20171204 Ver 1_Supporting Documentation_20170920

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

Page intentionally blank
Inserted for double sided printing

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

Page intentionally blank
Inserted for double sided printing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page intentionally blank
Inserted for double sided printing

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

Page intentionally blank
Inserted for double sided printing

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

Page intentionally blank
Inserted for double sided printing

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

Page intentionally blank
Inserted for double sided printing

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

Page intentionally blank
Inserted for double sided printing

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

Page intentionally blank
Inserted for double sided printing

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

Page intentionally blank
Inserted for double sided printing

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

Page intentionally blank
Inserted for double sided printing