20130802 Ver 1_401 Application_20130813

July 31, 2013
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Attention: Mr. Craig Brown
N.C. Division of Water Quality
Wetlands, Buffers, Stormwater — Compliance and Permitting Unit
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Archdale Building — 9t' Floor
Attention: Ms. Karen Higgins
*S&ME
20730802
a��oee
AUG - 1 2013
Reference: Pre - Construction Notification: NWP No.12/WQC No. 3884
Duke University Natural Gas Pipeline Project
Orange & Durham County, North Carolina
S &ME Project No. 1356 -13 -004
Dear Mr. Brown and Ms. Higgins:
On behalf of Public Service Company of North Carolina (PSNC), S &ME, Inc. (S &ME)
hereby submits this Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) application for impacts to
waters of the U.S. in accordance with Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 12 and the
corresponding Water Quality Certification (WQC) No. 3884. PSNC plans to install
approximately 77,366 linear feet of 12 -inch diameter steel natural gas pipeline north of
the Town of Chapel Hill and west of the City of Durham in Orange and Durham County,
North Carolina. In support of this application, please find enclosed the following:
• Figure 1, 1A, & 1B: Site Location Maps
• Figure 2, 2A, & 2B : Soil Survey Maps
• Figure 3: 2012 Aerial Photograph Map
• Appendix I: PCN, Agent Authorization, NCDWQ WQC Application Fee ($240)
• Appendix II: USGS Topographic Maps (Figures 1 through 10)
• Appendix III: USACE & NCDWQ Information Spreadsheets
• Appendix IV: Jurisdictional Boundary Drawings & Impact Maps (Sheets 1 through 8)
• Appendix V: Wetland, Stream and Riparian Buffer Impact Summary Tables
• Appendix VI: Agency Scoping Correspondence (NCNHP, USFWS, SHPO)
• Appendix VII: NCDWQ & USACE Stream Rating Forms, USACE Data Forms
• Appendix VIII: Mitigation Acceptance Letters (Restoration Systems & EEP)
S &ME, INC. / 3201 Spring Forest Road / Raleigh, NC 27616 / p 919.872.2660 f 919.876.3958 / www.smeinc.com

Pre - Construction Notification SWE Project No. 1356 - 13-004
PSNC Duke University Natural Gas Pipeline Project July 31, 2012
This PCN is being provided to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE) for approval,
and complies with applicable conditions of NWP No. 12. This application is also being
submitted to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality ( NCDWQ) for approval
because the proposed project is located in an area subject to the Jordan Lake buffer
regulations. A copy of the completed PCN and Agent Authorization Form is included in
Appendix I.
GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION
As mentioned above, PSNC plans to install approximately 77,366 linear feet of 12 -inch
diameter steel natural gas pipeline north of the Town of Chapel Hill and west of the City
of Durham in Orange County and Durham County, North Carolina to enhance the
existing natural gas system for Duke University. The project corridor originates west of
Old Hwy 86 (35.969080 N, 79.11425° W) and terminates on the north side of Duke
University Road (35.99412° N, 78.93685° W). The approximate center of the project is
located at 35 °59'59" N, 79001'14" W.
The approximate location of the project corridor is depicted on the attached USGS
Topographic Quad Sheets (Appendix II). A majority of the project corridor parallels
existing NCDOT right -of -way. The proposed pipeline is located in the Piedmont
physiographic province in the Cape Fear River Basin. Land use in the vicinity of the
project corridor consists primarily of a mix of farm fields, forest, roadside and residential
areas.
The project as proposed will not result in a loss of waters of the U.S., but will convert
0.026 acre of forested wetlands to herbaceous wetlands. The project will also result in
0.076 acre of temporary wetland impact and 212 linear feet (If) of temporary impact to
stream channels within the project corridor. There are several crossings with no impacts
planned, as the pipeline will be installed via bore or horizontal directional drill (HDD),
collectively referred to as "trenchless crossings." and are detailed in the attached USACE
and NCDWQ Information Spreadsheets (Appendix III).
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED WORK
Construction of the new pipeline will first involve identification of the clearing limits,
followed by aboveground removal of woody vegetation from the proposed ROW by
mechanical means or hand - clearing, as appropriate. In wetland areas, efforts will be
made to remove surface vegetation in a manner that minimizes disturbance of the forest
floor and prevents exposure of soil. If necessary, a temporary equipment crossing will be
installed along one side of the ROW to facilitate equipment passage and prevent
excessive rutting and ground disturbance in the wetlands. Appropriate sediment and
erosion control measures are proposed to be installed to prevent sedimentation of
jurisdictional features as a result of construction. Streambank vegetation within the
corridor will be hand cleared, and introduction of logging debris into the creek are
proposed to be avoided to the extent practicable.
E,

Pre - Construction Notification SWE Project No. 1356 -13 -004
PSNC Duke University Natural Gas Pipeline Project July 31, 2012
Select portions of the ROW may require rough grading to facilitate safe passage of
equipment, and to prepare a suitably level work surface. Appropriate sediment and
erosion control measures will be installed following initial soil disturbance as the project
progresses. Within wetland areas where rutting may occur, timber mats are planned for
use to provide work and travel space for equipment.
During construction, the pipe will be strung and placed on skids (wooden pedestals)
along the ROW. Specialized machines will be used to bend individual segments of pipe
to fit the contours of the trench where necessary. The pipe segments will be welded
together and inspected for structural integrity, and then lowered into the trench. In areas
where segregation of the subsoil and topsoil is required (the segment of wetlands where
the pipe will be installed conventionally), the topsoil is proposed to be replaced last.
Affected areas are proposed to be "cleaned up" by rough - grading and application of
temporary seeding (if necessary), followed by final grading, permanent seeding and
mulching to restore the ROW as closely as possible to pre - disturbance contours and
conditions. Areas within wetlands that are disturbed are scheduled to be seeded with a
customized wetland seed mix.
JURISDICTIONAL AREAS
In March 2013, S &ME conducted a pedestrian review of the proposed project corridor to
delineate jurisdictional surface waters located therein. S &ME followed the procedures
set forth in the 1987 US Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and the
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Supplemental Guidance. Field conditions were
documented using USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms, as appropriate
and are included in Appendix VII. The field review also included identification of
tributaries (streams or ditches) within the project corridor. Drainage features identified
during the field review were assessed to determine the jurisdictional status of the
tributary. Drainage features were classified as either non jurisdictional or jurisdictional.
S &ME used the NCDWQ and USACE Stream Classification Forms to document
characteristics of identified drainage features on the day of the assessment and these
forms are included in Appendix VII for impacted streams.
Field review identified multiple regulated surface waters, and the limits of the
jurisdictional features were delineated by S &ME and subsequently identified with a
Trimble global- positioning system (GPS) unit capable of sub -meter accuracy. A site
meeting with the USACE and the NCDWQ was conducted on April 9, 2013 to confirm
our delineation. The delineated boundaries were surveyed by a registered land surveyor
(McKim & Creed) and mapped on impact drawings (Sheets 1 -8) in Appendix IV.
PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACTS
Wetland and stream impacts resulting from the proposed project are identified in the
respective tables located in Appendix V. Project -wide, 0.076 acre of wetlands are
proposed to be temporarilX- impacted during construction, and 0.026 acre of forested
wetlands are proposed to be converted to herbaceous wetlands. Approximately 2121f of
tributaries are planned to be temporarily- impacted by construction of the pipeline.
3

Pre - Construction Notification SWE Project No. 1356- 13-004
PSNC Duke University Natural Gas Pipeline Project July 31 2012
A majority of wetland impacts associated with the proposed project will result from
aboveground vegetation removal within the construction corridor, excavation of the
trench and temporary placement of the excavated material. Mechanized equipment will
need to access the corridor to remove felled timber, place timber mat where needed,
excavate the trench, install the pipe and restore the affected area. The project is proposed
to result in conversion of forested wetlands to herbaceous wetlands, but not result in a
loss of waters of the U.S.
Following construction, disturbed wetlands within the ROW will be restored to their
original grade and contour and seeded with a native wetland seed mix. Similarly,
temporarily affected stream channels will be returned to their pre - construction grade and
contour, seeded and stabilized with coir matting and woody vegetation.
PROTECTED SPECIES
To comply with applicable sections of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16
USC 1531- 1543), S &ME submitted scoping letters to the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program ( NCNHP) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS) on March
22, 2012. The scoping packages included USGS topographic maps and aerial
photographs of the project route, and requested that each agency review records they may
have relating to rare, endangered, or threatened species, or high quality natural
communities within the vicinity of the project corridor, and provide comment.
The NCNHP responded with a March 19, 2013 letter detailing records of rare species,
significant natural communities or significant natural heritage areas (SNHAs) or
conservation/managed areas within one mile of the project route. They recommended that
disturbance to SNHAs be avoided if possible, and that stations and block valve sites, and
other activities not contained within the NCDOT ROW be limited to areas outside of
designated SNHAs and care should also be taken to avoid impacts to the New Hope
Creek Aquatic Habitat SNHA and the rare aquatic species that occur in that reach of New
Hope Creek. They also recommended that PSNC work with the owners of managed areas
to minimize impacts to their property. In response, PSNC has avoided impacts to New
Hope Creek and a majority of the streams that are tributaries of New Hope Creek by
utilizing HDD crossing methods, and has held stakeholder meetings with Triangle Land
Conservancy, Duke Forest, and other owners affected by the project.
The USFWS responded with a March 22, 2013 letter in which they stated that the
proposed project was unlikely to affect federally- protected species, and that they believed
the requirements of Section 7(a) (2) of the ESA had been satisfied. The USFWS also
stated that they were concerned about potential impacts the project may have on aquatic
species. Accordingly, the USFWS recommended that directional boring be used at
stream crossings, and that stringent measures to control sediment and erosion should be
implemented.
Copies of the NCNHP and the USFWS correspondence letters are included in Appendix
VI. S &ME consulted the USFWS list of federally- protected species with documented
occurrences in Orange and Durham Counties, as summarized in Table 1 below:
4

Pre - Construction Notification SWE Project No. 1356 - 13-004
PSNC Duke University Natural Gas Pipeline Project July 31 2012
Table 1: Protected Species Summary
Species
Common Name
Federal Status"
Status
Rhus micheauxii
Michaux's sumac
E
Current
Echinacea laevi ata
Smooth coneflower
E
Current
Alasmidonta heterdon
Dwarf wed emussel
E
Current
Haliaeetus leucoce halus
Bald eagle
BGPA
Current
Picoides borealis
Red - cockaded wood ecker
E
Historic
E = Endangered; BGPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
Following project scoping and literature review, S &ME conducted field assessments for
the presence of federally- protected terrestrial species listed in Table 1. Descriptions of
the species and a summary of field review are provided below.
Michaux's sumac — Federally Listed Endangered
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Michaux's sumac is endemic to the inner Coastal Plain and lower Piedmont, grows in
sandy or rocky, open, upland woods on acidic or circumneutral, well - drained sands or
sandy loam soils with low cation exchange capacities. The species is also found on sandy
or submesic loamy swales and depressions in the fall line Sandhills region as well as in
openings along the rim of Carolina bays; maintained railroad, roadside, power line, and
utility rights -of -way; areas where forest canopies have been opened up by blowdowns
and/or storm damage; small wildlife food plots; abandoned building sites; under sparse to
moderately dense pine or pine/hardwood canopies; and in and along edges of other
artificially maintained clearings undergoing natural succession. In the central Piedmont,
it occurs on clayey soils derived from mafic rocks. The plant is shade intolerant and,
therefore, grows best where disturbance (e.g., mowing, clearing, grazing, periodic fire)
maintains its open habitat.
Suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac is present in the study area along roadside
shoulders and utility easements. Surveys were conducted by S &ME personnel
throughout areas of suitable habitat in March, 2013. No individuals of Michaux's sumac
were observed. A review of NCNHP records indicates no known occurrences within 1.0
mile of the study area
Smooth coneflower — Federally Listed Endangered
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Smooth coneflower is a perennial herb that grows up to 4.5 feet in height from a vertical
root. The leaves are light pink to purplish in color, and are smooth to slightly rough in
texture. The flowers are elliptical in shape and may reach 20 centimeters in length.
Flowering occurs from late May through mid -July and fruits develop from late June to
September, and the fruiting structures often persist through the fall.
The plant species grows in open woods, roadsides, clearcuts, power line rights -of way,
usually on magnesium and calcium rich soils associated with gabbro and diabase in North
5

Pre - Construction Notification SWE Project No. 1356- 13-004
PSNC Duke University Natural Gas Pipeline Project July 31 2012
Carolina. Optimal sites are characterized by abundant sunlight, and little competition in
the herbaceous layer.
During the field review, special attention was given to the areas along the utility line
corridor, roadside areas, farm path areas, and perimeters of other maintained clearings
onsite. No individuals of smooth coneflower were identified in these potentially suitable
areas. It is our opinion that the proposed project should not impact smooth coneflower or
its habitat.
Red - cockaded Woodpecker — Federally Listed Endangered
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
This species is listed as a historic occurrence within Orange County. Red - cockaded
woodpecker measures approximately seven inches long and has black and white
horizontal stripes on its back. The cheeks and underparts are white and the sides are
streaked in black. The cap and stripe on the throat and neck of the bird are black. Male
individuals of the species have a small red spot on each side of the black cap and display
a red crown patch after the first post - fledgling molt. The woodpecker's diet consists
primarily of insects.
Red - cockaded woodpecker's range is closely linked to the distribution of mature stands
of southern pines. Longleaf and loblolly pines that are 60 years old or greater are most
commonly selected for nesting and roosting trees. The woodpecker excavates nest and
roost cavities in trees that are stressed, and often are infected with red -heart rot fungus.
Preferred nesting sites generally include relatively open, park -like, mature pine stands
with a suppressed mid -story layer. Suppression of the mid -story by fire or mechanical
means in mature pine stands promotes colonization by the red - cockaded woodpecker.
Foraging habitat is frequently limited to pine or pine - hardwood stands that are 30 years
old or greater with a preference for pine trees with a diameter of 10 inches or larger.
Dense hardwood mid -story hampers foraging by red - cockaded woodpecker and increases
the occurrence of cavity competitors. The USFWS indicates that the maximum foraging
radius from a colony site for red - cockaded woodpecker's is typically one -half mile or
less.
The project corridor was visually assessed for the presence of potential red - cockaded
woodpecker foraging and nesting habitat during the March 2013 field review. Because
the project corridor is located in areas that are highly agricultural, no stands of pine were
observed that were mature enough to contain suitable nesting or foraging habitat for the
red - cockaded woodpecker. Therefore, it is not likely that the red - cockaded woodpecker
or potential habitat will be disturbed as a result of this project.
Bald Eagle — Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The bald eagle is a large raptor with a wingspan of approximately seven feet (2.1 meters).
Adult individuals of this species have a mainly dark brown plumage with a solid white

Pre - Construction Notification SWE Project No. 1356 -13-004
PSNC Duke University Natural Gas Pioeline Project July 31 2012
head and tail. Bald eagles develop adult plumage in the fifth or sixth year. Juveniles of
the species exhibit a chocolate brown to blackish plumage with occasional occurrences of
white mottling on the tail, belly, and under- wings. Bald eagle's primary diet consists of
fish. However, it will feed on birds, mammals, and turtles when fish are not available.
Bald eagles are associated with coasts, rivers, and lakes, usually nesting near large bodies
of water where it feeds. Nesting habitat in the Carolinas usually occurs in large pine trees
along the edge of large bodies of water. Bald eagle is listed as a current record for
Orange and Durham County. The project corridor is not located proximate to large
bodies of water. Additionally, no bald eagle nests were observed within visible
proximity of the project corridor by S &ME personnel during the March 2013 site visit.
Accordingly, it is unlikely that bald eagle will be adversely affected by this project.
HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
In response to a scoping letter and project location maps submitted by S &ME on
February 22, 2013, the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
responded with a March 25, 2013 letter stating that they had conducted a review of the
proposed project area and were aware of no historic resources that would be affected as a
result. Accordingly, the SHPO had no further comment on the project. A copy of the
SHPO letter is included in Appendix VI.
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
The majority of the new natural gas pipeline construction and associated disturbances
proposed will be located within existing roadway right -of -ways of varying width along
Old NC 86, Eubanks Road, Millhouse Road, Mt. Sinai Road, Kerley Road, NC Highway
751, Erwin Road, Lemur Lane, Cameron Boulevard, and Duke University Road. These
roadway right -of -ways are owned by the North Carolina Department of Transportation.
The width of the permanently- maintained ROW will be reduced to 10 feet within
wetlands and at stream crossings. Construction equipment operating within wetlands will
be limited to that necessary for clearing, excavation, pipe installation and restoration
activities. Wetland vegetation outside of the trench line will be cut at ground level,
leaving existing root systems in place to promote re- growth. Where possible, streams
located within the project corridor will be crossed utilizing HDD construction techniques
avoiding impacts altogether.
The proposed construction area related to stream crossings will be limited to
approximately 15 feet, or less, of stream bank disturbance. The contractor has the option
to conduct the crossings using either the "pump around bypass" method or by using a
flume. The contractor shall restore disturbed stream banks to original contours, to the
fullest extent practical, once pipeline construction is complete. No wastes, spoils, solids
or fills will be placed within wetlands, waters, or riparian areas beyond the limits of those
depicted on the drawings. No rip -rap or temporary matting shall be installed within the
streambed. If construction activities require equipment to cross the stream, temporary
bridging will be used.
7

Pre - Construction Notification S &ME Project No. 1356 - 13-004
PSNC Duke University Natural Gas Pipeline Project July 31 2012
Following installation of a riparian seed mix shown in Table 2 below on affected
streambanks, temporary matting shall be installed on the stream banks from the toe of
bank to a point extending 5 feet landward of the top of bank. The stream banks shall be
protected by a double row of silt fence prior to and immediately following construction
activities related to the stream crossing. These rows of silt fence will remain in place
until construction activities approach the stream crossing and shall be replaced
immediately after conducting the stream crossing.
Table 2: Riparian Seed Mix*
Species
Common Name
Percentage of Miz_
El mus vir inicus
Virginia wild rye
15
Panicum virgatum
Switch grass
15
A rostis stolinifera
Creeping bent grass
10
Rudbeckia hirta, NC ecotype
Black-eyed Susan
10
Cored sis lanceolate
Lance leaf tickseed
10
Panicum clandestinum
Deer tongue
10
Andro o on gerardii
Bio bluestem
05
Juncus effusus
Soft rush
05
Echinochloa muricata
Awned barnyard grass
05
Schizach rium sco arium
Little bluestem
05
Sorghastrum nutans
Indian grass
05
Tri sacum dactyloides
Gamma grass
05
100
'Riparian Seed Mix to be applied to all disturbed streambanks, extending five feet landward following construction.
*Recommended application rate: 20-25 lbs. per acre
Prior to pipeline construction during the clearing and grubbing phase in wetland areas,
two rows of silt fence spaced two feet apart shall be installed perpendicular to the
construction easement 10 feet from the wetland area to minimize potential disturbance to
the wetland and maintain a 10 -foot wide undisturbed buffer. This silt fence may be
removed only during construction activities associated with the wetland crossing.
The wetland crossing shall be restored to original contours, to the extent practical, once
construction is completed. Temporary mats, or similar methods, will be used to cross
wetland areas during construction. Wattles or bales of hay may be installed parallel to
the spoils piles to help prevent sediment from leaving the disturbed area and entering
adjacent undisturbed wetland areas.
Following construction, two rows of silt fence spaced two feet apart shall be installed
perpendicular to the construction easement at the wetland crossing to minimize potential
disturbance to the wetland. Disturbed areas associated with temporary wetland crossings
will be stabilized with a native seed mix shown in Table 3 below following construction.
This seed mix will be installed to provide immediate coverage of disturbed soil, and will
cover the disturbed wetlands from the jurisdictional boundary extending five feet
landward.
N

