Y
FACU
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 7 (B)
3.
Liriodendrum tulipifera
10 %
N
FACU
4.
Liquidambar styraclflua
10 %
N
FAC
Percent of Dominant Species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 57% (A/B)
5.
Carya glabra
10 %
N
FACU
6.
%
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7.
%
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
90 %
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum
(Plot size:
OBL species 0 % x 1 = 0
1.
Ilex opaca
10 %
Y
FACU
FACW species 0 % x 2 = 0
2.
Carpinus caroliniana
5 %
Y
FAC
FAC species 83 % x 3 = 249
3.
%
FACU species 65 % x 4 = 260
4.
UPL species 0% x 5 = 0
5.
%
6
%
Column Totals: 148 % (A) 509 (B)
7.
%
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.44
15 %
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Herb Stratum
(Plot size:
❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
1.
Athyrium asplenioides
10 %
Y
FAC
2.
Polystichum acrostichoides
10 %
Y
FACU
® Dominance Test is >50%
3.
Mitchella repens
5 %
N
FACU
❑ Prevalence Index is <_3.0'
4.
Vitis rotundifolia
5 %
N
FAC
El Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
5.
Smilax rotundifolia
5 %
N
FAC
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
6.
Carex sp. *
3 %
N
FAC
❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
7.
%
8
%
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
9.
%
10.
%
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
11.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm)
12.
%
or more in diameter at breast height (DBH),
38 %
= Total Cover
regardless of height.
Woody
Vine Stratum
(Plot size:
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
1.
Smilax rotundifolia
5 %
Y
FAC
Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
2.
%
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
3.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
4.
%
height.
5.
%
5 %
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ® Yes ❑ No
Remarks: Dominance test is met. Note prevalence index is 3.44.
*Unidentified species of Carex is present. Assumed as FAC.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: SP-PKM-09
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) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-8 10YR 4/3 100 Sandy Loam
8-20 10YR 5/4 100 Sandv Loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains
Hydric Soil Indicators:
❑ Histosol (Al)
❑ Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑ Black Histic (A3)
❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
❑ Stratified Layers (A5)
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
❑ Sandy Redox (S5)
❑ Stripped Matrix (S6)
❑ Dark Surface (S7)
❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
❑ Depleted Matrix (F3)
❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
❑ Redox Depressions (F8)
❑ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 147, 148)
❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
❑ Red Parent Material (TF2)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
❑ Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present, unless
disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if observed): Hydric Soil Present?
Type: Depth (inches): ❑ Yes ® No
Remarks: No hydric soil indicators are present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

Appendix C - SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

Photograph C-1: View of Wetland SP-PKM-01, facing northeast.
Photograph C-2: View of Wetland SP-PKM-01, facing southwest.
Piedmont Natural Gas ♦ BURNS April 2019
Company Inc. `ME-DONNELL Johnston County, North Carolina
Line 472

Photograph C-3: View of Upland SP-PKM-02, facing northeast.
Photograph C-4: View of Upland SP-PKM-02, facing southwest.
Piedmont Natural Gas ♦ BURNS April 2019
Company Inc. `ME-DONNELL Johnston County, North Carolina
Line 472

1
a
•2
� � ty
a4a Y 'w !+� C
az
ddd g�y
� ify
h.
kl,
ilk
ir
c ,
J,
r

( Fg4
* M6• " �;5 ��T
g JJ _ ff
? F

F
z
T-

Ts"
tt 3f ¢ T S „
11 i�
�
a.e r 4� : rgi j2aFk�f y q
f p
pp
V
r
_ _ } _ �'- " �: a
�, i^•t.

Photograph C-15: View of Wetland SP-PKM-08, facing north.
Photograph C-16: View of Wetland SP-PKM-08, facing south.
Piedmont Natural Gas
Company Inc.
Line 472
` BURNS I April2019
ME-DONNELL Johnston County, North Carolina

� �
._ iR �1
R
..
A
� �r
X
air r
j
t c
a
�`' 2$
R� •_ pyy T
e� i_" '� y
4 � k
q
�:� =
� { -
� tl.:.
.� 1
� 7
-� 4 �i
;�, � �.
..
re' � . �
�C
� r '
,�„
x t � ��
,iNe...� t
$ � �� � �,
-- �,a. -
-
_.._. � ���- ��S
_'�
w_
..,
�F:
w _
fi
3 , �� +
> .
�
�' :'�'Y
.. � � ��;,
�,� <<
-
�_, --
� �,-
.
r _.�..
�_
�;

Photograph C-19: Upstream View of Stream Channel 01, S-1, facing west.
Photograph C-20: Downstream View of Stream Channel 01, S-1, facing east.
Piedmont Natural Gas ♦ BURNS April 2019
Company Inc. `ME-DONNELL Johnston County, North Carolina
Line 472

Photograph C-21: Upstream View of Stream Channel 02, S-2, facing east.
Photograph C-22: Downstream View of Stream Channel 02, S-2, facing west.
Piedmont Natural Gas ♦ BURNS April 2019
Company Inc. `MMONNELL Johnston County, North Carolina
Line 472