DWR

MOM— of Water Resources

Pre -Construction Notification ( PCN) Form

September 29, 2018 Ver 3

21nitial Review
Has this project met the requirements for acceptance in to the review process?*
r Yes

r No

Is this project a public transportation project?*

G Yes r No

Oiange only if needed.

BIMS # Assigned Version# *

20191410 1

Is a payment required for this project?*

What amout is owed?*
r No payment required
r Fee received r $240. 00

r Fee needed - send electronic notification r $570. 00

Reviewing Office* Select Project Reviewer*

Fayetteville Regional Office - ( 910) 433- 3300 Chad Turlington: eads\ octurlington

Information for Initial Review

1a. Name of project:

RLNG Pipeline Project

la. Who is the Primary Contact?*

Jason Brown

1b. Primary Contact Email:* 1c. Primary Contact Phone:*

Jason. Brown6@duke- energy. com 704) 731- 4681

Date Submitted

10/ 11/ 2019

Nearest Body of Water

Gum Swamp

Basin

Lumber

Water Classification

Site Coordinates

Latitude: Longitude:

34. 764534- 79. 272925

FA. Processing Information U

County ( or Counties) where the project is located:

Robeson

Is this project a public transportation project?*

r Yes r No

la. Type( s) of approval sought from the Corps:

Section 404 Permit ( wetlands, streams and waters, Clean Water Act)

r Section 10 Permit ( navigable waters, tidal waters, Rivers and Harbors Act)

1b. What type( s) of permit( s) do you wish to seek authorization?

rJ Nationwide Permit ( NWP)

r Regional General Permit ( RGP)

r Standard ( IP)
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?

r Yes r No

Nationwide Permit ( NWP) Number: 12 - Utility Lines

NWP Numbers ( for multiple NWPS):

1d. Type( s) of approval sought from the DWR:

W 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular r 401 Water Quality Certification - Express
r Non- 404 Jurisdictional General Permit r Riparian Buffer Authorization
r Individual Permit

le. Is this notification solelyfor the record because written approval is not required?

For the record only for DWR 401 Certification: r Yes r No

For the record only for Corps Permit: r Yes r No

1f. Is this an after -the -fact permit application?*

r Yes r No

1g. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in - lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?

r Yes r No

1g. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in - lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts?

r Yes r No

Acceptance Letter Attachment

1h. Is the project located in any of NC' s twenty coastal counties?

r Yes r No

1j. Is the project located in a designated trout watershed?

O Yes r No

B. Applicant Information

1d. Who is applying for the permit?

W Owner W Applicant ( other than owner)

le. Is there an Agent/ Consultant for this project?

r' Yes r No

2. Owner Information

2a. Name( s) on recorded deed:

Piedmont Natural Gas Co Inc

2b. Deed book and page no.:

01695/ 0485

2c. Responsible party:

2d. Address

Street Address

PO Box 33068

Address Line 2

City State / Ffovinm / Pagion

Charlotte North Carolina

Postal / Zip Code Country

28233 USA

2e. Telephone Number: 2f. Fax Number:

704) 731- 4681

2g. Email Address:*

Jason. Brown6@duke-energy. com

3. Applicant Information ( if different from owner)

3a. Name:

Robyn Susemihl
3b. Business Name:

Burns & McDonnell

3c. Address

Street Address

3650 Mansell Road

Address Line 2

Suite 300

City State / Rwinoe / Ragion

Alpharetta Georgia

Fbstal / Zip Cade Country

30022 USA

3d. Telephone Number: 3e. Fax Number:

770) 510- 4531

3f. Email Address:*

rssusemihl@burnsmGd. com

C. Project Information and Prior Project History

1. Project Information

1b. Subdivision name:

d appropriate)

1c. Nearest municipality / town:

Wakulla

2. Project Identification

2a. Property Identification Number: 2b. Property size:

See attached parcel map

2c. Project Address

Street Address

Pipeline intersects Old Maxton Highway (Co. Rd. 1303)

Address Line 2

City State / Rwince / Ragion

Wakulla North Carolina ( Robeson County)

Rstal / Zip Code Country

28377 U. S. A

3. Surface Waters

3a. Name of the nearest body of water to proposed project:*

Gum Swamp

3b. Water Resources Classification of nearest receiving water:*

C

3c. What river basin( s) is your project located in?*

Lumber

3d. Please provide the 12- digit HUC in which the project is located.
030402030302

4. Project Description and History

4a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this application:*

The epsting land use within the proposed pipeline corridor includes agricultural land on the west side of the corridor and forested uplands and palustrine forested wetlands ( Gum
Swamp and Jordan Swamp) along the east side of the corridor. Elevations along the pipeline corridor range from approArnately 185 - 210 feet above mean sea level.