Pre - Construction Notification SWE Project No. 1356 - 13-004
PSNC Duke University Natural Gas Pir)eline Project July 31 2012
Table 3: Wetland Seed Mix*
Species
Common Name
Percents a of Mix
El mus ri arius
Riverbank wild rye
20
A rostis stolonifera
Creeping bent grass
15
Carex vul inoidea
Fox sedge
12
Panicum virgatum
Switch grass
15
Poa palustris
Fowl bluegrass
15
Dichanthelium clandestinum
Deer tongue
08
Bidens aristosa
Bidens
04
Juncus effusus, NC Ecotype
Soft rush
04
Aster lateriflorus
Calico aster
03
Sa ittaria latifolia
Duck potato
02
Saururus cemuus
Lizards tail
02
100
-wetland Seed Mix to be applied to all wetland areas extending five feet landward following construction.
*Recommended application rate: 20-25 lbs. per acre
Additionally, construction equipment operating within wetlands are planned to be limited
to that necessary for clearing, excavation, pipe installation and restoration activities. To
the extent practicable, wetland topsoil is proposed to be segregated from the underlying
subsoil in areas disturbed by trenching, except in areas with standing water or saturated
soils, or where no topsoil is evident.
ADDITIONAL REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
Jordan Lake Riparian Buffer Rules
The project is subject to the Jordan Lake riparian buffer rules. The project proposes to
impact 5,418 sf of Zone 1 buffer and 3,504 sf of Zone 2 buffer. Although a majority of
the impacts are temporary, 1,324 sf of currently wooded buffer will be permanently -
maintained as grassed ROW and therefore mitigation will be provided for this permanent
conversion.
To determine the project's applicability to the buffer rules, S &ME reviewed the project
corridor with NCDWQ (Martin Richmond) on April 9, 2013. NCDWQ stated that the
proposed pipeline crossing is considered "allowable" with written authorization from
NCDWQ, and compliance with applicable best management practices (BMPs).
Sediment and Erosion Control
Appropriate sediment and erosion control practices outlined in the most recent version of
the "North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual' and
approved by the local governing authority shall be in compliance with specifications
governing the proper design, installation, operation and maintenance of such BMPs to
comply with the appropriate turbidity water quality standard.
0

Pre - Construction Notification SWE Project No. 1356 -13 -004
PSNC Duke University Natural Gas Pipeline Project July 31 2012
MITIGATION
The project is proposed to result in conversion of 0.026 acre of forested wetlands to
herbaceous wetlands. The 0.026 acres of the conversion impacts are to riparian wetlands.
PSNC proposes to satisfy its mitigation requirement by purchasing the necessary wetland
and buffer mitigation credit within the Cape Fear River Basin (HUC 03030002) from a
combination of available private bank (wetland) and the North Carolina Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (buffer).
Accordingly, 0.03 acre of riparian wetland credit is planned for purchase from
Restoration Systems Cripple Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank, and 1,324 sq.
ft. of buffer mitigation credit from the NCEEP. With respect to riparian buffer
mitigation, PSNC is required to purchase 3,972 credits (see Riparian Buffer Impact Table
in Appendix V). Letters from the respective providers are included in Appendix VIII.
Mitigation for wetland impacts that do not exceed one acre is not required by NCDWQ,
and because the project as proposed will not result in permanent stream impacts, stream
mitigation is not required.
Mitigation has also been provided by avoidance and minimization procedures
implemented during the design phase of the proposed project. Impacts will be minimized
by: 1) paralleling an existing, maintained ROW where possible; 2) use of trenchless pipe
installation; and 3) reducing the width of the permanent maintenance corridor to 10 feet.
As proposed, the project will comply with applicable conditions of NWP No. 12 and
WQC No. 3884. The width of the permanently- maintained ROW will not exceed 10 feet
in wetlands and at stream crossings. The proposed alignment also makes use of existing,
maintained areas to the extent practicable. Following construction, affected jurisdictional
areas are scheduled to be restored to their original grade and contour. As proposed, the
project will not result in permanent changes in pre - construction elevation contours or
affect dimension, pattern or profile of affected streams.
SECONDARY AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The primary purpose of the project is to enhance the existing natural gas system for Duke
University. Accordingly, the project is not considered growth - inducing and is not
intended to serve as an impetus for expansion of development, and should not result in
secondary impacts, or contribute to cumulative impacts.
10

Pre - Construction Notification SWE Project No. 1356 - 13-004
PSNC Duke University Natural Gas Pipeline Project July 31 2012
CLOSING
By copy of this correspondence and completed PCN, we are requesting your written
concurrence with this NWP No. 12 permit application. If you have questions or need
additional information, please feel free to contact us at 919.872.2660.
Sincerely,
S &ME
Walter Cole, LSS, REHS
Project Manager
wcole e,smeinc.com
11

,"`'._" -r��!y
`!! �' J ' ,.T,_ ...: E RD N NDYHILLRD Rhode.sG �� •~•• •h y.j,t,Q•
Meaoo f..�►'�� m WcoR %moo
HIGH I If/
1 00
t i ` o
ed7ri b• i pna� Pied untainCre
aoa� i,° Oa+• eO
3 •' . • ZgROGK WF <�G 9¢f �• a- r I L
RET/DR P, �tib � •�
z F.� ,
aFYI ;;"Or a �,•. „�• Jrc a m, arrib
JN Zoo R ;0
't�AD u h as m D sO � olyd K\ F ISNE R .
L
1`
I �, � � l4 � }°'•�y ZO � Goy °, oQ'
Gonarne `0' JR�� �pQQp rmn
. -. _ v p� FA I I O 1 a p0
In �'�,,,• Jcc BLOCK VALVE 1 l x
oc 3 `RL�ay vO g' p� 90� t' SITE N f m<
twx
A .-• 7 y� z Z /q
PEPPE �Ag�';0' z y� ` Gteeµ fj
` ./•'�i �.� 0- o} ` o N New H09 e
PEE�RO '-"•,�""3 y o STONER/ 'r'•..•'�'•,` '+�' ( �'.! v
,.MOUNTAING
,o s
Gte C
m � MIMO
UOta`c GA iLEAN TRL y O _ DR o 4 �O,P /rR< I• D .o
tJ`-o� 1�n 1.�t'I \S RD [r) � ? .c L.D RZ r...•., - i ... 7 w
p DOAK— - I- g i /i WRIT.._. yirio' B ranc I.. !
It V ib 4d�i KIRK ON -+ m Z / t° h !JI
Unname ' �o� v�OD 4G•� c O o ,• 9!
E RD � Tr- bOA LY DR tZ i
,_q $RUNTR C` f and 6 A a< kyt fA A �,•
wG.J o' O I
? yOG� • L v CN1: RD A� k
-4 ea
•yI �i 1 N Un L Unna1P O
3 O /q� r , 4 6 teamed TribEK D §
6 ZdTr ib. aCreek' ' 1
r B F. SiJ - t4p
med (rib.' - gpL1KST NO�rHWp .� ! Po t ” tgoW
Unna y� n� CeyarF - °o� WEAVER DAIR c .� L
EO 4 ' !, GREEN •�,.' -�•"j
coTSOa\1;TU s" A�� . Rye �U st
T 5�
y _ C?'eS C q� NOS GIN
KANGAROO
of
X
X
X
�IAMERICAN pR �2 DR rl FPF�4i
U
0
1• v Rio pRAST 51 0 F �HiVST
N
>
iI•"" 6 ; SCI, f- eRWIN RD
Z
w0
W
Rc D . z
yWy j'i "'/op
_
tint w�
S, p 3•J ; - ---I � 3 T A t' O
N
CD 0
1t n, , 1 J a �,. •
IPA o; o
G+'�namedTr- m e= i'?�j T01,3, , O- ffi M = w
i 1,.,�. -i'` eR �rFW pR A E N DT I I z
.` Unnatn d Tr;b. v c, J REGULATO yiTpORp p „ ia`� PR EJECT o
.n.✓ t'r•�r !� EMU :� �,
STATION R z �C?
F, O
med l t F N e <VO o �.�p J Z LL
', ,I v a�OQ'oy`"`� pIKE,?T° ate. � w
��� ,1 :� +•►,•.G rAFR KIN S RO..,
COQ �yy � �F wR,OHTW 000 AvE - C
PRINCE ST G
of O i z V• Rp _ SFy r NFCRe �O 0
�� 920 ai I O
F
TR YO D ,n n WOODBUFN Rp Uj
S pR". '°V A ryRp 9 •` � �r � Z � 0 p �cb'0
o 0
AjEO, � -- - > .F 0 D Do � Ao p a Z
ZONEG 3 w w z �y• ' �
!n
3 6¢ w F Ro s
i o m
_vA Cr
U/
IT �
1l
KE RO ' � � OP - �... T y�y
o � M 3 v0..
tuk . •' A Q"I Z
WOOD OR WATERBURY DRa9 9 Or r A i Z
O m o
.. _ OO•,ITq,.:> rur�p4 iL p S 5s ➢� ERA Q
E�1jo u ilh c1 i Ary P P VA(L =,` m Pip \N U7 Z
kWW : E I'R - Z
O '�O`1'T MARTIN C'UrFiER KING JR PKWY i' W O
N TARIK DR Z W Q
t Lam, ll U
O• °rkv Y n
�6�D c rGO <9 A TuN� R y �y RHO �w �'� �.14p °� OUrHW
0p e T =- o �/ T W �,FRADR QVv " ' +m0, NGLIYVOOOD'D �...�•^'•'.FFI���,O 2 cSO .C,_
! , -•" ?� G
�^ p F Z
0J 3 i "-"� N NGS
v' C'�a dTrib jo P O 1 � •k C,Q' ,.i c
rti q ZOt �''`
CYLNf ° T 9� � 2m 1:... 'A T� • r� ,4, � �A4 � S,IER_LI <N• +G��DR r ol* .,� �,,,.s"••..�t o G
7 V1 1.17ZIE 1_1.1 i �F �� p ~ ..r ..�.. _:.YSUCK LE,Q �O .....� .,O y� A
TAKE OFF UBLIN D Z ! R 6 O E51DE DR MILY`RO O��• p� �H I� O O� O s9 4O� 1� = HA
• C OLD CHAPEL HILL RD
STATION Jones Y ST AT r o c P m
P o F �
�• \.V C^P t PLAY MFR w•[ LAURENS W oA _. .d. 1 0 Po OHO o a m °�ORL
•�` yOr S i DIXIE LN ,-E 5'1 'LAWN Rp v-, L-0 i � O O� .+• �- DURHAM RD. 'I p � O � �., O �
ed Trib: o PPp p0 .r- o F` oLD v 9 1S� R ..
TON R ep i+ RFy BILLABONGLN UMam ..� I- l4 �o? - 'o �0 6 r
� ' q�boin Branch Nq RO .f�..- �+•''��RD .x� A a o SUMMER �IN'DR �w Oo S OR ">' NOR ^ iI A a P Q (1
BEGIN I'�' -� RO OM! ESTEAD'., p A� R SEMINOLED4R �p Off,- &i O N01S 5 j Clark.Lake,..•+."o `'y GN \Go
PROJEC O L ,IN,oRE `'� , `.. - �_� `ti.c�� `''�pR r��u. ;� oe`` Eastwood 000 O2� C ! FIRESIDEOR,,_ 2
C oNC O Yn O G� LAKE ELLEO. sl r vL �a y-
REFERENCE: g BAKER Q ROSTREET GIs DATA WAS OBTAINED FROM THE REFERENCED COUNTIES. STREAM AND WATERBODY DATAWAS OBTAINED FROM THE NATIONAL a( � E IA t,
HYDROGRAPHY DATASET AND NRCS SOIL MAPS. PIPEALIGNMENT INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED FROM PSNC ENERGY. PLEASE NOTE THIS MAP IS FOR ¢ •"' I- p c' O"vOJ E01'ROC i NEWTON'DR, T E
INFORMATIONALPURPOSESONLY. IT IS NOT MEANT FOR DESIGN, LEGAL, OR ANY OTHER USES. THERE ARE NO GUARANTEESABOUT ITS ACCURACY N o �� r FEUR NRO �I� j EPHFSUSS'CHURCNRO R N
.� -•. . KNELL 101T RD P _N fPHfSUSGN
S &ME, INC. ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DECISION MADE OR ANYACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION._ll� `
Q
C K _.,� , a _• �0 Ac �v N 3 L) i 4c, / �C� I I i i I �
F- E
I halt•
Legend a J o
L d D; W
F ,r
12" Steel Pipeline o co W
m
c
�s * Natural Gas Facility < o
r✓t,U..n..
Streets Q 2
y
W Z Q g
2
'Trib Py� Railroads V5
c
�•'�,� • —• —•• Stream or Tributary > W N
A Z U a
Waterbody W W
County Boundary o z
Jr
rN'� FIGURE NO.
0 3,500 7,000
°1 Feet 1

7,
A
(Z'
zmm, 11''J V.
<
cn -Z7.
0 —0 m 2 m
0 4 4,
Oz
IS I r yt N f ♦ 0 -<M >0 G) m _6Z—, r L
IS
2;u a 0
m
r,:b
w
mz ell
- c>
3
0�
z
> �—A V
m Z> om
>
ox Z' Z'
2: Cn tn K
>M>5j
tv
>,-, '- ;0'1 .0
>' wo 'n 6' r2n f)
t
z z %I
4
1100 Fzp 0. -.1
z 0 mz
Ik
�Z 50
K Fn
V,
71—
�,N
m p0
m 0 s—
M -
'0:
U3
)o zt
>. > >
m
mc) c(n, o z 0
A
lcz�zm N
A
2u- -K
2: -11' m Jr 0 0 0-1
D L I
A
J6
r4e"
R,
L7-
S
R,
4
-ON
g0
, ! . .1. - � 4 �
" 11 '4' -3 - * —
'-t'I'
r
JI : I
V �j
ff
-7— A.
–kwo\
_nU
--
-T j- j
%
J
11 'let
'0.
c
V.- n %
N�
iF, 7,
1) \v
A
V.
L z
-7
� kf–t-
z
0-
k L--
ev
m
m
CD
>
G)
T Z
` `;fir :`\ " +` 1.�J `� v �- ` i =-`' �! j �r'Jf rJ/ — —f'` ��`el ��r 1 1/ T D -�~ . 4 _
N Cl -n 3 75: je U
(D
0 arm' vv�e
CD
%
(D
(D
SCALE: DAT E:
04/29/13
1 2,000'
m
z SITE LOCATION MAP (LISGS) PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY
> 9 ���� 1356 -13 -004, PH. 01 CXR
DUKE UNIVERSITY NATURAL GAS PIPELINE EXTENSION ENGINEERING LICENSE NO. CHECKED BY,
ORANGE & DURHAM COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA WWW.SMEINC.COM
F -0176 K13
Q:\135aPSNC\2013 E&S Plans (1356-13-004)\Pftase 01 - Duke UniversityVigure lAmxd

�5i
'Y
r r r r ♦' 41 ti
1 '+
.I R
' . .,�j n� � �.. "�' ^nom ♦
I'rSlfy� I.
T

Appendix I

\O�ot W ATF9QG
y
o �
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre - Construction Notification PCN Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit ❑Section 10 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 12 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes
® No
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ® Riparian Buffer Authorization
le. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
❑ Yes ® No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes ® No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in -lieu
fee program.
® yes
❑ No
1g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
❑ Yes
® No
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes
® No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project:
Duke University Natural Gas Pipeline Extension
2b. County:
Orange & Durham
2c. Nearest municipality / town:
Carrboro, Durham
2d. Subdivision name:
N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
N/A
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
3b. Deed Book and Page No.
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
3d. Street address:
3e. City, state, zip:
3f. Telephone no.:
3g. Fax no.:
3h. Email address:
Page 1 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is:
❑ Agent ® Other, specify: Utility Company
4b. Name:
George Ratchford
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
Public Service Company of North Carolina (PSNC)
4d. Street address:
800 Gaston Road P.O. Box 1398
4e. City, state, zip:
Gastonia, NC 28056
4f. Telephone no.:
(704) 834 -6621
4g. Fax no.:
(704) 810 -3220
4h. Email address:
george.ratchford @scana.com
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name:
Walter Cole, L.S.S.
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
S &ME, Inc.
5c. Street address:
3201 Spring Forest Road
5d. City, state, zip:
Raleigh, NC 27616
5e. Telephone no.:
(919) 872 -2660
5f. Fax no.:
(919) 876 -3958
5g. Email address:
wcole @smeinc.com
Page 2 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
Project is a linear utility line
Latitude: origin: 35.96908° N; terminus: 35.99412° N
1b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Longitude: - odgin:79.11425° W; terminus:78.93685° W
(DD.DDDDDD) (- DD.DDDDDD)
1c. Property size:
Approximately 26.5 (disturbed) acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
Old Field Creek, New Hope Creek, Piney Mountain
proposed project:
Creek, Mud Creek, Sandy Creek
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
WS IV & V; NSW
2c. River basin:
Cape Fear River
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
Land use in the vicinity of the project corridor consists primarily of a mix of agricultural and residential areas, forest,
roadside, open or other disturbed and /or maintained areas. The proposed right -of -way (ROW) is predominantly roadside,
but does pass through a forested wetland area and multiple stream channels. The proposed ROW will abut an existing
roadway, electric, sewer line, and /or railroad easement.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
Approximately 1.9 acre
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
Approximately 1,898 linear feet
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
PSNC plans to construct a natural gas pipeline north of the Town of Chapel Hill and west of the City of Durham in Orange
County and Durham County, North Carolina to enhance the existing natural gas system for Duke University.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The project includes the installation of approximately 77,366 linear feet of 12 -inch diameter steel pipeline.Construction of
the pipeline may include clearing and grubbing throughout the workspaces, as well as excavating a trench to place the
pipeline within the workspace. Typical equipment used in utility/pipeline installation will be used.
Page 3 of 12
PCN Form —Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
®Yes [I No El Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments:
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
® Preliminary ❑ Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Agency /Consultant Company: S &ME, Inc.
Name (if known):
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
In February and March 2013, S &ME conducted a pedestrian review of the proposed project corridor to delineate
jurisdictional surface waters located therein. S &ME followed the procedures set forth in the 1987 US Army Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and the Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Supplemental Guidance.
Field conditions were documented using USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms, as appropriate. The field
review also included identification of tributaries (streams) within the project corridor. Drainage features identified during
the field review were assessed to determine the jurisdictional status of the tributary. Drainage features were classified as
either non jurisdictional or jurisdictional. S &ME used the NCDWQ and USACE Stream Classification Form to document
characteristics of identified drainage features on the day of the assessment. A site meeting with the USACE and the
NCDWQ was conducted on April 9, 2013 to confirm our delineation. The delineated boundaries were surveyed by a
registered land surveyor (McKim & Creed) and mapped on impact drawings (Sheets 1-8).
S. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
❑ Yes ® No ❑ Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
N/A
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
N/A
Page 4 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
® Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ® Buffers
❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
2b.
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f.
Wetland impact
Type of jurisdiction
number —
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
(Corps - 404, 10
Area of impact
Permanent (P) or
(if known)
DWQ — non -404, other)
(acres)
Tem ora T
W1 ❑ P [-IT
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
2h. Comments: See Wetland Impact Table in Appendix V
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
3b.
3c.
3d.
3e.
3f.
3g.
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial
Type of jurisdiction
Average
Impact
number -
(PER) ) or
(Corps - 404, 10
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
intermittent
DWQ — non -404,
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(INT)?
other)
(feet)
feet)
S1 ❑ P [--IT
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
3i. Comments: See Stream Impact Table in Appendix V.
Page 5 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
4b.
4c.
4d.
4e.
Open water
Name of waterbody
impact number -
(if applicable)
Type of impact
Waterbody type
Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
01 ❑P ❑T
02 ❑P ❑T
03 ❑P ❑T
04 ❑ PC] T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments: No open -water impacts will occur.
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, th en complete the chart below.
5a.
5b.
5c.
5d.
5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
Stream Impacts (feet)
Upland
Pond ID
Proposed use or purpose
(acres)
number
of pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWO)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar - Pamlico ❑ Other:
Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman
6b.
6c.
6d.
6e.
6f.
6g.
Buffer impact
number -
Reason
Buffer
Zone 1 impact
Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or
for
Stream name
mitigation
(square feet )
(square feet)
Temporary T
impact
re uired?
61 ❑ PC] T
❑Yes
❑ No
132 ❑ PEI T
❑Yes
❑ No
133 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments: See Riparian Buffer Impact Table in Appendix V.
Page 6 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
The majority of the new natural gas pipeline construction and associated disturbances proposed will be located within existing
roadway right -of -ways of varying width along Old NC 86, Eubanks Road, Millhouse Road, Mt. Sinai Road, Kerley Road, NC
Highway 751, Erwin Road, Lemur Lane, Cameron Boulevard, and Duke University Road. These roadway right -of -ways are
owned by the North Carolina Department of Transportation.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
The width of the permanently- maintained ROW will be reduced to 10 feet within wetlands and at stream crossings.
Construction equipment operating within wetlands will be limited to that necessary for clearing, excavation, pipe installation
and restoration activities. Wetland vegetation outside of the trench line will be cut at ground level, leaving existing root
systems in place to promote re- growth. To the extent practicable, wetland topsoil will be segregated from the underlying
subsoil in areas disturbed by trenching, except in areas with standing water or saturated soils, or where no topsoil is evident.
Where possible, streams located within the project corridor will be crossed utilizing HDD construction techniques avoiding
impacts altogether.
The proposed construction area related to stream crossings will be limited to approximately 15 feet, or less, of stream bank
disturbance. The contractor has the option to conduct the crossings using either the "pump around bypass" method or by
using a flume. The contractor shall restore disturbed stream banks to original contours, to the fullest extent practical, once
pipeline construction is complete. No wastes, spoils, solids or fills will be placed within wetlands, waters, or riparian areas
beyond the limits of those depicted on the drawings. No rip -rap or temporary matting shall be installed within the streambed.
If construction activities require equipment to cross the stream, temporary bridging will be used.
Following installation of a specialized stream bank seed mix, temporary matting of North American Green Type C -125, or
engineer approved equivalent, shall be installed on the stream banks from the toe of bank to a point extending 5 feet landward
of the top of bank. The stream banks shall be protected by a double row of silt fence prior to and immediately following
construction activities related to the stream crossing. These rows of silt fence will remain in place until construction activities
approach the stream crossing and shall be replaced immediately after conducting the stream crossing.
Prior to pipeline construction during the clearing and grubbing phase in wetland areas, two rows of silt fence spaced two feet
apart shall be installed perpendicular to the construction easement 10 feet from the wetland area to minimize potential
disturbance to the wetland and maintain a 10 -foot wide undisturbed buffer. This silt fence may be removed only during
construction activities associated with the wetland crossing.
The wetland crossings shall be restored to original contours, to the extent practical, once construction is completed.
Temporary mats, or similar methods, will be used to cross wetland areas during construction. Wattles or bales of hay may be
installed parallel to the spoils piles to help prevent sediment from leaving the disturbed area and entering adjacent undisturbed
wetland areas.
Following construction, two rows of silt fence spaced two feet apart shall be installed perpendicular to the construction
easement at the wetland crossing to minimize potential disturbance to the wetland. Disturbed areas associated with
temporary wetland crossings will be stabilized with a native seed mix following construction. This seed mix will be installed to
provide immediate coverage of disturbed soil, and will cover the disturbed wetlands from the jurisdictional boundary extending
five feet landward.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
® Yes ❑ No
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ® Corps
® Mitigation bank
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
El Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
Page 7 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank: Cripple Creek Stream & Wetland Mitigation Bank - see attached cover letter and credit
acceptance documentation in Appendix VIII.
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type Riparian
Wetland
Quantity 0.03
3c. Comments: 0.03 acres of riparian wetland mitigation credit will be purchased from Restoration Systems, LLC.
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑ Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
0 linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
❑ warm ❑ cool ❑cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
0 square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
0 acres
4f. Non - riparian wetland mitigation requested:
0 acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
0 acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
N/A
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation?
® Yes ❑ No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
Permanent Maintenance
1324
3 (2 for Catawba)
3,972
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
3,972
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
Payment into EEP in -lieu fee fund - see attached credit acceptance documentation from EEP in Appendix VIII.
6h. Comments:
Page 8 of 12
PCN Form —Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
® Yes ❑ No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
Comments: Project is a linear utility constructed belowground. The ROW will remain
❑ Yes ® No
grassed with no impervious surfaces.
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
<1 %
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ® No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: Project will not result in additional
impervious surface
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
N/A
❑ Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ DWQ Stormwater Program
❑ DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
❑ Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally- implemented stormwater management programs
❑ NSW
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑ Coastal counties
4a. Which of the following state- implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ HQW
❑ ORW
(check all that apply):
❑ Session Law 2006 -246
❑ Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 9 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
la. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal /state /local) funds or the
❑ Yes ® No
use of public (federal /state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑ Yes ❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.)
❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments: N/A
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑ Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after - the -fact permit application?
❑ Yes ® No
2c. If you answered `yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s): N/A
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑ Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
The project is not considered "growth- inducing" in that its purpose is to provide natural gas service to an existing
educational institution.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non - discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
The project is a natural gas pipeline and will not generate waste water.
Page 10 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
® Yes ❑ No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
® Yes No
❑
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
® Raleigh
❑ Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
To comply with applicable sections of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 USC 1531 - 1543), S &ME submitted
scoping letters to the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program ( NCNHP) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS)
on February 22, 2013. The scoping packages included USGS topographic maps and aerial photographs of the project
route, and requested that each agency review records they may have relating to rare, endangered, or threatened species,
or high quality natural communities within the vicinity of the project corridor, and provide comment.
The NCNHP responded with a March 19, 2013 letter detailing records of rare species, significant natural communities or
significant natural heritage areas (SNHAs) or conservation /managed areas within one mile of the project route. They
recommended that disturbance to SNHAs be avoided if possible, and that stations and block valve sites, and other
activities not contained within the NCDOT ROW be limited to areas outside of designated SNHAs and care to avoid
impacts to New Hope Creek Aquatic Habitat SNHA and the rare aquatic species that occur in that reach of New Hope
Creek should also be taken. They also recommended that PSNC work with the owners of managed areas to minimize
impacts to their property. In response, PSNC has avoided impacts to New Hope Creek and a majority of the streams that
are tributaries of New Hope Creek by utilizing HDD crossing methods, and has held stakeholder meetings with Triangle
Land Conservancy, Duke Forest, and other owners affected by the project.
The USFWS responded with a March 22, 2013 letter in which they stated that the proposed project was unlikely to affect
federally - protected species, and that they believed the requirements of Section 7(a) (2) of the ESA had been satisfied.
The USFWS also stated that they were concerned about potential impacts the project may have on aquatic species.
Accordingly, the USFWS recommended that directional boring be used at stream crossings, and that stringent measures
to control sediment and erosion should be implemented.
Copies of the NCNHP and the USFWS correspondence letters are included in Appendix VI.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
FE] Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
hnp: // ocean. floddamadne .org /efh_coralfiims /viewer.htm
Page 11 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes ® No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
In response to a scoping letter and project location maps submitted by S &ME on February 22, 2013, the North Carolina
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) responded with a March 25, 2013 letter stating that they had conducted a
review of the proposed project area and were aware of no historic resources that would be affected as a result.
Accordingly, the SHPO had no further comment on the project. A copy of the April 13, 2012 SHPO letter is included in
Appendix VI.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA- designated 100 -year floodplain?
® Yes ❑ No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: The project will comply with FEMA regulations.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? Available FEMA mapping
Walter Cole, L.S.S.
v
07.31.13
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Applicant/Agent's Signature
Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided.)
Page 12 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

'41 1
AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
Project Information
S&ME Project Name: Duke University Natural Gas Pipeline Project - PSNC
Type of Project: Preliminary Jurisdictional Delineation — Non- electric Utility
Location: Located between Hwy 86 and Duke University Campus in Orange
& Durham County, North Carolina.
Property Owner/Representative Information
Business Name:
Mailing Address:
City, State, Zip Code:
�j
Telephone No.
Z
Contact:
Ov.
Agent Information
Business Name:
Street Address:
City, State, Zip Code:
Telephone No.
Contact;
S &ME, Inc.
3201 Spring Forest Road
Raleigh, NC 27616
919- 872 -2660
Mr. Walter Cole
Authorization: I tow & eaWd on behalf of
(Con t Signature) 0 1-1
hi C FOP tl hereby authorize
(Name of Lando or Representative)
S&ME to act as agent with the USCAE in connection with the
above - mentioned project.

Appendix H

Appendix III

PSNC Energy: Duke University Pipeline Project
Orange Durham Counties, North Carolina
Proiect No. 1356 -13 -004. PH. 01
USACE INFORMATION
MAP
FEATURE
NUMBER
FLAG SERIES
FEATURE TYPE
REPRESENTED'
NAD 83
LATITUDE
DECIDEGREES
NAD 83
LONGITUDE
DECIDEGREES
WETLAND / STREAM2
TYPE
ESTIMATED AMOUNT
OF AQUATIC RESOURCE
IN REVIEW AREA'
PROPOSED
IMPACT TYPE
(HDD, Conventional Bore, or Open Cut)
A
A 1 -6
Stream UT to Buckhorn Branch
35.957659
- 79.107535
Seasonal RPW
24 LF
Open Cut
B
B 1-6
Stream UT to Buckhom Branch
35.960951
- 79.107551
Seasonal RPW
13 LF
No Impact
C/W1
C 1 -8/W1 1 -10
Wetland /Stream Complex, Jones Creek
35.964335
- 79.107343
Bottomland
Hardwood/Year -round
RPW
C 107 LF / W1 3,979 SF
Stream Impact - Open Cut, Wetland - No
Impact
CC
CC1 -CC8
Stream UT to Jones Creek
35.966235
- 79.104233
Seasonal RPW
20 LF
Open Cut
W3
W31-6
Wetland
35.967593
- 79.100770
Headwater Wetland
362 SF
No Impact
D
D 1-6
Stream UT to Bolin Creek
35.966177
- 79.092418
Year -round RPW
37 LF
No Impact
E
E 1-6
Stream UT to Bolin Creek
35.966102
- 79.091746
Seasonal RPW
49 LF
No Impact
F/W4
F1-6/ W4 1-4
Wetland /Stream Complex, UT to Old Field
Creek
35.969400
- 79.077124
Emergent Floodplain/
Year -round RPW
F 25 LF / W4 1,928 SF
Open Cut
F (1)
WB 1 -16
UT to Old Field Creek
35.970242
- 79.076041
Year -round RPW
88 LF
Open Cut
F (2)
WA 1 -13
Old Field Creek
35.970372
- 79.075966
Year -round RPW
113 LF
Open Cut
W12
WC 1 -27
Wetland
35.969976
- 79.075971
Bottomland Hardwood
8,050 SF
Open Cut
WE
WE 1 -10, NW 1 -11
Wetland
35.976238
- 79.077021
Bottomland Hardwood
12,146 SF
Open Cut
F (3)
NA
Non - jurisdictional drainage
35.975774
- 79.077125
Non-jurisdictional
84 LF
Open Cut
W5
W5 1 -9
Wetland
35.980080
- 79.077532
Open water/ Headwater
4,016 SF
No Impact
G
F 1-6
Stream UT to Old Field Creek
35.984713
- 79.078308
Seasonal RPW
48 LF
Conv. Bore
e an
-79.078027
Headwater Wetland
200 SF
No impact
H (1)
NA
Non-jurisdictional drainage
35.987013
- 79.075430
Non-jurisdictional
NA
No Impact
J/W7
W71-6
e an ream uomplex, UT to New Hope
Creek
35.993865
- 79.059460
Bottomland Hardwood/
Seasonal RPW
J 31 LF / W7 1,616 SF
No Impact
K
Non-jurisdictional rainage
35.994745
- 79.056916
Non-jurisdictional
No impact
K2
New Hope Creek
35.996111
- 79.054149
Year -round RPW
K3
Wil
ream o New Hope Creek
35.997451
- 79.053445
Year -round RPW
o Impact
L
ream o New Hope Creek
36.001350
- 79.037745
Year -round RPW
48 LF
HDD
M
M1-6
ream o New Hope Creek
36 001417
- 79.037157
Seasonal RPW
41 LF
HDD
W8
Wetland
36.000150
- 79.025110
Bottomland Hardwood
2,001 SF
No Impact
M1
WF 1 -20
Pine Mountain Creek
35.992540
- 79.002384
Year -round RPW
50 LF
Open Cut
N
NA
Non-jurisdictional drainage
36.004816
- 78.991695
Non-jurisdictional
NA
No Impact-
0
ream UT to Pine Mountain Creek
36.010098
-78990258
Year -round RPW
26 LF
HDD
W9 1-1u
wetland
-78.988578
Headwater Wetland
No impact
P/W10
L 1 -9
e an ream complex, UT to Fine Mountain
Creek
36.013581
- 78.986151
Headwater
Wetland /Seasonal RPW
P 57 LF / W10 1, 393 SF
Conv. Bore
Q
ream UT to Mud Cre-eT-
36.016778
- 78.983415
Seasonal RPW
54 LF
No impact
R
-
ream UT to Mud Creek
36.016767
- 78.982322
Seasonal RPW
118 LF
No Impact
S1
Non-jurisdictional drainage
36.013452
- 78.977089
Non-jurisdictional
NA
No Impact
S2
01-6
Stream UT to Mud Creek
36.012660
- 78.975067
Seasonal RPW
100 LF
No Impact
T1/W11
NA
Wetland
36.009161
- 78.969121
Bottomland Hardwood
45,657 SF
No impact
T2
P 1-6
Mud Creek
36.008729
- 78.968225
Year -round RPW
100 LF
No Impact
U
01-6
Stream UT to Mud Creek
36.005843
- 78.965255
Seasonal RPW
55 LF
No Impact
V
R 1-6
Stream UT to Mud Creek
36.004716
- 78.964801
Seasonal RPW
26 LF
No Impact
W
NA
Non jurisdictional drainage
36.003600
- 78.964316
Non-jurisdictional
NA
No Impact
X
NA
Non jurisdictional drainage
36.002825
- 78.963813
Non - jurisdictional
NA
No Impact
Y
U 1 -6
Stream UT to Mud Creek
35.999481
- 78.963416
Year -round RPW
31 LF
Open Cut
Z
V1-6
Sandy Creek
35 997705
- 78.954564
Year -round RPW
53 LF
No Impact
AA
NA
UT North of Soccer Field
35.993092
- 78.944592
Year -round RPW
100 LF
No Impact
BB
NA
UT South of Soccer Field
35 991912
- 78.942241
Year -round RPW
100 LF
No Impact
Highlighted features will be impacted by conventional open cut trenching, impact map provided.

PSNC Energy: Duke University Pipeline Project
Orange Durham Counties, North Carolina
Project No. 1356 -13 -004, PH. 01
NCDWQ INFORMATION
MAP
FEATURE
NUMBER
FLAG SERIES
DEPICTED ON
USGS MAP
(STREAM TYPE)
DEPICTED ON
SOILS SURVEY
(STREAM TYPE)
STREAM TYPE
IDENTIFIED
IN THE FIELD (SBME)
JORDAN BUFFER
SUBJECTIVITY AS
CONFIRMED
BY NCDWQ
RECEIVING WATER
REPRESENTED
A
A 1-6
No
Intermittent
Intermittent
Subject
Buckhom Branch
B
B 1-6
No
Intermittent
Intermittent
Subject
Buckhorn Branch
C/W1
C 1 -8NU1 1 -10
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
Subject
Bolin Creek
CC
CC1 -CC8
No
Intermittent
Intermittent
Subject
Jones Creek
D
D 1-6
Perennial
Intermittent
Perennial
Subject
Bolin Creek
E
E 1-6
No
Intermittent
Intermittent
Subject
Bolin Creek
F/W4
F1-6/ W4 1-4
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
Subject
Old Field Creek
F (1)
WB 1 -16
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
Subject
Old Field Creek
F (2)
WA 1 -13
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
Subject
Old Field Creek
F (3)
NA
No
Intermittent
Non - jurisdictional
Not Subject
Old Field Creek
F (5)
NA
No
Intermittent
Non jurisdictional
Not Subject
Old Field Creek
G
F 1-6
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Subject
Old Field Creek
H
1-111-1-14
No
Intermittent
Wetland
Not Subject
Old Field Creek
H (1)
NA
No
Intermittent
Non jurisdictional
Not Subject
Old Field Creek
W6
W6 1 -8
No
Intermittent
Non jurisdictional
Not Subject
Old Field Creek
I
NA
No
Intermittent
Non jurisdictional
Not Subject
New Hope Creek
J/W7
W7 1-6
No
Intermittent
Intermittent
Subject
New Hope Creek
K
NA
No
Intermittent
Non jurisdictional
Not Subject
New Hope Creek
K2
NA
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
Subject
New Hope Creek
K3
WJ1- WJ18
No
Intermittent
Perennial
Subject
New Hope Creek
L
G 1-6
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
Subject
New Hope Creek
M
H 1-6
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Subject
New Hope Creek
M1
WF 1 -24
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
Subject
Pine Mountain Creek
N
NA
Intermittent
Intermittent
Non jurisdictional
Not Subject
Pine Mountain Creek
O
J 1-6
Intermittent
Intermittent
Perennial
Subject
Pine Mountain Creek
W9
W9 1 -10
j No
Intermittent
Wetland
Not Subject
Pine Mountain Creek
P/W10
L 1 -9
No
Perennial
Wetland
Not Subject
Pine Mountain Creek
(�
M 1-6
No
Intermittent
Intermittent
Subject
Mud Creek
R
N 1 -10
No
No
Intermittent
Not Subject
Mud Creek
S1
K1 - K11
No
Intermittent
Intermittent
Subject
Mud Creek
S2
01-6
No
Intermittent
Intermittent
Subject
Mud Creek
T1/W11
NA
No
Intermittent
Wetland
Not Subject
Mud Creek
T2
P 1-6
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
Subject
New Hope Creek
U
Q 1-6
Intermittent
Intermittent
Perennial
Subject
Mud Creek
V
R 1-6
No
Intermittent
Non jurisdictional
Not Subject
Mud Creek
W
NA
No
Intermittent
Non jurisdictional
Not Subject
Mud Creek
X
NA
No
Intermittent
Non jurisdictional
Not Subject
Mud Creek
Y
U 1-6
Intermittent
Intermittent
Perennial
Subject
Mud Creek
Z
V1-6
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
Subject
New Hope Creek
AA
NA
No
Perennial
Perennial
Subject
Sandy Creek
BB
NA
No
Perennial
Perennial
Subject
Sandy Creek
= UT Is an Unnamed Tributary
= RPW Is a Relatively Permanent Water
= In linear feet (LF) andlor square feet (60 Fn
= Feature may be dassified as a linear wetland
Highlighted features will be impacted by conventional open cut trenching, impact map provided.