4b. Have Corps permits or DWR certifications been obtained for this project ( including all prior phases) in the past?*

r Yes IT No r Unknown

4d. Attach an 8 1/ 2 X 11 excerpt from the most recent version of the USGS topographic map indicating the location of the project site. ( for DWR)

Topo_ 8. 5x11 _ RLNG_ PCNfigure_ 20191008_ REV. pdf 1. 11 MB

4e. Attach an 8 1/ 2 X 11 excerpt from the most recent version of the published County NRCS Soil Survey map depicting the project site. ( for DWR)

NRCS_ 8. 5x11_ Soils_ RLNG_ PCNFigure_ 20190827. pdf 2. 38MB

4f. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:

ApproArnately 209 acres of wetlands were evaluated within the survey area

4g. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams on the property:
There were approximately 3, 600 linear feet of stream evaluated within the survey area

4h. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:*

The purpose of the project is to meet the growing demand of Piedmont' s customers, specifically during peak seasons, by providing a redundant and modernized source of gas delivered
into Piedmont' s new Robeson LNG Peaking Facility.

4i. Describe the overall project in detail, including indirect impacts and the type of equipment to be used:*

The RLNG Pipeline Project includes the construction and operation of two ( 2) new natural gas pipelines: Line 456 ( 8- inch) and Line 457 ( 24- inch). The two new pipelines will be
collocated along a 4- mile- long corridor. The beginning and ending coordinates are as follows: Beginning: ( 34.743051 °,- 79.282723°) and Ending: ( 34. 797105°,- 79. 277578°). The two
lines will be installed in a parallel manner beginning at the new Robeson LNG Peak Shaving Facility, located adjacent to the north side of North Carolina Highway 71, approximately five
miles west of Red Springs, and ending at a connection with PNG' s existing high- pressure distribution pipeline to the south ( just north of Missouri Road).

A 1. 3- acre meter station will be constructed at the new Robeson LNG Peach Shaving Facility, and a 0. 5- acre tap station will be constructed at the tie in location to PNG' s existing
pipeline just north of Missouri Road. Both stations will be graveled and fenced in. An approximately 1, 200- foot long and 20-foot wide permanent gravel access road will be constructed
along an existing gravel/ dirt road to the tap station.

The pipelines will be installed using conventional open cut construction in most areas; however, the Gum Swamp crossing will be installed using horizontal directional drilling ( HDD)
method. Conventional open cut construction of the two lines will require a 130- foot- wide to 70- foot- wide construction corridor. Since the lines will be co - located within one corridor, the

permanent operational width will be 70- feet- wide. Construction will involve the use of common heavy construction equipment ( e. g. excavators, dozers, scrapers, side booms) and will be
in compliance with all necessary permits and regulatory conditions. The longer ( 1, 781 liner feet) crossing of Gum Swamp will be an HDD; however, due to Piedmont' s Integrity
Management Guidelines, the forested wetland on the surface wil be cleared with roots left in place, resulting in a conversion of PFO to PEM wetlands along a 70- foot- wide corridor. HDD
construction does not require trenching as impacts are limited to the entry and exit points for the HDD. The shorter crossings of Gum Swamp Will be open cut.

Construction and operation of the Project will result in the permanent conversion of approximately 3. 5 acres of PFO wetlands to PEM wetlands. There will be no net loss of wetlands as a
result of the Project. There will be relatively minor, short- term direct impact on about 0. 1 acre of surface water during construction. Stream beds and banks will be returned to pre -
construction conditions once the pipelines have been installed. Indirect impacts to waters should be minimal as Best Management Practices ( BMPs) will be installed for the purposes of
erosion and sediment controls. BMPs will be checked regularly to confirm they are functioning as designed and expected.

Piedmont plans to begin construction in March 2020; and, it' s anticipated in- service date is September 2020.

4j. Please upload project drawings for the proposed project.

5. Jurisdictional Determinations

Sa. Have the wetlands or streams been delineated on the property or proposed impact areas?*

r Yes r No O Unknown

Comments:

Delineations occurred the week of March 11, 2019.