Appendix IV

I, ROBIN L. LEE, PLS L -3759,
CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT WAS BASED ON AN ACTUAL
FIELD SURVEY PERFORMED UNDER MY SUPERVISION
USING GPS –VRS AND CONVENTIONAL SURVEY
METHODS ACCORDING TO THE STANDARDS OF
PRACTICE FOR LAND SURVEYING IN NORTH CAROLINA.
THIS SURVEY IS OF A NATURAL FEATURE.
WITNESS MY -ORIGI IAL SIGNATUFJE. REGISTRATION NUMBER AND
SEAL THIS 7,02-DAY OF A.D., 2013.
VL _
ROBIN L. LEE L -3759 ;E�/ /sue ? �3
PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR
�ttUptq
I I I I I I tilli/,
Ro
FESSI
SEAL
L -3759
LEGEND
CLRD
CENTERLINE ROAD
EP
EDGE OF PAVEMENT
OHE
OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE
PP
POWER POLE
R/W
RIGHT –OF –WAY
$O
SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
-**4.4
WETLAND DELINEATION FLAG
-OF3
STREAM DELINEATION FLAG
FILE: VT101- 13150077- F- W4.dwg
F -1222
•
V .Y .► .Y
WETLAND AREA
35'57'27.61"
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION CORRIDOR
W
PERMANENT MAINTENANCE CORRIDOR
M
00
0
Q
z
v
O
D!
l
I
i
i
I
i
?4''
IMPACT MAP 1
I�
PP
w r
0) i
W�� 1
' oIL(o r
' LA4 0 1
tAJ EDGE OF DOT
MAINTENANCE
FEATURE A
JOB NUMBER:
1315 -0077
r —EDGE OF ELECTRICAL
DWG. NUMBER:
R.
4mwm&auwSHEET
NUMBER:
OF I
1 OF
1730 VAMTY DRIVE Sp1E 500
PROJ. SURVEYOR:
RLL
RAWGK NORTH CAROLINA 27608
DRAWN BY:
MWH
FAX ��g? 1
FILE: VT101- 13150077- F- W4.dwg
F -1222
DATE:
04/24/13
M
00
0
Q
z
v
O
D!
l
I
i
i
I
i
?4''
IMPACT MAP 1
I�
PP
w r
0) i
W�� 1
' oIL(o r
' LA4 0 1
tAJ EDGE OF DOT
MAINTENANCE
FEATURE A
JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE U.S. and RIPARIAN BUFFER IMPACT PLAN
OF
PUBLIC SERVICE OF NORTH CAROLINA GAS PIPELINE
ORANGE COUNTY - NORTH CAROLINA
ml
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 15 30 80
mmmmol
1 luoh = 90 fL
S EUBANKS ROAD
z
p
X
Co
0
BRITTON DR
SITE
DEER RIDGE DRI VICINITY MAP
- NOT TO SCALE -
FEATURE A STREAM IMPACT
FLAG #
_
r —EDGE OF ELECTRICAL
v
�Im
_,.�
EASEMENT MAINTENANCE
SQ FTI ACRES
1
za
�
A3
35'57'27.52"
– 79'6'26.81"
PROPOSED
35'57'27.60" 1
' r GAS PIPELINE
� r
�
I
d '
PP r
- 79'6'27.08"
r 20' TEMPORARY
35'57'27.61"
CONSTRUCTION CORRIDOR
W
� r
JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE U.S. and RIPARIAN BUFFER IMPACT PLAN
OF
PUBLIC SERVICE OF NORTH CAROLINA GAS PIPELINE
ORANGE COUNTY - NORTH CAROLINA
ml
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 15 30 80
mmmmol
1 luoh = 90 fL
S EUBANKS ROAD
z
p
X
Co
0
BRITTON DR
SITE
DEER RIDGE DRI VICINITY MAP
- NOT TO SCALE -
FEATURE A STREAM IMPACT
FLAG #
STREAM A
CORRIDOR
IMPACT LINEAR F
35'57'27.54"
SQ FTI ACRES
TEMP
50
1 0.001 7.61'
'CALCULATED TO EDGE OF DOT MAINTENANCE
WETLAND FLAG TABLE
FLAG #
LATITUDE
LONGITUDE
Al
35'57'27.54"
– 796'27.26"
A2
3557'27.52"
– 79'6'27.15"
A3
35'57'27.52"
– 79'6'26.81"
A4
35'57'27.60" 1
– 79'6'26.82"
A5
35'57'27.58"
- 79'6'27.08"
A6
35'57'27.61"
– 79'6'27.26"

I, ROBIN L. LEE, PLS L -3759,
CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT WAS BASED ON AN ACTUAL
FIELD SURVEY PERFORMED UNDER MY SUPERVISION
USING GPS -VRS AND CONVENTIONAL SURVEY
METHODS ACCORDING TO THE STANDARDS OF
PRACTICE FOR LAND SURVEYING IN NORTH CAROLINA.
THIS SURVEY IS OF A NATURAL FEATURE.
WITNESS MY _0R!?jNAL SIGNATURE, REGISTRATION NUMBER AND
SEAL THIS _Z .s DAY OF IlAaq d A.D., 2013.
R0 91t L. lEE L -3759
PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR
SN
Q� SSIO,yq! �2
SEAL y
L -3759
LEGEND
CLRD
CENTERLINE ROAD
EP
EDGE OF PAVEMENT
OHE
OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE
PP
POWER POLE
R/W
RIGHT -OF -WAY
OS
SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
*W4.4
WETLAND DELINEATION FLAG
#F3
STREAM DELINEATION FLAG
r' ♦ W W
F -1222
DATE:
WETLAND AREA
35'57'52.24"
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION CORRIDOR
C7
PERMANENT MAINTENANCE CORRIDOR
r�
00
O
a
z
U
Z
IMPACT MAP 2
/ s04
G
i
/
Z �
G' v
24J�
/
Q-
P\
I D7
HF\
C, TTCUy
C3
2
�NF
Z' \
° W5
W4
YPP I i
�---- PROPOSED
GAS PIPELINE
--EDGE OF DOT
MAINTENANCE
EDGE OF ELECTRICAL
\ EASEMENT MAINTENANCE
10' PERMANENT
ITENANCE CORRIDOR
�- FEATURE C
C7
C4
—EDGE OF ELECTRICAL
EASEMENT MAINTENANCE
r'�l-
_ \ WETLAND AREA
�` _ --(NO IMPACT)
W7 EDGE OF DOT
MAINTENANCE
YV8
10' +/- TEMPORARY
NSTRUCTION CORRIDOR
EDGE OF ELECTRICAL
EASEMENT MAINTENANCE
FEATURE C AND ZONE
JOB NUMBER:
1315 -0077
LINEAR
DWG. NUMBER:
R.1.1.2.
oe�l ���
SHEET NUMBER:
1 OF 1
VAR9TY DNVL swT 500
PROD. SURVEYOR:
RLL
RALEKK NORTH CAROLINA 27806
DRAWN BY:
MWH
FAX - 9 233 �11
FILE: VT101- 13150077- F- W4.dwg
F -1222
DATE:
04/24/13
r�
00
O
a
z
U
Z
IMPACT MAP 2
/ s04
G
i
/
Z �
G' v
24J�
/
Q-
P\
I D7
HF\
C, TTCUy
C3
2
�NF
Z' \
° W5
W4
YPP I i
�---- PROPOSED
GAS PIPELINE
--EDGE OF DOT
MAINTENANCE
EDGE OF ELECTRICAL
\ EASEMENT MAINTENANCE
10' PERMANENT
ITENANCE CORRIDOR
�- FEATURE C
C7
C4
—EDGE OF ELECTRICAL
EASEMENT MAINTENANCE
r'�l-
_ \ WETLAND AREA
�` _ --(NO IMPACT)
W7 EDGE OF DOT
MAINTENANCE
YV8
10' +/- TEMPORARY
NSTRUCTION CORRIDOR
EDGE OF ELECTRICAL
EASEMENT MAINTENANCE
FEATURE C AND ZONE
1 AND ZONE 2 BUFFER IMPACT
STREAM C
TEMP IMPACT
LINEAR
CORRIDOR
ZONE 1
ZONE 2
SQ FT
ACRES
SQ F7
ACRES
SQ FT
ACRES
37
0.001
3.80'
*PERM
68
0.002
C6
35'57'52.24"
- 79'6'26.43"
C7
35'57'52.15"
TEMP
W4
3557'51.84"
59
0.001
*ZONE 1 AND ZONE 2 BUFFER IMPACT AREAS CALCULATED TO
EDGE OF DOT AND ELECTRIC EASEMENT MAINTENANCE
JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE U.S. and RIPARIAN BUFFER IMPACT PLAN
OF
PUBLIC SERVICE OF NORTH CAROLINA GAS PIPELINE
ORANGE COUNTY - NORTH CAROLINA
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 15 30 60
II1 m? )
1 inch - 30 tL
EUBANKS ROAD
co w
0
= J
C> °
z DUBLIN RD 0
9 0
° SITE
J
Y
VICINITY MAP
- NOT TO SCALE -
WETLAND FLAG TABLE
FLAG #
LATITUDE
LONGITUDE
Cl TTCUL
35'57'52.34"
- 79'6'26.77"
C2
3557'52.24"
- 79'6'26.58"
C3
35'57'52.18"
- 79'6'26.46"
C4
3557'52.10"
- 796'26.29"
C57CUL
35'57'52.43"
- 79'6'26.70"
C6
35'57'52.24"
- 79'6'26.43"
C7
35'57'52.15"
- 79'6'26.26"
W4
3557'51.84"
- 79'6'26.38"
W5
35'57'51.86"
- 79'6'26.67"
W6
3557'51.74"
- 796'26.88"
W7
' 35'57'51.60"
- 79'6'26.90"
W8
35'57'51.38 ". 1
- 79'6'26.82"

I, ROBIN L. LEE, PLS L -3759,
CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT WAS BASED ON AN ACTUAL
FIELD SURVEY PERFORMED UNDER MY SUPERVISION
USING GPS -VRS AND CONVENTIONAL SURVEY
METHODS ACCORDING TO THE STANDARDS OF
PRACTICE FOR LAND SURVEYING IN NORTH CAROLINA.
THIS SURVEY IS OF A NATURAL FEATURE.
WITNESS MY-QE2I�IAL SIGNAT ,`R GISTRATION NUMBER AND
SEAL THIS __�� DAY OF �, A.D., 2013.
ROBIN L. LEE L -3759
PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR
CARt7�%,�,
2�-Q�oFE slvy9` !� -
2
S EAL
L -3759
�� SURVV-
` V�,.
LEGEND
CLRD
CENTERLINE ROAD
EP
EDGE OF PAVEMENT
OHE
OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE
PP
POWER POLE
R/W
RIGHT -OF -WAY
0
SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
-*W4.4
WETLAND DELINEATION FLAG
+F3
STREAM DELINEATION FLAG
Y W W W
F -1222
W
WETLAND AREA
0 0
?g o
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION CORRIDOR
I
RCA
PERMANENT MAINTENANCE CORRIDOR
IMPACT MAP 3
JOB NUMBER:
1315 -0077
CORRIDOR
DWG. NUMBER:
R.1.1.2.
4UMM&CREM
SHEET NUMBER:
OF 1
1 OF 1
1730 VARSn DRIVE. RM 500
PROJ. SURVEYOR:
RLL
RALEIGH. NORTH CAROLINA 27608
DRAWN BY:
MWH
FIAx (fig) 223-80M 31
FILE: VT101- 13150077— F— W4.dwg
F -1222
DATE:
04/24/13
IMPACT MAP 3
JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE U.S. and RIPARIAN BUFFER IMPACT PLAN
OF
PUBLIC SERVICE OF NORTH CAROLINA GAS PIPELINE
ORANGE COUNTY - NORTH CAROLINA
M
00
a
a
z
v
U'
U
z
i
EUBANKS ROAD
co
`° SITE
z DUBLIN RD
O
U
.Y
VICINITY MAP
- NOT TO SCALE -
FEATURE CC STREAM IMPACT AND ZONE 1 AND ZONE 2 IMPACT
STREAM CC
TEMP IMPACT
W W
II1
I I
CORRIDOR
I
I
'
EDGE OF DOT
IMAINTENANCE
ACRES
I
PROPOSED
Q° 3
GAS PIPELINE
0
(6' FROM EP)
ZIU
`EP
GO
0.026
CL
0.015
0 0
?g o
2
EP
I
RCA
3557'58.82"
- 79'6'14.66"
CC8
35'57'58.74"
EDGE OF DOT
MAINTENANCE
DITCH 19,5' + /- TEMPORARY
UL CONSTRUCTION CORRIDOR
(R /W TO EP)
C 1TTC
I CC6
•
3 CC7
CS FEATURE CC
CC4•
PROPOSED
GAS PIPELINE
(6' FROM EP)
I
I �
EDGE OF DOT
MAINTENANCE
O`f2
1#
z
a.
3 W
\`
3 DITCH
JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE U.S. and RIPARIAN BUFFER IMPACT PLAN
OF
PUBLIC SERVICE OF NORTH CAROLINA GAS PIPELINE
ORANGE COUNTY - NORTH CAROLINA
M
00
a
a
z
v
U'
U
z
i
EUBANKS ROAD
co
`° SITE
z DUBLIN RD
O
U
.Y
VICINITY MAP
- NOT TO SCALE -
FEATURE CC STREAM IMPACT AND ZONE 1 AND ZONE 2 IMPACT
STREAM CC
TEMP IMPACT
LINEAR F
CORRIDOR
ZONE 1
ZONE 2
SQ FT
ACRES
SOFT
ACRES
SO FT
ACRES
48
0.001
11.04'
*TEMP
1,140
0.026
637
0.015
*TEMPORARY WETLAND IMPACT AREA CALCULATED TO EDGE OF DOT MAINTENANCE
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 15 30 6o
Di FEET )
1 Inch - 80 tL
WETLAND FLAG TABLE
LATITUDE
LONGITUDE
CCITTCUL
35'57'58.91"
- 79'6'14.93"
CC2
35'57'58.87"
- 79'6'14.83"
CC3
3557'58.82"
- 79'6'14.71"
CC4
35'57'58.69"
- 79'6'14:58"
CC5TTCUL
35 -57'58.94"
- 79'6'14.91"
CC6
35'57'58.88"
- 79'6'14.74"
CC7
3557'58.82"
- 79'6'14.66"
CC8
35'57'58.74"
- 79'6'14.55"

I, ROBIN L. LEE, PLS L -3759,
CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT WAS BASED ON AN ACTUAL
FIELD SURVEY PERFORMED UNDER MY SUPERVISION
USING CPS -VRS AND CONVENTIONAL SURVEY
METHODS ACCORDING TO THE STANDARDS OF
PRACTICE FOR LAND SURVEYING IN NORTH CAROLINA.
THIS SURVEY IS OF A NATURAL FEATURE.
WITNESS MY2AL SIGNAT , REGISTRATION NUMBER AND
SEAL THIS DAY OF A.D., 2013.
ROBIN L. LEE L -3759 /LL�SEp��
PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR • ` - "
.`2Q -Q�OFE S1p,I,9` �2
S E AL
L -3759
, o SUR�`�`
�'p�elN 1.. �110`,;
LEGEND
CLRD
CENTERLINE ROAD
DOT
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
EP
EDGE OF PAVEMENT
OHE
OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE
PP
POWER POLE
R/W
RIGHT -OF -WAY
OS
SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
QD
STORM DRAIN MANHOLE /JUNCTION BOX
-*W4.4
WETLAND DELINEATION FLAG
- F3
STREAM DELINEATION FLAG
W W W Y
60
W
WETLAND AREA
FFFFF
IIIIIIIIII
I I I f I I I I I m
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION CORRIDOR
446
PERMANENT MAINTENANCE CORRIDOR
IMPACT MAP 4
60' PuBuc R
WETLAND IMPACT
SEDGE OF DOT
-- MAINTENANCE
-EDGE OF ELECTRIC
EASEMENT MAINTENANCE
FEATURE F AND WETLAND W-4 IMPACT AND ZONE
JOB NUMBER:
1315 -0077
WETLAND W4
TEMP. IMPACT
DWG. NUMBER:
R.OF
4NWN&CRMD
SHEET NUMBER:
1
1 OF 1
1730 VARSITY DRIVE, SIUIE 5W
PROD. SURVEYOR:
RLL
RALIBGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
DRAWN BY:
MWH
FAX (919) 233-BM
FILE: V7701- 13150077- F- W4.dwg
F -1222
DATE:
04/24/13
IMPACT MAP 4
60' PuBuc R
WETLAND IMPACT
SEDGE OF DOT
-- MAINTENANCE
-EDGE OF ELECTRIC
EASEMENT MAINTENANCE
FEATURE F AND WETLAND W-4 IMPACT AND ZONE
1 AND ZONE 2 IMPACT
CORRIDOR
WETLAND W4
TEMP. IMPACT
STREAM F
TEMP. IMPACT
STREAM F
LINEAR FT
ZONE 1
TEMP. IMPACT
ZONE 2
TEMP. IMPACT
35'58'9.88"
SO FT
ACRES
SO FT
ACRES
F4
SO FT
I ACRES
SO FT
ACRES
TEMP
184
0.004
60
1 0.001
8.78'
646
1 0.015
446
1 0.010
JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE U.S. and RIPARIAN BUFFER IMPACT PLAN
OF
PUBLIC SERVICE OF NORTH CAROLINA GAS PIPELINE
ORANGE COUNTY - NORTH CAROLINA
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 15 30 60
IN I=
1 inch a 90 tL
0
c
�D
7-
z
/
STREAM IMPACT
c
m
EUBANKS ROAD
VICINITY MAP
- NOT TO SCALE -
WETLAND FLAG TABLE
FLAG #
LATITUDE
LONGITUDE
F1
3558'9.99"
- 79*37.17"
F2
35'58'9.88"
- 79'4'37.15"
F3
35'58'9.78"
- 79'4'37.22"
F4
35'58'9.97"
- 79'4'37.08"
F5
35'58'9.85"
- 79'4'37.11"
F6
35'58'9.73"
- 794'37.18"
W4.1
35'58'9.95"
- 79'4'37.25"
W4.2
35'58'9.87"
- 794'37.78"
W4.3
35'58'9.82"
- 79'4'38.12°
W4.4
35'58'9.46"
- 79'4'38.18"

I, ROBIN L. LEE, PLS L -3759,
CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT WAS BASED ON AN ACTUAL
FIELD SURVEY PERFORMED UNDER MY SUPERVISION
USING GPS -VRS AND CONVENTIONAL SURVEY
METHODS ACCORDING TO THE STANDARDS OF
PRACTICE FOR LAND SURVEYING IN NORTH CAROLINA.
THIS SURVEY IS OF A NATURAL FEATURE.
WITNESS MY OR�1IAL SIGNA E, REGISTRATION NUMBER AND
SEAL THIS .7 . DAY OF A.D., 2013.
Tl ,19- - _
ROBIN L. LEE L -3759
PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR
CA R
2 y
IMPACT MAP 5 40. cns PIPELINE
EASEMENT
S E AL =_
L -3759
i
9 O
y� S U R4
/fI11111i11N /
15' TEMPORARY
rnucmlirnnu r�vinno
F1 -F2 STREAM AND ZONE 1 AND ZONE 2 IMPACT AND
W-12 WETLAND IMPACT
PERM WETLAND
IMPACT
TEMP WETLAND
IMPACT
STREAMS
F1 -F2
TEMP STREAM
IMPACT
CORRIDOR
ZONE 1
ZONE 2
LINEAR FT
SO FT
ACRES
SO FT
ACRES
SO FT
ACRES
SO FT
ACRES
SO FT
ACRES
117.24'
561
1 0.013
PERM
639
0.015
1
35'58'12.66"
- 79'4'33.84"
1122
0.026
2,489
1 0.057
TOTAL
TOTAL
TEMP
1,579
0.036
618
1 0.014
WETLAND FLAG TABLE
FLAG #
LATITUDE
LONGITUDE
WBITTCH
35'58'13.10"
- 79'4'33.65"
WB2
35 58'13.00"
- 79'4'33.65"
WB15
35'58'12.94"
- 79'4'33.61"
WB3
3558'12.92"
- 79'4'33.72"
WB4
35'58'12.79"
- 79'4'33.82"
WB14
3558'112.78"
- 79'4'33.77"
WB5
3558'12.69"
- 79'433.87"
WB13
35'58'12.66"
- 79'4'33.84"
WB6
3558'12.65"
- 79'4'33. 2"
WB11
35'58'12.61"
-794'33.91"
W137
35'58'1 .57"
- 79'4'34.06"
WB8
35'58'1 .50"
- 79'4'34.16"
WB9
35'58'12.47"
- 794'34.13"
WB10
35'58'12.53"
- 79'4'34.04"
WBI6TTCH
3558'13.12"
- 79'4'33.59"
WA1 TTCUL
35'58'13.37"
- 79'4'32.93"
WA13TTCU
35'58' 3 47"
- 79'4'33.00"
WA12
35'58'13.39" 1
- 79'4'33. 1"
WA2
35'58'13.32"
- 79'4'33.23"
WA3
3558'13.26"
- 79'4'33.47"
WA11
35'58'13.30"
-79'4' 3.49"
WA4
35'58'13.18"
-79 4'33.64"
WA10 1
35'58'13.16"
-79'4'33.77"
WA5
35'58'13.10"
- 79'4'33.80"
WA6
35'58'13.03"
- 79'4'33.91"
WA7
35'58'1 .92"
- 79'4'34.13"
WA8
35'58'12.95"
- 79'4'34.20"
WA9
3558'13.07"
- 79'4'34.00"
WB17
3558'12.27"
- 79'4'34.45"
W618
35'58'12.15"
-79'4' .6 "
WB19
35'58'11.93"
- 79'4'34.9
"
WB20
35'58'11.69"
- 79'4'35.34"
WB21
35'58'11.48"
- 79'4'35.66"
WB22END
35'58'10.86" 1
- 79'4'36.30"
40&
n3o Wu:�1Y olat� sUrtE soo
RALEIGH. NORTH CAROLINA 27609
TELE 919 233--8091
F -1222 FAX: [phone]
TEMPORARY
ZONE 2 IMPA(
i
/ / i
W822END / /
FEATURE F- 2--/WB7
F�
�I
i
A13
WA11 I WA
PA I
FLAG #
LATITUDE
LONGITUDE
WWBp6TTCH I ZONE
WBIITTC
35'58'11.51"
H
WC -7
I w ��
N
WC -8
35'58'11.71"
- 794'33.08"
WC -10
WC-1 /
�0 7
100, `
<�O
WC -3 . WC-4 .�
WC-2
35'58'11.64"
WC -26
WC -13
WC-5
- 794'33.96"
TEMPORARY ZONE 2 IMPACT
35'58'11.41"
.WETLAND -12 .
WC-
WC-e
WC-1 tMC-1i
WC -9
wc-10
RARY WETLAND IMPACT
WETLAND IMPACT
00
0
Q
z
v
0
Of
0
U
Z
c
o
G
z m
?a
o
SITED �
0
EUBANKS ROAD
VICINITY MAP
- NOT TO SCALE -
WETLAND FLAG TABLE
FLAG #
LATITUDE
LONGITUDE
WC -9
35'58'11.51"
- 79'4'33.23"
WC -7
35'58'11.90"
- 79'4'32.79"
WC -8
35'58'11.71"
- 794'33.08"
WC -10
35'58'11.45"
- 79'4'33.38"
WC -11
35' 8'11.59"
- 79'4'33.53"
WC -12
35'58'11.64"
- 79'4'33.70"
WC -13
35'58'11.57"
- 794'33.96"
WC -14
35'58'11.41"
- 79'4'34.19"
WC -15
35'58'11.35"
- 79'4'34.42"
WC -16
35'58'11.23"
- 79'4'34.56"
WC -17
3558'11.12"
- 79'4'34.69"
WC -18
3558'11.11"
- 79'4'34.80"
WC -19
35'58'11.23"
- 79'4'35.04"
WC -20
3558'11.41"
- 79'4'34.91"
WC -21
35'58'11.59"
- 79'4'34.57"
WC -22
35'58'11.68"
- 79'4'34.42"
WC -23
3558'11..83"
- 79'4'34.15"
WC -24
202"
- 79433.89"
WC -25
35'58'12.21"
- 79'4'33.58 "
C -26
35'58'12.30"
- 79'4'33.44"
WC
35'58'12.41"
- 794'33.46"
WC -1
35'58'12.45"
- 79'4'33.43"
WC -2
35'58'12.36"
- 79'4'33.36"
WC -3
35'58'12.45"
- 79'4'33.24"
WC -4
35'58'12.44"
- 79'4'32.88"
WC -5
35'58'12.23"
- 794'32.61"
WC -6
35'58'12.02"
- 79'432.65"
15' TEMP �Y CONSTRUCTION - Raw LEGEND
wre-te --
f•� r EP CLRD CENTERLINE ROAD
- EP EDGE OF PAVEMENT
// I� +,r-- 10' PERMANENT E MAINTENANCE -�a0 PP OVERHEAD LINE
CORRIDOR
EP �,....+• R/W RIGHT -OF -WAY
1727 QS SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
GAS POSED EUBANKS ROAD SR 4.4 WETLAND
EP / -W DELINEATION FLAG
60• PUBLIC RA�1N
*3 STREAM DEUNEATION FLAG
JOB NUMBER:
1315 -0077
DWG. NUMBER:
R.1.1.2.
SHEET NUMBER:
1 OF 1
PROJ. SURVEYOR:
RU-
DRAWN BY:
MWH
FILE: VT101- 13150077- F- W4.dwg
DATE:
04/24/13
JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE U.S. and RIPARIAN BUFFER IMPACT PLAN
OF
PUBLIC SERVICE OF NORTH CAROLINA GAS PIPELINE
ORANGE COUNTY - NORTH CAROLINA
W .► W W
W W WETLAND AREA
SCALE: 1" = 40' TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION CORRIDOR
0 20 40 80 120 PERMANENT- MAINTENANCE CORRIDOR

I. ROBIN L. LEE, PLS L -3759,
CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT WAS BASED ON AN ACTUAL
FIELD SURVEY PERFORMED UNDER MY SUPERVISION
USING GPS -VRS AND CONVENTIONAL SURVEY
METHODS ACCORDING TO THE STANDARDS OF
PRACTICE FOR LAND SURVEYING IN NORTH CAROLINA.
THIS SURVEY IS OF A NATURAL FEATURE.
IMPACT MAP 6
• '
■a■■
i \/
IY ■Ei'm
1■MRO■ '
1 ■ ■E ■■
1■EMO■ ,
1■MEE'
IMPIpam
i % ■O■
MORE.
■MEMO
■ME■■ '
20' TEMPORARY C 4 ■■
STRUCTION CORRIDOR ipr° ■ ■ ■1 '
94601 ■ ■1
■ ■ ■►�■
X M1
■'lIAII�J��. '
■SIiYCiri1
■MOOS( '
E■Lf 4 ■1
■arlM■1 '
WETLAND iiiriii
I■■ ■■■ ,
■ /1■■■
1■■■■ '
1E■MO
1■MMi
1■ ■EL'S '
PROPOSED GAS PIPELINE rMM■ ■1 '
45.00' FROM CL RAILROAD �M ■■M
5.00' FROM RAILROAD R ■��■
■ ■M■EI
■■■�dl -
/5a■■ • /
■■■■■
■■■■■
■MMMMI
WITNESS MY �WINAL SIGNAT EGISTRATION NUMBER AND ,p y0 SURN�v �
SEAL THIS �� DAY OF A.D., 2013. p A, �
4--
ROBIN L. LEE L -3759
PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR
..
-wolf,
CLRD
CENTERLINE ROAD
EP
EDGE OF PAVEMENT
OHE
OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE
PP
POWER POLE
R/W
RIGHT -OF -WAY
0
SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
-*W4.4
WETLAND DELINEATION FLAG
+F3
STREAM DELINEATION FLAG
FILE: VT101- 13150077- WE.dwg
F -1222
W
W W y
WETLAND AREA
I M
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION CORRIDOR
NW 57
PERMANENT MAINTENANCE CORRIDOR
SOUTHERN RAILROAD
100' R/W
50' FROM CL TRACKS
�
m
Z D
?p EUBANKS ROAD
C,
CON cr
SOUTHERN RAILROAD
100' R/W
(50' FROM CL TRACKS)
o rn
Q Y
O U
�o
Wo �
'^ a
o �
rn
URISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE U.S. and RIPARIAN BUFFER IMPACT PLAN
OF
PUBLIC SERVICE OF NORTH CAROLINA GAS PIPELINE
? 0
0 a
c:
ORANGE COUNTY -NORTH CAROLINA
lummomwL
i
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 1s ao eo
i lach = eo tt
1`
v
�o Itr
- NOT TO SCALE -
WETLAND IMPACT WE
JOB NUMBER:
1315 -0077
LONGITUDE
DWG. NUMBER:
R.OF
TEMP
MEET NUMBER:
1
1 OF 1
1770 VARS1iY D18VE, SUfiE Sop
PROJ. SURVEYOR:
RLL
RALEIGH, N" CAROLINA 27808
DRAWN BY:
MWH
FAX (e e?23�3 -�i
FILE: VT101- 13150077- WE.dwg
F -1222
DATE:
06/27/13
SOUTHERN RAILROAD
100' R/W
50' FROM CL TRACKS
�
m
Z D
?p EUBANKS ROAD
C,
CON cr
SOUTHERN RAILROAD
100' R/W
(50' FROM CL TRACKS)
o rn
Q Y
O U
�o
Wo �
'^ a
o �
rn
URISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE U.S. and RIPARIAN BUFFER IMPACT PLAN
OF
PUBLIC SERVICE OF NORTH CAROLINA GAS PIPELINE
? 0
0 a
c:
ORANGE COUNTY -NORTH CAROLINA
lummomwL
i
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 1s ao eo
i lach = eo tt
1`
v
�o Itr
- NOT TO SCALE -
WETLAND IMPACT WE
CORRIDOR
WETLAND WE
IMPACT
LONGITUDE
SQ FT
ACRES
TEMP
640
0.015
WETLAND FLAG TABLE
LATITUDE
LONGITUDE
NW 51
35'58'35.12"
- 794'35.55"
NW 52
35'58'35.24"
- 79'4'35.25"
NW 53
3558'35.56"
- 794'35.19"
NW 54
35'58'35.70"
- 79'4'35.10"
NW 55
35'58'35.82"
- 79'4'35.24"
NW 56
35'58'35.72"
- 79'4'35.46"
NW 57
35'58'35.61"
- 79'4'35.71"
NW 58
35'58'35.49"
- 79'4'35,97"

I, ROBIN L. LEE, PLS L -3759,
CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT WAS BASED ON AN ACTUAL
FIELD SURVEY PERFORMED UNDER MY SUPERVISION
USING GPS -VRS AND CONVENTIONAL SURVEY
METHODS ACCORDING TO THE STANDARDS OF
PRACTICE FOR LAND SURVEYING IN NORTH CAROLINA.
THIS SURVEY IS OF A NATURAL FEATURE.
WITNESS MY QRIGINAL SIGNATURE, REGISTRATION NUMBER AND
SEAL THIS R DAY OF / A.D., 2013.
ROBIN L. LEE L -3759
PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR
o
CAR
o''' ° - -,
2
S EAL
L -3759
,Q I SUR -4V'
"LEGEND
CLRD
CENTERLINE ROAD
EP
EDGE OF PAVEMENT
GW
GUYWIRE
MB
MAILBOX
OHE
OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE
PP
POWER POLE
R/W
RIGHT -OF -WAY
0.004
SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
+W4.4
WETLAND DELINEATION FLAG
+F3
STREAM DELINEATION FLAG
W
WETLAND AREA
*PERM
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION CORRIDOR
0.014 1
PERMANENT MAINTENANCE CORRIDOR
40&
1730 VARSRY DRIVE, SURE S00
RALEIGH, N" CARM NA 27608
ME 919 233 -M
FAIL• 919 233 -8031
F -1222
IMPACT MAP 7
1 I
J f
r �
`
aWF23
PROPOSED o 0
GAS PIPELINE I? m
EDGE OF DOT
MAINTENANCE
-
EP
WF26
HEADWALL
4
WF1
n
2
m
sko rx
S�NP�
FEATURE -M1 \
\ NON - JURISDICTIONAL
\ \ ,ITCH
\ ! I 15' TEMPORARY
! I -CONSTRUCTION CORRIDOR
10' PERMANENT
ITENANCE CORRIDOR
EDGE OF DOT
MAINTENANCE
0
OMB �PPG R/W
Q
MT: SINAI ROAD
60' PUBLIC R/W .� PROPOSED
AS PIPELINE EP
FEATURE M -1 ZONE 1 AND ZONE 2 IMPACT
1315 -0077
STREAM M1
TEMP IMPACT
LINEAR FT
CORRIDOR
ZONE 1
ZONE 2
SQ FT
ACRES
SQ FT
ACRES
SQ FT
ACRES
184
0.004
48.15'
*TEMP
2,053
0.047
1744
1 0.040
- 79'0'8.55"
*PERM
1 617
0.014 1
-
-
*TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT IMPACT AREAS CALCULATED TO EDGE OF DOT MAINTENANCE
JOB NUMBER:
1315 -0077
DWG. NUMBER:
R.1.1.2.
SHEET NUMBER:
1 OF 1
PROJ. SURVEYOR:
RLL
DRAWN BY.
MWH
FILE: VT101- 13150077— F— W4.dwg
DATE:
04/24/13
JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE U.S. and RIPARIAN BUFFER IMPACT PLAN
OF
PUBLIC SERVICE OF NORTH CAROLINA GAS PIPELINE
ORANGE COUNTY - NORTH CAROLINA
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 16 30 80
( IN S')
1 inch a 90 tL
R/W
ITE
VICINITY MAP
- NOT TO SCALE -
r�
ao
0
z
a
D!
WETLAND FLAG TABLE
FLAG #
LATITUDE
LONGITUDE
WFI2TTCUL
35'59'33.02"
- 79'0'8.37"
WF13
35'59'33.32"
- 79'0'8.33"
WF14
35'59'33.57"
- 79'0'8.47"
WF23
35'59'33.57"
- 79'0'8.61"
WF24
35'59'33.36"
- 79'0'8.57"
WF25
35'59'33.25"
- 79'0'8.55"
WF26TTCUL
35'59'33.03"
- 79'0'8.70"

I, ROBIN L. LEE, PLS L -3759,
CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT WAS BASED ON AN ACTUAL
FIELD SURVEY PERFORMED UNDER MY SUPERVISION
USING GPS -VRS AND CONVENTIONAL SURVEY
METHODS ACCORDING TO THE STANDARDS OF
PRACTICE FOR LAND SURVEYING IN NORTH CAROLINA.
THIS SURVEY IS OF A NATURAL FEATURE.
WITNESS MY 0� ICAL SIGNATURE, REGISTRATION NUMBER AND
SEAL THIS - Z --..- DAY OF A.D., 2013.
ROBIN L LEE L -3759
PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR
`1"%01uuuWU11111"
`��,o�`,`� C A ROB %/,
l/'
2
Z �
S EAL
L -3759
OHE ' PP
N
O
z
1 10
IN Iz
_m
L
IMPACT MAP 8
HEADWALL
CLAD FORMERLY LEMUR
(ROAD CLOSE�'D "�L�N�� _
DEED Bp ACCORDING TO
6216. PAGE 100)
LEGEND
CLRD
CENTERLINE ROAD
CMP
CORRUGATED METAL PIPE
EP
EDGE OF PAVEMENT
OHE
OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE
PP
POWER POLE
R/W
RIGHT -OF -WAY
I5$
SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
-*W4.4
WETLAND DELINEATION FLAG
-*f3
STREAM DELINEATION FLAG
DATE:
04/24/13
W
WETLAND AREA
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION CORRIDOR
PERMANENT MAINTENANCE CORRIDOR
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION
CORRIDOR
U3 FEATURE Y
U6 II
zj of
rn z
U5 - I m I EDGE OF ELECTRIC
U2 , N EASEMENT MAINTENANCE
I I�
;�ll PROPOSED
GAS PIPELINE
HEADWALL eP
I I
I
JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE U.S. and RIPARIAN BUFFER IMPACT PLAN
OF
PUBLIC SERVICE OF NORTH CAROLINA GAS PIPELINE
DURHAM COUNTY - NORTH CAROLINA
M
00
0
Q
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 18 30 6o
I inch a 90 R.
1 \ti� io
,sue i
N
SITE
LEMUR LANE
VICINITY MAP
- NOT TO SCALE -
WETLAND FLAG TABLE
JOB NUMBER:
1315 -0077
LONGITUDE
DWG. NUMBER:
R.1.1.2.
4WM4&CREM
SHEET NUMBER:
OF 1
1 OF 1
t730 VARSITY OR14E, WX 300
PROJ. SURVEYOR:
RLL
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27606
DRAWN BY:
MWH
IELE` 9L9 233 -809L
FILE: VT101- 13150077— F— W4.dwg
FAX [phone]
F -1222
DATE:
04/24/13
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION
CORRIDOR
U3 FEATURE Y
U6 II
zj of
rn z
U5 - I m I EDGE OF ELECTRIC
U2 , N EASEMENT MAINTENANCE
I I�
;�ll PROPOSED
GAS PIPELINE
HEADWALL eP
I I
I
JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE U.S. and RIPARIAN BUFFER IMPACT PLAN
OF
PUBLIC SERVICE OF NORTH CAROLINA GAS PIPELINE
DURHAM COUNTY - NORTH CAROLINA
M
00
0
Q
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 18 30 6o
I inch a 90 R.
1 \ti� io
,sue i
N
SITE
LEMUR LANE
VICINITY MAP
- NOT TO SCALE -
WETLAND FLAG TABLE
FLAG #
LATITUDE
LONGITUDE
U1
35'59'57.90"
- 78'57'48.33"
U2
35'59'58.00"
- 78'57'48.32"
U3
35 *59'58.21" '
- 78'57'48.33"
U4
35 *59'57.89"
- 78'57'48.43"
US
35'59'58.05"
- 78'57'48.41"
U6 1
35'59'58.19"
- 78'57'48.41"
FEATURE Y- TEMPORARY STREAM IMPACT
STREAM Y
TEMP IMPACT
LINEAR FT
CORRIDOR
SO FT
ACRES
124
0.003
15.22'
TEMP
*THERE ARE NO TEMPORARY ZONE 1 OR ZONE 2 IMPACTS BASED
ON LOCATION OF ELECTRIC EASEMENT MAINTENANCE LINE

Appendix V

WETLAND IMPACT TABLE
PSNC Duke Universitv Natural Gas Pinelina Prniar_t
Wetland
ID
Map
Sheet
No.
Impact �
Sheet
No.
Classification
Impacts
Crossing
Type
Vegetative Type
Relation to
Waterbody
Temporary Impacts
Permanent Conversion
sf
,ac
sf
ac
W4
2 of 10
4 of 8
Herbaceous
Riparian
184
0.004
0.000
0.000
Conventional
W12
2 of 10
5 of 8
Forested
Riparian
2,489
0.057
1 122
0.026
Conventional
WE
2 of 10
6 of 6
Herbaceous
Non-riparian
640
0.015
0.000
0.000
Conventional
Totals: 1
3,313
0.076
1,122
0.026

STREAM IMPACT TABLE
PSNC Duke Universitv Natural Gas Pipeline Proiect
Stream ID
Map Sheet
No.
Impact Sheet
No.
Classification
cation
Average
Width ft
Temp.
Impact I
Perpendicular
Crossing?
Crossing Type*
A
1 of 10
1 of 8
Seasonal RPW
3
7.61
Yes
Conventional
C
1 of 10
2 of 8
Perennial RPW
3
3.8
Yes
Conventional
CC
1 of 10
3 of 8
Seasonal RPW
3
11.04
Yes
Conventional
F
2 of 10
4 of 8
Perennial RPW
4
8.78
Yes
Conventional
F1 & F2
2 of 10
5 of 8
Perennial RPW
5
117.24
Yes
Conventional
M1
6 of 10
7 of 8
Perennial RPW
10
48.15
Yes
Conventional
Y
6 of 10
8 of 8
Perennial RPW
4
15.22
Yes
Conventional
Total:
212
* Trenchless Crossings include boring or use of horizontal directional drill (HDD) that will not impact the stream.

RIPARIAN BUFFER IMPACT TABLE
PSNC Duke University Natural Gas Pipeline Project
Stream
ID
Map
Sheet
No.
Impact
Sheet No.
Perpendicular
Crossing?
Crossing Type*
Crossing
Notes /Justification
Zone 1 Impacts (sf)
Zone 2 Impacts (sf)
Mitigation
Required?
Wetland within
Zone 1 (sf)
Net Mitigation
Required **
Temporary
P ry
Impact
Permanent
Conversion
Temporary
P rY
Impact
Permanent
Conversion
C
1 of 10
2 of 8
Yes
Conventional
Subject to buffer rules
0
68
59
0
Yes
N/A
68
CC
1 of 10
3 of 8
Yes
Conventional
Subject to buffer rules
1,140
0
637
0
No
N/A
0
F
2 of 10
4 of 8
Yes
Conventional
Subject to buffer rules
646
0
446
0
No
N/A
0
F1 & F2
2 of 10
5 of 8
Yes
Conventional
Subject to buffer rules
1,579
639
618
0
Yes
N/A
639
M1
6 of 10
7 of 8
Yes
Conventional
Subject to buffer rules
2,053
617
1,744
0
Yes
N/A
617
Totals:
5,418
1,324
3,504
0
0
0
3,972
** Net mitigation required = (total area of Zone 1 permanent conversion - wetland area) * 3. Impacts to Zone 2 do not require
mitigation, as the area will consist of a grassed right -of -way with no aboveground structures or imperveous surface.

Appendix VI

Pat McCrory
Governor
March 19, 2013
"P
R"BEWR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Conservation, Planning, and Community Affairs
Linda Pearsall John E. Skvarla, III
Director Secretary
Mr. Joey Lawler
9751 Southern Pine Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28273 -5560
jlawler @smeinc.com
RE: S &ME Project #1356 -13 -004
PSNC Duke University Pipeline Project (Durham and Orange Counties)
Dear Mr. Lawler:
Thank you for contacting the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program ( NCNHP) about the above -
referenced project. The Natural Heritage Program has numerous records of rare species, important
natural communities, significant natural heritage areas, or conservation /managed areas within the
proposed project area or adjacent to the project area as indicated on the map submitted with your
request for information.
The proposed project passes through or adjacent to the following Significant Natural Heritage Areas
(SNHAs) designated by the NCNHP (see attached map):
SNNA "NTE) NAME :
'OWNER
Duke Forest Oak - Hickory Upland
Duke University
Gate 4 Mafic Forests
Duke University
Gate 9 Pond
Duke University
Meadow Flats
Duke University, Private
New Hope Creek Slopes
Duke University
New Hope Creek Aquatic Habitat
Public Waters
We also have records for the following rare species known to occur within or nearby the proposed
project area:
y :',;' : "'; "• ' ' ; ",
<"
- i; ::; '`, > , ,: `,::'
S I<ATIG `" `
FEDERAL ;
7AXlONO1Vr�C
CC�1tlIhllON 11AME' '' '
5TAT115
i
;. `
.,St1ENTWIPVAME'
Alasmidonta varicosa
Brook Floater
E
FSC
Freshwater Bivalve
Lampsilis sp. 2
Chameleon Lampmussel
SR
-
Freshwater Bivalve
Villosa constricta
Notched Rainbow
SC
- --
Freshwater Bivalve
Villosa delumbis
Eastern Creekshell
SR
--
Freshwater Bivalve
Hemidactylium scutatum
Four -toed Salamander
Sc
--
Amphibian
Liatrissquarruloso
Earle's Blazing -star
SR -P
-
Vascular Plant
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1601
Phone: 919 - 707 -86001 Intemet: www.ncdenr.gov
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affumatroe Action Employer— 50% Recycled 110% Post Consumer Paper

SWE Project #1356- 13-004
PSNC Duke University Pipeline Project
Durham and Orange Counties, NC
Pycnanthemum torrew Torrey's Mountain -mint SR -T FSC Vascular Plant
For definitions of State and Federal Status, please see the Help document at http: / /portal.ncdenr.org /web /nhp /nhp- map - viewer.
Populations of the rare freshwater bivalves listed above are documented from the New Hope Creek
Aquatic Habitat SNHA. Four -toed salamander has been documented from the Gate 9 Pond SNHA and
occurs in wetland habitats elsewhere on Duke Forest. Earle's Blazing -star and Torrey's Mountain -mint
have been documented in dry open woodlands and along roadside edges on mafic soils in the vicinity.
Records for important natural communities within or adjacent to the project area include Upland
Depression Swamp Forest and Upland Pool (Typic Piedmont Subtype) within the Gate 9 Pond SNHA,
Upland Depression Swamp Forest within the Meadow Flats SNHA, and Dry-Mesic Basic Oak- Hickory
(Piedmont Subtype) within the Gate 4 Mafic Forests SNHA.
In addition to the SNHAs, rare species, and important natural communities listed above, we have
records for the following conservation /managed areas located within the approximate project area,
including Registered Heritage Areas (RHAs), easements, and local and private lands managed for
conservation by Duke Forest, Triangle Land Conservancy, and Orange County (see attached map):
�t ` ti i,I
MANAGED AR
Duke Forest
Duke University
Orange County Open Space
Orange County
Triangle Land Conservancy Preserve
Triangle Land Conservancy
NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund Easement
NCDENR, Clean Water
Management Trust Fund
Duke Forest Oak - Hickory Upland RHA
Duke University
Gate 4 Mafic Forests RHA
Duke University
Gate 9 Pond RHA
Duke University
New Hope Creek Slopes RHA
Duke University
Registered Heritage Areas (RHAs) are voluntary agreements between a landowner and the NC
Department of Environment and Natural Resources to protect outstanding examples of natural diversity,
establish reserves for rare species, protect natural areas against uses that would destroy their natural
condition, and to encourage educational activities and scientific research (see
http:Hportal.ncdenr.org/web/nhp/registered-heritage-areas).
We recommend that disturbance to SNHAs be avoided if possible, and that stations and block valve
sites, and other activities not contained within the NCDOT ROW be limited to areas outside of
designated SNHAs. Care to avoid impacts to the New Hope Creek Aquatic Habitat SNHA and the rare
aquatic species that occur in that reach of New Hope Creek should also be taken. We also recommend
that you work with the owners of managed areas listed above to minimize impacts to their properties.
Please note that the use of Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted for actual field
surveys, particularly if the project area contains suitable habitat for rare species, important natural
communities, or priority natural areas.
For this and future projects, you may wish to visit the NCNHP's new Data Services website to access
information on rare species, natural communities, significant natural areas, and land managed for
2

SWE Project #1356 -13 -004
PSNC Duke University Pipeline Project
Durham and Orange Counties, NC
conservation within a proposed project area (http: / /portal.ncdenr.org /web /nhp /data- services). The
NHP Map Viewer may be used to search for records within 1 -5 miles of a project site, or the Database
Search tool may be used for record summaries by county and USGS 7.5- minute topo map. We also offer
GIS shapefiles of our data for download; see the GIS Download page for details. Further, we now have a
searchable publications database that provides PDF files for all NHP publications.
Feel free to contact me at 919 - 707 -8629 or Allison.Weaklev @ncdenr.gov if you have questions or need
further information.
Sincerely,
warz �Allison (Sch) Weakley, Conservation Planner
NC Natural Heritage Program

Significant Natural Heritage Areas
PSNC Duke University Pipeline Project - Durham and Orange Counties, NC
'►�
. ,yam..- �r_�j- •. .: �•,A,
1
Miles
0 1 2 4
Legend
QApproximate project area
County Boundary
OSignificant Natural Heritage Areas
NCDOT Roads
Interstate Highway N
- US Highway
- NC Highway
State Road
NC Natural Heritage Program
March 19, 2013

Managed Areas and Significant Natural Heritage Areas
PSNC Duke University Pipeline Project - Durham and Orange Counties, NC
E
9
m
Miles
0 1 2 4
D U R H
F
Legend
QApproximate project area
County Boundary
= Significant Natural Heritage Areas
NCDOT Roads
Interstate Highway
- US Highway
- INC Highway
- State Road
Managed Areas
Dedicated Nature Preserve
Registered Heritage Area
Conservation Easement N
QOther Protection
® Federal Ownership
® State Ownership
® Local Government Ownership
® Private
NC Natural Heritage Program
March 19, 2013

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 2763 6-3 726
March 22, 2013
Joey Lawler
S &ME, Inc.
9751 Southern Pine Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28273 -5560
Re: PSNC Duke University. Pipeline Project- Durham &...0rajage Counties, NC
Dear Mr. Lawler:
This letter is to inform you that a list of all federally - protected endangered and threatened species
with known occurrences in North Carolina is now available on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's (Service) web page at http: / /www.fws.gov /raleigh. Therefore, if you have projects that
occur within the Raleigh Field Office's area of responsibility (see attached county list), you no
longer -need to contact. th_e,Raleigh Field Office fora list of federally- protected, species.
Ouf web page contains-a:complete and, frequently-updated list ofiall.endangerednand threatened
species protected'by &e-provisions of the Endangered -Species Act of.- 1971,,as.amended (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)(Act), and a list of federal species of concern' that are known to occur in
each county in North Carolina.
Section 7 of the Act requires that all federal agencies (or their designated non - federal
representative), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action federally authorized,
funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
federally- listed endangered or threatened species. A biological assessment or evaluation may be
prepared to fulfill that requirement and in determining whether additional consultation with the
Service is necessary. In addition to the federally - protected species list, information on the
species' life histories and habitats and information on completing a biological assessment or
evaluation and can be found on our web page at http: / /www.fws.gov /raleigh. Please check the
web site often for updated information or changes.
The'term "federal speeies-of concdrn" refers to those'species whi6h th6'Ser"vice-believes' might be irmeed•of
concentrated conservati6didtions:- Federal spe6es.of concern .-receive,•no,legal protectiQn;artd their designation does
not necessarily imply that the species will eventually be proposed for listing as a federally endq'ngered•or threatened
species. However, we, recommand.that,all practicable.measures.be taken to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to
fede �.,.
ral species of concern,- - _ . , , � ' . `'• •

If your project contains suitable habitat for any of the federally - listed species known to be
present within the county where your project occurs, the proposed action has the potential to
adversely affect those species. As such, we recommend that surveys be conducted to determine
the species' presence or absence within the project area. The use of North Carolina Natural
Heritage program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys.
If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely
to adversely affect) a federally - protected species, you should notify this office with your
determination, the results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects
of the action on listed species, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects,
before conducting any activities that might affect the species. If you determine that the proposed
action will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on federally
listed species, then you are not required to contact our office for concurrence (unless an
Environmental Impact Statement is prepared). However, you should maintain a complete record
of the assessment, including steps leading to your determination of effect, the qualified personnel
conducting the assessment, habitat conditions, site photographs, and any other related articles.
With regard to the above - referenced project, we offer the following remarks. Our comments are
submitted pursuant to, and in accordance with, provisions of the Endangered Species Act.
Based on the information provided and other information available, it appears that the proposed
action is not likely to adversely affect any federally - listed endangered or threatened species, their
formally designated critical habitat, or species currently proposed for listing under the Act at
these sites. We believe that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act have been satisfied for
your project. Please remember that obligations under section 7 consultation must be
reconsidered if (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect
listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this action is
subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or, (3) a new species
is listed or critical habitat determined that may be-affected by the identified action.
However, the Service is concerned about the potential impacts the proposed action might have
on aquatic species. Aquatic resources are highly susceptible to sedimentation. Therefore, we
recommend that all practicable measures be taken to avoid adverse impacts to aquatic species,
including implementing directional boring methods and stringent sediment and erosion control
measures. An erosion and sedimentation control plan should be submitted to and approved by
the North Carolina Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section prior to construction.
Erosion and sedimentation controls should be installed and maintained between the construction
site and any nearby down - gradient surface waters. In addition, we recommend maintaining
natural, vegetated buffers on all streams and creeks adjacent to the project site.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has developed a Guidance Memorandum (a
copy can be found on our website at (http: / /www.fws.gov /raleigh) to address and mitigate
secondary and cumulative impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources and water quality.
We recommend that you consider this document in the development of your projects and in
completing an initiation package for consultation (if necessary).
2

We hope you find our web page useful and informative and that following the process described
above will reduce the time required, and eliminate the need, for general correspondence for
species' lists. If you have any questions or comments, please contact John Ellis of this office at
(919) 856 -4520 ext. 26.
Sincerely,
r SV
P e Benjamin
Field Supervisor
3

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Banos, Administrator
Pat McCrory, Governor
Susan W. Kluttz, Secretary
Kevin Cherry, Deputy Secretary
March 25, 2013
Joey Lawler
S &ME, Inc.
9751 Southern Pine Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28273 -5560
Office of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
Re: PSNC Duke University Pipeline, S&ME 1356 -13 -004, Phase I, Orange and Durham Counties,
ER 13 -0438
Dear Mr. Lawler.
Thank you for your letter of February 22, 2013, concerning the above project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our knowledge of the
area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources that may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places will be affected by the project. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation
be conducted in connection with this project.
Portions of this project are located adjacent to: the Sam and Laura Nunn House, which was determined eligible
for listing in the National Register of Historic Places in 1993; the John Thomas Couch Farm, which was placed
on the State Study List, a preliminary step in the review of potential nomination to the National Register, in
1990; and, the Duke University West Campus Historic District, which was placed on the State Study List in
1982. However, since the pipeline will be located within the existing right -of -way and will not require the
removal of mature landscaping at these sites, the project as proposed will have no adverse efect on historic
properties.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill- Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919- 807 -6579 or renee.pledhill-
earley@n cdcx.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced
tracking number.
Sincerely,
R-4-0.4, kQ. &Qit
�KRamona M. Bartos
Location 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Marling Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994617 Telephone/F=[phone]/807-099

Appendix VII

NC DWO Stream Identificatinn Fnrm Wrainn A 11
Date:
OS -o 7 -/3
Projecvslte: , Dv e ,
see Rr' ,or.�
Latitude:
3S. 9576
Evaluator: �r �A - S ��E
County: 1< a
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
N 2 19 or perennial if a 30" 2Q. ?S
Stream Determination (circle one)
E p hemeral cljie Perennial
Other
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = / . - I
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
Absent
0
Weak
1
Moderate
ep
Strong
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
0
1
1
2
©
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
0.5
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
IT
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
0.5
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
m
2
3
8 Headcuts
0
1
3
9. Grade control
0
05
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
25. Algae
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
wJ:Cw:wl J.-L�-
No
Yes = 3
... v..v.... v.•.n .a.a v.c 1�va 1a�cu, ac V10w4.11u11J III IIIGIIual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal= /YD I
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
®
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
®
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
4ft>
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
3
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes
1
t� •J l•l•\'eC.P1.1P1t--1�" "A-'
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
®
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
V
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
1
1
1.5
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW
OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch: �J
4e�//'� rT

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
iLlwc W1CUaL.LC110ubD WV, IJUL 4550556U ill 9.;U45LW 51rVamS.
�eatdre /0?
#
CHARACTERISTICS
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
no flow or saturation = 0• strong flow = max points)
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
2
Evidence of past human alteration
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max points)
0-6
0-5
0-5
3
Riparian zone
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
0-6
0-4
0-5
7
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max points)
0-5
0 - 4
0-4
5
Groundwater discharge
no discharge = 0• springs, sees wetlands etc. = max oints
0-3
0-4
0-4-
m
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
y,
no floodplain = 0• extensive floodplain = max points)
0-4
0-4
0-2
O
(�
Entrenchment / floodplain access
(deeply entrenched = 0• frequent flooding = max points)
0-5
0 — 4
0-2
/a'
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
D
no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9
Channel sinuosity
extensive channe_lization = 0, meander = max points)
0-5
0-4
0-3
3
10
Sediment input
extensive de osition= 0, little or no sediment = max points)
0-5
0-4
0-4
3
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
fine homogenous = 0• large, diverse sizes = max points)
NA*
0-4
0 - 5
3
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
(deeply incised = 0° stable bed & banks = max points)
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
13
Presence of major bank failures
severe erosion = 0, erosion stable banks = max points)
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
14
Root depth and density on banks
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max points)
0-3
0 - 4
5
0-5
3
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
substantial impact =0• no evidence = max points)
0 - 4
0-5
16
Presence of riffle -pool /ripple -pool complexes
E
'no riffles/rippJes or pools = 0• well-developed = max points)
0-3
0-5
0-6
3
17
Habitat complexity
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
0-6
0-6
0-6
J?
18
Canopy coverage• over streambed
no shading vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = max points)
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
19
Substrate embeddedness
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
NA*
0-4
0 - 4
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
no evidence = 0• common numerous es = max points),
0-4
0 - 5
5
0-5
Q
21
Presence of amphibians
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points)
0-4
0-4
0-4
22
Presence of fish
no evidence = 0• common, numerous es = max points)
0-4
0-4
0— 4
23
Evidence of wildlife use
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max points)
0-6
0 - 5
0-5
/
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
57
iLlwc W1CUaL.LC110ubD WV, IJUL 4550556U ill 9.;U45LW 51rVamS.
�eatdre /0?

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:
Project/Site: �, � �
Latitude,
Evaluator: e"
e-z4le _�'��
County
Longitude:_
140r.
1
71140 O73K3
Total Points:
Stream Is at least intermittent
if t 19 or perennial lf230• ;50-
Stream Determination (circle one)
Ephemeral lntermltteniaerenn
Other
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = lY•s
18 Continuity of channel bed and bank
Absent
0
Weak
1
Moderate
®
Strong
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
©
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
®
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
1
2
(Z
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
®
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
®
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
C>
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1.5
10 Natural valley
0
0.5
1
11. Second or greater order channel
No -
Yes = 3
aMhual ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloqv (Subtotal = g 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
m
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
®
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
05
2
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles 1
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
^ �:.1. ie+__Ia_._ .9� ~
No = 0
Yes
v. oww_yY IJUUIUial ° /• l J 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = OBL = 15 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
must %aw aacnsuas are not assessed in cwasTm streams.
,�e�v-re d
#
CHARACTERISTICS
E_ COREGION POINT
RANGE
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont,
Mountain
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
I
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
3
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0 - 5
0-5
L�
,extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max points)
3
Riparian zone
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
0-6
0 — 4
0-5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max points)
0-5
0 —4
0-4
5
Groundwater discharge
no dischar e = 0• s rip s sees wetlands etc. = max points)
0-3
0-4
0-4
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
no flood lain = 0• extensive flood lain = max points)
0— 4
0— 4
0— 2
3
7
Entrenchment / tl'oodplain access
dee 1 entrenched- 0,; frequent flooding = max points)
0— 5
0— 4
0— 2
3
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
(no wetlands = 0• large-adjacent wetlands = max points)
0-6
0-4
0-2
9
Channel sinuosity
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max oints
0-5
0-4
0-3
3
10
Sediment input
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
0-5
0— 4
0-4
I I
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
NA*
0­4
0 - 5
fine homogenous, = 0• large, diverse sizes = max points)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
(deeply incised = 0• stable, bed- & banks = max points)
3
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
L�
(severe erosion = 0• no erosion stable banks = max points)
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0 - 4
0-5
no visible roots = 0•, dense roots throughout = max points)
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
substantial impact =0r.no evidence = max points)
0-5
0 — 4
0'— 5
16
Presence of riffle- pool /ripple -pool complexes
E
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0• well- devel'o ed= max oints
0-3
0-5
0 - 6
.4
�+
17
Habitat complexity
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
0-6
0-6
0-6
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
no -shading vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = max points),
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
19
Substrate embeddedness
dee 1 embedded = 0.1'oos ,
e structure = max
NA*
0-4
o-4
3
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page-4)
0-4
0 - 5
0-5
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max poi nts , _
21
Presence of amphibians
(no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points),
0-4
0 - 4
O-4
/
22
_
Presence of fish
no evidence = 0' common numerous es = max oints,
9-4
0-4
0�— 4
23
. Evidence of wildlife use
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
0-6
0 - 5
0-51
3
Total Points Possible
100
100
100,
TOTAL SCORE (also entor on first page)
%3
must %aw aacnsuas are not assessed in cwasTm streams.
,�e�v-re d

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Vercinn 4 -11
Date: O .07�
�Latitude: .Me 1
6 DO
Evaluator: �� _ .e •
County: ,,Ae �e&aj
Longitude` 7 �2
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determination (ctrc ne
Other
2 30' H 2 19 or perennial if r
O.7
Ephemeral Intermittent ennia
re
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = / l
18 Continuity of channel bed and bank
Absent
0
Weak
1
Moderate
®
Strong
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
©
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
m
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
1
a
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
©
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
®
3
8. Headcuts 1
0
1
®
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
®
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No
Yes = 3
a�un�na n A100 aIc nvt 141lCU, sGe UI5GUSsions In manual
B. HvdroloQV (Subtotal = A I
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
®
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
m
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
®
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
®
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
1 0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes
1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
®
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
®
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
®
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
uiwa. aiv uuL 3DAGJSGU Al Wd5L41 5LUVdM5.
1-4 e � Aal
#
C IARACTE'RT$TICS
ECOREGION POI�1T RANGE
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont,
Mountain
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
1
no flaw or saturation = 0•, strong flow = max points)
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
5
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
= 5
0-5
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max points)
.0
3
3
Riparian zone
"o buffer = 0•,copti uous wide buffer= max points
0-6
0-4
0-5
2
4
Evidence of'nuti•ient or chemical discharges
0-5
,extensive dischar ges = 0 no discharges = max points)
0-4
0-4
5
Groundwater discharge
no dischar e = 0• s yin s secs wetlands etc. = max points)
0-3
0-4
0-4
H
6
Presence of adjacent doodplain
0 — 4
0 — 4
0 2
_
no flood lain = Q= extensive lain = max-points),
—
7
Entrenchment / lloodplam, access
014
(deeply entrenched = 0• frequent flooding = max points)
0-5
0-4
0— 2
a
li
Presence of adjacent wetlands
no wetlands = 0•, large adjacent wetlands = max- points)
o-6
0 - 4
0-2
9
Channel sinuosity
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max points)
0-5
0-4
0-3
3
10
Sediment input
extensive deposition= 0, or no, sediment = max
0-5
0 —4
0-4
11
Size &, diversity of channel bed substrate
fine homogenous = 0• large,, diverse sizes = max points)
NA*
0-4
0 — 5
a
12
Evidence of channel' incision or widening
(,deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max points)
0-5
0 —4
0-5
13
Presence of major bank failures
severe erosion = 0., no erosion stable banks = max points)
0-5
0 — 5
0-5
14
Root depth and density on banks
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max points)
0-3
0 - 4
01-5
W
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or, timber production
substantial, impact, =0; no. evidence = max oints
0-5
0 - 4
0'— 5
116
Presence of, riffle- pool /ripple -pool complexes
no riffles/rippJes or pools = 0• well-developed = max points),
0-3
0-5
0-6
3
17
Habitat complexity
little or no habitat= 0; frequent, yaried habitats = max points),
0-6
0-6
0-6
18
Canopy coverage. over streambed
no shadin vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = max points)
0— 5
0— 5
0— 5
a
119
Substrate embeddedness
(deeply (dqeply embedded = 0• loose.structure = max
NA* 1
0-4 1
:�O— 4
3
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
(no evidence = 0 common numerQ s , . es °max .oints ,
0 -4
0 -5'
0 — 5
a
21
Presence of amphibians
no evidence = 0 .common, numerous types = max points)
0-4
0-4
0-4
a
C
22
Presence of fish,
no evidence = 0,; common numerous typos= e max points)
0-4
0-4
0 —4'
3
23
Evidence of wildlife use
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max points)
0-6.
0 - 5
0-5
/
Total Points Possible
100
too
100
TOTAL $,C ORE (also enter, on first ]gage)
uiwa. aiv uuL 3DAGJSGU Al Wd5L41 5LUVdM5.
1-4 e � Aal

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:
�v e .
Project/Slte:�C .;Me/we
Latitude:
3S. 9 700 YJ
Evacuator:
14h AV e sC E
Count - 49 a
Longitude:, 0 6D
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent l/�
ff 19
Stream Determination (circle one)
Ephemeral Intermittent eremn
Other
e.g. Quad Name:
a or perennial if a 30' 7
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal=
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
0
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
2
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
1 1.5
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
1
®
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
1
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
0.5
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
0.5
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
©
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No
Yes = 3
awmai uncnes are not raced; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloov (Subtotal =
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
1
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
2
3
14. Leaf litter
0
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
16. Organic debris lines or piles
1 0 1
0.5
3
1 1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes
1
111110�_ $1161
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
23. Crayfish
0
®
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL
Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch: ���9 S w BJ

S'T'REAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
�rirfi�r� F/
2
SCORE
Sr
2
3
3
02
3
y
3
7
3
a
3
Y
7a
#
CILA ACTERISTICS
ECORTGTON' FOINT RANGE
Coastal,
Piedi_ifl_ont_
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
'
'
no flow or saturation = 0• strop flow = max oints
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
— 5
2
Evidence of past human alteration
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max oints
0-6
0 -- 5
0-5
3
Riparian zone
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
0-6
0 - 4
0-5
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
extensive discharges = 0 n ax o discharges = m pints ,
0-5
0 — 4
0-4
5
Groundwater discharge
=
no discharge— 0•_s rips seeps. wetlands etc. = max points)
0 — 3
0 — 4
0-4
0
6
Presence of adjacent hoodplain
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max oints ,
0-4
0 - 4
0-2
7
Entrenchment / floodplain access
(deeply entrenched = 0. uent.floodin = max oints
0-5
0 _ 4
0-2
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
no wetlands = 0• lar• a adjacent wetlands = max Dints,
0-6
0 — 4
0-2
9
Channel sinuosity
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
0-5
0 — 4
0-3
10
Sediment input
extensive, deposition= 0• little or no sediment = max oints
0-5
0 — 4
0-4
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
fine homogenous = 0'• 1'ar e , diverse sizes = max oints
NA*
0-4
0 - 8
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
(,deeply incised:: 0,• stable bed- & banks = max points),
0 — 5
0-4
0 — 5
13
Presence of major bank failures
severe erosion = 0• -no erosion stable banks = max points)
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
14
Root depth and density on banks
C~
no visible roots = 0 ,dense roots throughout =max pints
0-3
0-4
0— 5
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
substantial, impact =0• no evidence = max pints
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
16
Presence of riffle- pool /ripple- pool•complexes
no riffles/ripples, les, or pools = 0• well- develo ed = max points)
0-3
0-5
0 - 6
17
Habitat complexity
little or no habitat = 0, fre vent varied habitats =max ojnts
0-6
0 - 6
0-6
1,$
Canopy, coverage over streambed
no shading ve etation = 0,' continuo cano , = max .Dints
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
19
Substrate embeddedness
(.deeply (.fteply embedded = 0. 1'oose, structure = max),
NA*
0-4
0 - 4
20
Presence of stream invertebrates, (see page 4)
no evidence =10, •� common _ numerous es = max points),
0-4
0 - 5
0-5
G�
2l
Presence of�amphibians _
G
no evidence = 0• common numerous es = max .oi'nts ,
0-4
0-4
0— 4
22
Presence offish,
0
no evidence = 0; common numerous es =max pints
o-4
0— 4
0-4
23
Evidence of wildlife arse
no evidence -- 0• abundant evidence = max points)
0 — 6 4;0,
5
0 - 5
Total Points Possible
100
00
1.00
TOTAL &C 1- (alto enter on. first page)
* T{IPCP f`�19M!• +Pn cfine � �� n ..J a_1 _ - -
�rirfi�r� F/
2
SCORE
Sr
2
3
3
02
3
y
3
7
3
a
3
Y
7a

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: OS -07-
Project/Site: R PkK%A#L
•
Latitude:
Evaluator: //LL /
County
e �t _
' r/da
Lon itude:
9
Total Points:
Stream is at least Intermittent c /
0sm Stream Determination (circle one)
Ephemeral Intennittentab
Other
e.g. Quad Name:
if 2 z 19 or perennial if 30' J /
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = .$
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
0
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ri le- ool s uence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
0
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
1
m
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
23. Crayfish
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
0
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
0.5
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
CD
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes
3
, " Hvdroloav (Subtotal we see discussions 1 manual
B
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
3
14. Leaf litter
®
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
3
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0 1
0.5
®
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes
�� �ru•i•►�mti�n.u.�e��ca�
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
®
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
23. Crayfish
0
®
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL 4ED
Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See
p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch: Fw' -ivies

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
a.aawv vaaaaa asvwuauvo as aaVl aaavJbvu 111 {,3 woo. stm.115.
wee lewe 1.2 - Olol .ellC' eeW
#
CHARACTERISTICS
ECOREGION POENT RANGE
SCORE
Coastal'
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max oints•
0-5
_
0 - 4
0-5
2
Evidence of past human alteration
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max points)
0-6
0-5
0-5
7
3
Riparian, zone
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
0-6
0-4
0-5
Y
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
0-5
0 — 4
0-4
5
Groundwater discharge
no discharge = 0• springs, sees wetlands, etc. = max points)
0-3
0-4
0-4
✓?
X6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
no floodplain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points),
0— 4
0— 4
0— 2
Entrenchment / floodplain access
a
(deeply entrenched = 0• frequent. flooding = max points)
0-5
0 — 4
0-2
!f
8'
Presence of adjacent wetlands
no wetlands = 0• large adjacent wetlands = max- points)
0-6
0-4
0-2
3
9
Channel sinuosity
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max poi nts
0-5
0-4
0-3
10
Sediment input
extensive deposition= 0• little or no sediment = max points)
0-5
0-4
0-4
3
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
fine homogenous = 0'• large, diverse sizes= max points)
NA*
0-4
0 - 5
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
(,deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max points)
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
7
l3
Presence of major bank failures
severe erosion = 0• no erosion stable banks = max points)
0-5
0 — 5
0•— 5
14
Root depth and density on banks
no visible roots = 0•, dense roots throughout = max points)
0 — 3'
0-4
0. — 5
l'S
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
16
Presence of riffle- pool /ripple -pool complexes
E
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0• well'-developed = max points),
0-3
0-5
0-6
C
17
Habitat complexity
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max poi nts ,
0'-- 6
0-6
0-6
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max prointsl
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
19
Substrate embeddedness
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max),
NA*
0-4
0 — 4
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
no evidence = 0; common numerous types = max points);
0-4
0 — 5
0-5
21
Presence of amphibians
no evidence = 0• common,, numerous es = max points),
0-4
4
0 - 4
0-4
p2
a
22
Presence of fish
no evidence = 0,• common numerous types = max points.)
0-4
0 - 4
0-4
i
23
Evidence of wildlife use
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
0-6.
0 - 5
0-5
S
Total Points Possible
100
100
100:
TOTAL SCORE (also enter, on first page)
a.aawv vaaaaa asvwuauvo as aaVl aaavJbvu 111 {,3 woo. stm.115.
wee lewe 1.2 - Olol .ellC' eeW

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: -7_ I
Project/Site: 19N -W"
Latitude:�r zs• D
Evaluator:fir•► p .SSE
County: �1
Longitude;.
Total Points:
Stream is at least lffa 3ittent
if Z 19 or perennial if 230"
Stream Determination (circle one)
Ephemeral Intennitten Tenn a
Other
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= "5 j
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
0
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
2
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
1
22. Fish
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
0.5
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
F�
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
25. Algae
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
MO.
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes
artmdai ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloov (Subtotal = //'4­1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
3
14. Leaf litter
2
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
16. Organic debris lines or piles 1
0 1
0.5
1 1
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
®
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
®
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
MO.
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch: -r-C�� wA vri

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
a aay.av vaaw aav ava auuvu aLLV - 4J0VJJGu 111 WGJuu burWilb.
Ae-,Mper-e .Vl- P. we e��PeW
#
CHARACTERISTICS
E'COREGION POINT
RANGE
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
1
no flow or saturation = 0• strong flow = max points)
0-5
0 — 4
0-5
2
Evidence of past human alteration
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max points)
0-6
0 - 5
0-5
3
Riparian zone
no buffer = 0•.contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
0-6
0-4
0-5
4
Evidence of'nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
(extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max points)
0 — 4
0-4
U
5
Groundwater discharge _
no discharge = 0• springs, s sees wetlands etc. = max points)
0— 3
0— 4
0— 4
(.�
`
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
no floodplain = 0• extensive floodplain = max points),
0— 4
1.
0— 4
0— 2
Entrenchment / floodplain access
(deeply entrenched = 0• frequent flooding = max points)
0— 5
0— 4
0— 2
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
no wetlands = 0• large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0-6
0-4
0-2
9
Channel sinuosity
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max poi nts
0-5
0-4
0-3
G/
10
Sediment input
extensive deposition= 0• little or no sediment = max points)
0-5
0-4
0-4
C�
I I
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
fine homogenous = 0• large, diverse sizes = max points)
NA*
0-4
0 - 5
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
(deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max points)
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
13
Presence of major bank failures
severe erosion = 0- no erosion, stable banks = max points
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
Root depth and density on banks
�..�
14
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
0-3
0 - 4
0-5
W
I5
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or, timber production
substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
0 — 5
0-4
0 — 5
16
Presence of riffle- pool /ripple -pool complexes
E
no riffles/ripples les or pools = 0• well-developed = max points)
0-3 EO—
0-5
0 - 6
17
Habitat complexity
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
0— 6
0— 6
S
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous Canopy = max points)
0-5
0 - 5
0-5
S
19
Substrate em beddedness
(deeply embedded = 0; Those structure = max
NA*
0-4
0 - 4
!�
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
>4
no evidence = 0• common numerous tYP.es = max points),
0-4
0 - 5
0-5
ano
21
Presence of amphibians
evidence = 0• common numerous es = max points)
0— 4
0— 4
0— 4
22
Presence of fish
no evidence = 0• common numerous es = max points)
0-4
0-4
0-4
23
Evidence of wildlife use
no evidence = 0° abundant evidence = max oints
0-6
0 - 5
0 — 5
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
Qa
a aay.av vaaw aav ava auuvu aLLV - 4J0VJJGu 111 WGJuu burWilb.
Ae-,Mper-e .Vl- P. we e��PeW

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: _ �3
Project/Site: w �. ��
Latitude: S �
1
Evaluator: ��'C�� a
County:
eta
Longitude:.,,
0
0
6 IIK
b
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determination (circle one)
Ephemeral Intermittent
Other
Name:
if a 19 or perennial Ht 30'
2
e.g. Quad
A. Geomorphology Subtotal =
18 Continuity of channel bed and bank
Absent
0
Weak
1
Moderate
2
Strong
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
0
1
1
2
®
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
0
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
0.5
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
m
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
3
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
m
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
ew .qwi.i .4;6.6- - .
No
Yes = 3
a.u.. M-GS arc "01 1-0; See ui5liu55ion5 in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 16
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
®
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
eD
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
3
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
t- 01. iw ILI. l -1_I _ /2 A-
No = 0
Yes
3
v. uiviV}yy louUluldl = "0 _11% 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
®
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
®
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
®
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
®
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch: 'ne",A e Y

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
-1—r- -1cuaLw115uC;5 aie Dim assrbbud III cousial screams.
�AfUI'Z' Y
#
CHARACTERISTICS
ECOREGION POINT
RANGE
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0 4
0-5
L�no
flow or saturation ;= 0• strong flow = max
-
2
Evidence of past human alteration
alteration = 0• no, alteration = max Points)
0-6
0 - 5
0-5
L�extensive
3
Riparian zone
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
0-6
0-4
0-5
3
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
(extensive discharges = 0 no discharges = max points)
0-5
0 - 4
0-4
5
Groundwater discharge
no discharge = 0• springs, sees wetlands etc. = max points)
0-3
0-4
0 4
6
Presence of adjacent floodplain
no flood lain = 0• extensive flood lain = max points)
0- 4
0- 4
0- 2
/
Entrenchment / floodplain access
a'
(deeply entrenched =_O; frequent flooding = max points)
0- 5
0- 4
0- 2
a
$
Presence of adjacent wetlands
no wetlands = 0• large adjacent wetlands = max points)
0-6
0 - 4
0-2
9
Channel sinuosity
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max_ points),
0-5
o-4
0-3
3
10
Sediment input
extensive deposition-- 0• little or no sediment = max points)
0= 5
0-4
0-4
v?
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
fine homogenous = 0• large, diverse sizes = max points)
NA*
0-4 4
0 - 5
3
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
Wee ply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max points)
0-5
0 - 4
0-5
13
Presence of major bank failures
0 - 5
0 - 5
0-5
severe erosion = 0;-no erosion stable banks =max oints
14
Root depth and density on banks
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max dints
0-3
0 - 4
0-5
I
15
Impact by agriculture; livestock, or timber production
substantial impact =0 ;, no evidence = max points)
0-5
0 - 4
0-5,
16
Presence of riffle - pool /tipple -pool complexes
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0• well-developed = max points)
0-3
0 - 5
0-6
17
Habitat complexity
t-�
little or no habitat = 0,, fre uent varied habitats = max p oints
01-6
0-6
0-6
3
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
no shading , vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = max
0 - 5
0-5
0 - 5
(�
19
Substrate emboddedness
Wee ply embedded = 0• loose structure = max
NA*
0-4
0-4
3
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
�
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max poi-nts
0- 4'
0-5
0 - 5
/
21
Presence of amphibians
.no evidence = 0• common numerous es = max points),
0 - 4
::O - 4
0 - 4
/
�-1
_
22
Presence of fish
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points)
0-4
0 - 4
0; - 4
23
Evidence of wildlife use
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max oints)
0-6
0 - 5
0-5
3
Total Points Possible
100
100
100,
TOTAL, SCORE (also enter, on first page)
s
-1—r- -1cuaLw115uC;5 aie Dim assrbbud III cousial screams.
�AfUI'Z' Y

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Projecusite: I-Vy 2 �� : ✓• P_ e fi'o, ;5� City /County. gSna ✓Ia e U /! 17�V Sampling Date: ©y D/- 13
Applicent/Owner. State: M/C Sampling Point: �C' &1e
Invesdgator(s): -0i" O Q 6.5. St Section, Township, Range:
Landfann (hfllslope, terrace, etc.): i�iES.'.V - fotS7o Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope
Subregion (LRRorMLRA):atLRA 04 LRR f? Let 35. 96,7$ 7S 1,oAl Long: — 74.075769~ Datum: A14�SI3 II
Soil Map Unit Name: td' NWI classification: /V/
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions an the site typical for this time of year? Yes V1.1 No (If no, explain In Remarks.)
Are Vegetation . Soil . or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes, jef� No
Are Vegetation . Soli . or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes _� No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reculred)
one
at
_ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
V"Surface Water (A1)
F WaterTable
_ True Aquatic Plants (614)
_ SS ely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
Wh (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
_✓ Drainage Patterns (B10)
,_/Saturation (A3)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
_ Water Marks (B1)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (B2)
_ Recent iron Reduction in Tilled Solis (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (B3)
_ Thin Muds Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (Cg)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ Other (Explain In Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (85)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
­Jnundatlon Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water - Stained Leaves (Bg)
_ Microtopogreph1c; Relief (134)
_ Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes ✓ No
Depth (Inches):
Water Table Present? Yes L"' No
Depth (Inches): O
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (Inches): j:�
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
(Includes caalgary fringe)
Describe Recorded Date (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont— Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use sclentIfIc names of plants.
Sampling Point��
,
Absolute Dominant indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
�OS0
Tree t (Plot size: )
ru
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 • •L!/'f'�
_
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3. U Nay 4P�W 1-,'C4 r?0j
Tote) Number of Dominant
Species
0a,
-!�0
Across All Strata:
4. f! W a.S
5'
percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
6.
8.
-Total Cover
Saoiino /Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
2. G 'ti 'K
3. /JCl S ✓" c7 7�G1
4. �'�9 ZQ yo
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
5 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: SO X -0 )
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
(A)
(B)
(AIB)
Total % Cover of Multioly by:
OBL species x1-
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species_ x3=
FACU species x4=
UPL species X5=
Column Totals:,-7/---"-
(A) aC,7' (B)
Prevalence Index = B%A = W, 6
_ 1- Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
� %2 Dominance Test is >50%
� Y3- Prevalence Index is s3.0'
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
I'Indicators of hydric sop and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in, (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sopling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
e'
10. than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 It (1 m) tall.
11 Herb - All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, regardless
12. of size, and woody plants less than 328 ft tail.
= Total Cover Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 328 it in
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: SO;nnO ) height
2. .l' f d &�W, �� r` _ Al-0
3.
4.
5 Hydrophytic
Vegetation
6. Present? Yes ,No
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a seuarate sheet)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

SOIL
Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redax Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) %_ Tvo 1A Remarks
d;3 /3 a7o 16 �a
Av
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Black Hlstic (A3)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_, Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147,148)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
— Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Striaoed Matrix (S6)
Type:
Depth (inches):
_ 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)
_ Umbdc Surface (F13) (MLRA 136,122)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
_ 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 hydrophyfic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or arobiematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes J / No
I
i
i
i
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

O — ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CA
G c
V Coe
0 GeC TaE
;HrG
N .TaD En ti GIC) OHrB m m Gel, GeC sb
w EnB GeB
Ir8 ra0
•` F1rC� TaU (cC 0 0 C l nC el:
HwB
0
r6 GeC ��'
HrB EnC
eC GeB GeC 00 0
GeB
al 0
�i HrB G„Ci HrB
o Tap GeC
C �_ uQ E G
EnB FOB raD IIrC
`
b o
m v qcc Gy AFB EnB 'r'C
v ? GeB F I
n
n v 0� Ge'B v Ge Ap(
u. Q Oy GeQ r
2S IrB 0 IIrB
rn HrC HrB
1 GeC 0
GeB L 0'
GeC
j(
Gec Ta �\ GeC
Le
' GnB
1.1rE3 APB \ GeC APB
cfC 0
GeB
r FIrc Hr(3 ` 0 ApC l APB ApB
HrB I GeC
\ ^•.Ir8
ApC ApC
Apk
C
r
H Hr
r, Ch FiC / APB APB
HrB 101(c) 101(c) G C' 11r I5
Ge
HrC ApC p '
GeB / l v Ehc r
I e B
� lie B
IIrC m GoG ApC
GeC Ce[i Apli cb EnB
h ApC Ap8 I IrQ
•o GeQ � lietQ p 0 0
O h' GeC ApC 0 0 GeC �nG
O
A Q 0 nB I
O �e8- v 0 EnB v v
E
O EnC v ; U
N G r faD A C - HwQ
e GeC I - I�leB C)
0 0 . APB Q
w
•-' Ch G•e TaD GeC GID � ...ApC -
m Hr la Ch / Cp -
u /(n GeB TaD Hr(' APB GeC U`eC
g / /,/ /` H rt'
O HrC EnC i�D I a D ApC EnC GeC Fit 13
~ GeB-.' Ge0 GeC ApC GeC P GeB �/ fi
h v
Ch \ .. v _
'o
APB
/ ` 1 1
lloyc /uhe ApD e // [=nB GeC v�
o y" GeC HrB� IirC
` ' HrB EnC
o
° C
o
r 0 WmE, -_ -IaD E
G nB GeB
TtrD rr ApC EnC GeC
ton I HrB Cde (;e(; -
o �0 APC Cif. j r EnC �—
IeB
° HrC EnC C(B GeB Lg IrQ FIrQ IirC
GeC En v GeB -
C9 EnH GeC FIrB EnC Ch - ,
EnC % IIrC
°g GeB 111B L "nB �N/7 lay
HrB GeC /' +O GeB
GeC T D v GeC T HrB IiB � En8 f -Irc 0 U J HrB
GeB
"c) EnB EnC HrB 1fJeC
EnB Ge EnC
GeB EnC Lg HwQ \ EnB EnB
EnC GID EnB Cp Er
GeC I -IrC I-IrB CP LN EnC
GeB GeC F c I IuB
EnB EnC v 1-11, EnC
GeC IrB IrB
I-I rC F 1-103
GeB Or FIrB GeB G EnB HrB
r WrF /0 WxJ HORACE WILLIAMS AIRPORT
0
TaD GeC EnC L 1rc IuB
m
HrB - -_.� o
c EnB
GeB 1 =nC Wx A I GeC
GeB GeO *
J Z
C,• `fix, ° E n ('
Lg EnB GeC / [aD En EnB 11�1 WxF HrC GeC EnEi EnC
EnB
197oo0DFE(I (Joins sheet 30) IEnC TaD IaD

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Projecusits: pollo l%!/ y- Ro &L)4a Oey:At,' Clty/County D2o► �y e0 -W-794V Sampling Date: -
Applicant/Owner. FIM4 State: Sampling Point:
Investlgator(s): f'` o e S 4 E Section, Township, Range:
Landfonn (htiisiope, terrace, eta): ✓'��� CS�aOQ Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):/- V/A4 /3LLQQ9 ttLet 418VOW Datum:1�/
Soil Map Unit Name: eiuwr (/ 'Ile .7•' �/ 0 y a NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation . Soil _ . or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances° present? Yes —je--� NNo
Are Vegetation _ . Soil . or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers In Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yea No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Weiland Hydrology Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
ndicators (minimum of two required)
Primary indicators (minimum of one Is reaufred•
check all that sooty)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
_ Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
_ High Water Table (A2)
_, Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (B10)
_ Saturation (A3)
— Oxidized Rhtwspheres on living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (616)
_ Water Marks (B1)
_ 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 (63)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Gust (134)
— Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible an Aerial Imagery (B7)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Water - Stained Leaves (89)
_ Mlcrotopographic Relief (134)
_ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAG-Neutral Test (135)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (Inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (Inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
(Includes caoillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), If available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point /4'?'li
S ,
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
�o X
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1. 2 .0 G Gt
° -
1a A10 F i
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2. A110 F-1461
3. , �,U`1�/!� %�!t I/rJ-A./l %mot �I�t
1r��— �%
speaeesuA�$ ai Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
4.
5•
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
6.
7
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of Multiply by:
OBL species x1-
8
=Total Cover
�)
Sanfing/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: �� XSO
FACW species x 2 =
/✓D
FAC species 5 x 3 = /S
FACU species x4= / OZ
UPL species x5=
(A) (8)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3 3
2. N4
3. u 6 1V - •.:r /to AAQ 2
4, r -
5.
6.
T
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1- Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
_ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is 93.W
8
9.
10.
_
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
Sy Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
1
_ Problematic Hydrophyda Vegetation' (Explain)
'indicators of hyddc soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2.
3•
4.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more In diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
6
7•
helghL
8.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9•
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 it (1 m) tall.
10.
Herb -All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 328 ft tail.
11.
12.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 328 it in
height.
' = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
Hydrophytic
Vegetation /
2.
3.
4.
5
6.
Present? Yes No V
5 =Total Cover
Remarks: (Include Dhoto numbers here or on a seoarate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
i

SOIL Sampling Point: UB1KO a
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
{inches) Color (molot) 96
Color (moist) ° _ _ Tygq_ �_
Texture Remarks
/49M09 W
Frir/ca/y /04 ,f
"r e: C= Concentadon D =De tetlon RM =Reduced Matrix MS=Masked Sand Gratis.
2Location: PL =Pore Linin M=Matdx.
Hydrtc Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydrtc Soils :
_ 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)
_ Black Hisdc (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147,148)
(MLRA 147,148)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A6)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136,147)
_ 2 cm Muds (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Red Parent Material (72)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147,148)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbria Surface (F13) (MLRA 136,122)
'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (85)
_ Piedmont Ftoodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed }:
Type:
7Hydric
Depth (inches):
Present? Yes No
Remarks:
I
US Army Corps of Engineers Easters Mountains and Piedmont — interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Pro)ewsits: -%fie �� ✓, Y �.p�I�t Pal .'•eL�'r City /County. � �o , Sampling Date: Off/- D / -l.��1
ApplicantlOwner. State:_ Sampling Point: dZi% 1 w•3.
invesdgator(s): � v 6 • < • `� �R/�Section, Township, Range: dd
Landfonn (hilislope, terrace, etc.): 74V!56 Local relief (concave, convex, none): eO!7 1!2? yN✓ Slope
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLf3.4 Q61AR P Let•. '35-96769700,4J Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: 1I-elel� �J72 csPlly C�.n / -�/ s/ NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes JL No (if no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation . Soil . or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are 'Normal Circumstances" present? Yes je:f�_No
Are Vegetation , Soil . or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, Important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yea No the Sampled Area is Hydrlc Soil Present? Yes No within a Welland? Yes �No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks: /
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reauired:
check all that aooly)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (86)
Surface Water (A1)
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
✓
Ht h WatsrTable (A2)
_
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C7)
_ Drainage Patterns (1310)
✓Saturation (A3)
Oxidized Rhtzospheres 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 Solls (06)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (83)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (84)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (131)
_ Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (132)
[nundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ TWater - Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (134)
_ Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ FAC•Neutral Test (135)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (Inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (Inches):
Saturation Present? Yes ,L No
Depth (Inches): _ f�_
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes -Xz�—No
ncludes capillary frin
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous Inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Andy Corps of Engineers Fasten Mountains and Piedmont- Interim Version

SOIL
Sampling Point: "" �i r"9 w-/
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Enatures
(inchesl Color (molSt) Color (moist) %_ je E77 Texture Remarks
Hydric Soli Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :
_ 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)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147,148)
(MLRA 147,148)
_ Hydrogen SuiNde (A4)
_ Lpafiy Gleyed Matrbk (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (AS)
Depleted Maft (F3)
(MLRA 136,147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F8)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (177)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iran - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147,148)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136,122)
'Indicators of hydrophydc vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (SS)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Sod Present? Yes '� No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

1
OLINA - SHEET NUMBER 25
(Joins sheet 22)
-" GeB 7aD
GeB Hr,C W Id pun In N
TaD HtB `• „rC Ta TaE ! '
G �Ch TaD �` IrB m � 1
4 r `G LL
\ `HrC
TaD GeB \ GF�p Enc TaD Y�
m Lg �� ^ �,. GeC
v U 0 v
GeC Tan U GeB firs EnB `
FnB Tap'`X� a A r. -'rt- •SR 'Y.zY -;;L n `raj `�l
H rB
^ , L,
�� � HrB TflD g
GeC n —
,' Hr( GeC B f m
w �y �v LL
GeC HrB '•,1 HrC °°
IU� 1 -1rB TaD GID` EnB -rB u°r
a
E T'aE ec u-
C?c•H T,a•D G) U m HrC m
Ch GI GID O EnC p
GeC TaE r� GeB IrB
HrC —
GIF IrB
G � Big ill GeC Ch
GV, HrB
Ger GID
GID HrB °IrB HI "C
Ge0 EnB Ih8 Enc
C GeC GIF
/aU GeC
HrB HrB
/ IrB
GeB./ GID'
4
Ch HrC
B
N Ge GID I GeB � O HrB
U
1-1 L3 Ir6•' GID GIF 3 TaD 2
GeB / •� N
J HrC
HrC- r'eC c
I r– Lg - -- HrC o
/ a C F
1_ariMiI Si Ii TaE E-nI3 x' C
li - -- 1
Lg -
9 GeC 1 -!: I -1 / Ge
a GeB O GeC Ch- HrB :HrC G'r_C HrB Ch0-40c
c IIrB GeB GeC
' GID
GeC Y HrC HrB
' -
GeB
C h: GeC IT' u
I h13
GeB T ,GeC iHrC I It EnB m °o
7aD d0 En8 \ G, y
d GeB h N�4 HrC
0 O eC U � rC• GeB/ GeB ! EnC
GIF m GeB w n GeB
EnC L r,
GeB GeC End} HrC U� ri I TIiP o
TaU ry
Ge� (.1o9a Iltit��
�O ch HrB G I T HrB TaD cv
MR f !: Ta HrC.a' I HrC GeC TaD
ch eB J Lg Stony Hill °
C'n
HrB °o
P rn
TaD GAB• 11 � GeB \ •
Lg HrC rr;' GeC
/ GeC GeC HrB HYB
r
HrC HrC 0
TaE Lg GeB ,,r GG I-frB
HrB 'r I,I Ca an er
GeB
B °
Tab v
FnB r / w e u r Rr "r
I c t 'EnG ,
r
eC GeB GeB HrB �~C GeI3 �A1 ( it a A�
\ Ch TaD GeB , G @C ? GeC o0
0
)' HrB GeC Ch n
r W^
' HrC Cif � `` GeB r8` •:
HrB cure X�HrB i / r
HrB r u
zv �..
HrC- Hi GeC Gei�
h ri raD
/ I '
111C G C y GeC GeB o
GIF • I ./ `a� �i Ta
I
EnB .Ir.C' aD '' t:
m rB
Cry
Ch
lx
no TaD.' / x /MI.. HrB
TaE/ HrC C TaD aD
I
1 -IrB \ irB PCB :r. �• GeC 4 t
• '' HrC ` •� ,-a• iU
uHrB �Erl( GI IF
Or
Ic G eC., ran �' u Ilre �rh HrB I_g
;hc•,:1 19)

WETLAND DETERMINATION rDATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Projec/Sita: nr g e f'i✓ -fy- Y��� ' n� (Q/Lt/C7 Clty /County: �lND a Ce. Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner. Stater— Sampling Paint: Wf V4 W5
Investigator(s): Q �� LSS S' Section, Township, Range:
Landfonn (hpislope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): _� /J/?P_ Slope ( %): L✓rj i
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Q/ (Z Let ee7–A5Q1g7VA1 _ Long: " . /cr oT ?k2 Datum: 19 /gD 3
Soil Map Unit Name: e 'y J'J1 sl�G NWI classification: 114
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes � (If no, explain In Remarks.)
Are Vegetation . Soil . or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes _No
Are Vegetation . Soil . or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No is the Sampled Area
Hydric Sop Present? Yes No �� within a Weiland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reauired:
check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (86)
_ Surface Water (Al)
— True Aquatic Plants (614)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (136)
_ High Water Table (A2)
— Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C7)
_ Dralnage Patterns (1310)
_ Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (616)
_ Water Marks (B1)
_._. Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry - Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (B2)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Sops (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C6)
_ 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 (87)
_ Shallow Aquitard (133)
_ Water - Stained Leaves (69)
_ MUntopographic Relief (134)
_ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAC•Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (Inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
ncudes
MEW fry
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont– Interim Version

SOIL Sampling Point•.
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Fneatures
(inches) color (rholst) _ % Color (moist) Twe Texture Remarks
o- `l 'Iww;yy /DA a�xnr
�/- /v /o /00 �nr
�a- /a /axx V/ql - /-Oo
Hydrlc Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_
Black Histic (A3)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ 2 cart Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147,148)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Type:
Depth (inches):
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148)
_ Thin Dark Surface (Sg) (MLRA 147,148)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (H)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 138)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136,122)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (Fig) (MLRA 148)
Indicators for Problematic Hydrlc Sc
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147,148)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F18)
(MLRA 136,147)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Other (Explain In Remarks)
%dccators of hydrophyllc vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrlc Soil Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientiflc names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1. . "Y-66r
Absolute Dominant Ind
% Cover Species? Status
3. o Gt
" r'
4.
6.
6.
7.
8.
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
S� = Total Cover
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
B.
9.
10.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
= Total Cover
2.
3.
4.
S.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
'eb
= Total Cover
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or an a separate shear
Sampling Point:
met:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across Ail Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Total % Cover of Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW specles x 2 =
FAC species l- x3=
�z _
FACU species X4=
UPL spades x5=
Column Totals: _� (A)
Prevalence Index = WA -
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
_ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index Is :93.W
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporling
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)
'Indicators of hyddc soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 In. (7.8 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 In. DBH and greater than 3.28 It (1 m) tall.
Herb -All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 328 ft tali.
Woody vine - Al woody vines greater than 328 it in
height
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes _z�_ No
l/sO/ i9�G G� Oa7 �91G. 'f�fa r/P� -fifes Yv ' S " /wr -' f 'r "z
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

Appendix VIII

Mitigation Credit Reservation Confirmation Letter
July 18, 2013
NC Division of Water Quality
401 Oversight /Express Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650
Statement of Availability
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Center, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Re: Reservation of Compensatory Mitigation Credits
Project: PSNC — Duke University Natural Gas Pipeline Project
Corps AID #:
DWQ Proj #:
This document confirms that PSNC (Applicant) has reserved for purchase 0.03 riparian wetland
mitigation credits from the Cripple Creek Stream & Wetland Mitigation Bank.
Restoration Systems (RS) attests to the fact that 0.03 riparian wetland mitigation credits are
currently available for immediate transfer from its Official Bank Credit Ledger to Applicant and
that as of this date RS has placed 0.03 riparian wetland mitigation credits into "no- sale " -
reservation status under the name of the project referenced on this document (Project).
These 0.03 riparian wetland mitigation credits will remain in reservation status until payment in
full is received from the Applicant, resulting in the issuance of a Credit Transfer Certificate by RS
acknowledging that the applicant has fully secured credits from the bank and RS has accepted
full responsibility for the mitigation obligation requiring the credits. If RS does not receive
payment in full for the Mitigation Credits within thirty (30) prior to the initiation of Project
construction, RS has the right to terminate this Reservation Letter, in which case RS will have no
further obligation to provide mitigation credits to the Applicant.
PSNC — Compensatory Mitigation — RS — page 1

RS will issue the Transfer Certificate within ten (10) days of receipt of the Purchase Price. RS
shall provide to Applicant the Transfer Certificate debiting credits from the Bank Official Credit
Ledger showing the permit number and the resource type secured by the applicant, and will
send an a copy of the Transfer Certificate with an updated Official Credit Ledger to regulatory
agencies showing the proper documentation.
If any questions need to be answered, please contact me at 919 - 334 -9119
Best regards,
%ana Drag o'ww"
Tara Disy Allden
Regulatory Manager
Restoration Systems, LLC
PSNC — Compensatory Mitigation — RS — Page 2

Reference to the Department of Army Corp of Engineers 33 CFR Parts 332 and Environmental
Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 230 Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources:
the Final Rule.
• 332.8 Section (R) Use of Credits: the district engineer will determine the number and
type of credits required to compensate for the authorized impacts, the sponsor must
provide the permit applicant with at statement of credit availability. (this is the
Reservation Letter)
Section (1)(3)lf use of a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program is approved by the district
engineer to provide part or all of the required mitigation for a DA permit, the Permittee
retains the responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation until the
appropriate number and resource type of credits have been secured from the sponsor
and the district engineer has received documentation that confirms that the sponsor
has accepted the responsibility for providing the required compensatory mitigation. This
documentation must consist of a letter or form signed by the sponsor, with the permit
number and a statement indicating the number and resource type of credits that have
been secured from the sponsor. (this is the Transfer Certificate)
• 332.3: (K) Permit Conditions: the compensatory mitigation requirements for a DA
permit, including the amount and type of compensatory mitigation must be clearly
stated in the special conditions of the individual permit or general permit
verification. The special conditions must be enforceable.
PSNC — Compensatory N itigagon — RS — Page 3

,_
n_ "n "'t,
PROGRAM
July 30, 2013
George Ratchford
PSNC
PO Box 1398
Gastonia, NC 28056
Project: PSNC Duke University Natural Gas Pipeline
Expiration of Acceptance: January 30, 2014
County: Orange /Durham
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is willing to accept
payment for compensatory mitigation for impacts associated with the above referenced project as indicated in the table below. Please
note that this decision does not assure that participation in the NCEEP will be approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation
for project impacts. It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact these agencies to determine if payment to the NCEEP will be
approved. You must also comply with all other state federal or local government permits regulations or authorizations associated
with the proposed activity including SL 2009 -337• An Act to Promote the Use of Compensatory Mitigation Banks as amended by
S.L. 2011 -343.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter and is not transferable. If we have not received a copy of the
issued 404 Permit/401 Certification /CAMA permit within this time frame, this acceptance will expire. It is the applicant's
responsibility to send copies of the permits to NCEEP. Once NCEEP receives a copy of the permit(s) an invoice will be issued based
on the required mitigation in that permit and payment must be made prior to conducting the authorized work. The amount of the In-
Lieu Fee to be paid to NCEEP by an applicant is calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and policies listed at www.nceep.net.
Based on the information supplied by you in your request to use the NCEEP, the impacts that inay require compensatory mitigation are
summarized in the following table. The amount of mitigation required and assigned to NCEEP for this impact is determined by
pe itting agencies and may exceed the impact amounts shown below.
Impact
River
Basin
CU
Location
Stream (feet)
Wetlands (acres)
Buffer I
(Sq. Ft.)
Buffer II
(Sq. Ft.)
Cold
Cool Warm
Riparian Non-Riparian
Coastal Marsh
UNH
Cape Fear
03030002
0
0 0
0 0
0
3,972
0
Upon receipt of payment, EEP will take responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation. The mitigation will be performed in
accordance with the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources' Ecosystem Enhancement Program In -Lieu Fee
Instrument dated July 28, 2010.
Thank you for your interest in the NCEEP. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Kelly Williams at
(919) 707 -8915.
Sincerely,
James. Stanfill
Asset Management Supervisor
cc: Karen Higgins, NCDWQ Wetlands/401 Unit
Craig Brown, USACE- Raleigh
Cherri Smith, NCDWQ-
Walter Cole, agent
File
Resbral tg... ... Pero" Our Stag OV
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652 / 919 - 707 - 8976 / www.nceep.net