5b. If the Corps made a jurisdictional determination, what type of determination was made?*

r Preliminary r Approved r Not Verified r Unknown r N/A

Corps AID Number:

5c. If 5a is yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?

Name ( if known): Jeff Harbour

Agency/ Consultant Company: ESI

Other: Kevin Murphrey & Katie Talavera both with ESI

5d1. Jurisdictional determination upload

6. Future Project Plans

6a. Is this a phased project?*

r Yes r No

Are any other NWP( s), regional general permit( s), or individual permits( s) used, or intended to be used, to authorize any part of the proposed project or related activity?
No.

FD. Proposed Impacts Inventory

1. Impacts Summary
Is. Where are the impacts associated with your project? ( check all that apply):

W Wetlands W Streams -tributaries W Buffers

r Open Waters r Pond Construction

2. Wetland Impacts

2a. Site #"(?) 2al Reason (?) 2b. Impact type"(?) 2c. Type of W. 2d. W. name 2e. Forested 2f. Type of 2g. Impact
Jurisdiction *(?) area*
 Pipel Conversion to PEM HDD P Bot omland Hardwood Forest WHA Yes Both 2. 852 Corridor

tree clearing acres) Pipeline

Corridor to PEM open t trdwoocl WHENVXA Yes Both 0. 683 acres)

Conversion cut construction P

For 2g.

Total Temporary Wetland Impact 2g. Total Permanent Wetland Impact 0.

000 3. 535 2g.

Total Wetland Impact 3.

535 2h.

Comments: Al

wetland impacts will occur within the permanent operational corridor; however, there will be no net loss of wetlands. These PFO wetlands will all be permanently
converted to PEM. 3.

Stream Impacts 3a.

Reason for impact (?)3b. lmpact type *

3c. Type of impact * 3d. S. name* 3e. Stream Type *
3f. Type of 3g. S. width * 3h. Impact Jurisdiction*

length* S1

Pipeline Construction Temporary Excavation THA- Ditch Jurisdictional Ditch Corps 7 62 Average (

feet)linear feet)32

Pipeline Construction Temporary Excavation THC- Ditch Intermittent Corps 7 249 Average (

feet) linearfeet) S3

Pipeline Construction Temporary Excavation THD- Ditch Jurisdictional Ditch Corps 7 125 Average (

feet) linear feet) S4

Pipeline Construction
Tem P ora rY P Excavation TXA- Ditch Jurisdictional Ditch Corps7 125 Average (

feet)linearfeet) SS

Pipeline Construction Temporary Excavation SXA- Stream Intermittent Corps 3 145 Average (

feet) linear feet)31.

Total jurisdictional ditch impact in square feet: 2,

184 31.

Total permanent stream impacts: 3i. Total temporary stream impacts: 0

706 31.

Total stream and ditch impacts: 706

3j.

Comments: Streams

will be impacted where the pipeline is instal ed using open cut construction method.Once the pipe is in place and the trench is backfil ed, the channel,
stream bed, and banks will be restored to pre - construction conditions. No permanent impacts will occur. 6.

Buffer Impacts (for DWR) 6a.

Project is in which protect basin( s)?

Check

all that apply. r

Neuse r Tar - Pamlico r

Catawba r Randleman r
Goose Creek r- Jordan Lake V

Other Lumber 6b.

Impact Type 6c. Per or Temp 6d. Stream name 6e. Buffer mitigation required? 6f. Zone 1 impact 6g. Zone 2 impact No

protected basin impacts T not applicable No 0 0 6h.

Total buffer impacts: Zone

1 Zone 2 Total

00 0. 00 Zone
Temporary impacts: 0.

1 Zone 2 Total

Permanent impacts: 0. 00 0. 00 Zone

1 Zone 2 Total

combined buffer impacts: 0. 00 0. 00 6i.

Comments:
Supporting Documentation

E. Impact Justification and Mitigation

1. Avoidance and Minimization

1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing the project:
Wetlands, streams and forested areas were avoided to the greatest extent by placing a 100' buffer from wetlands and siting the pipeline along the
eastern most section of agricultural fields where feasible. The largest wetland crossing will use HDD, and the streams will be crossed at a 90- degree
angle to help minimize impacts on surface waters. In other areas where wetlands will be crossed using open cut construction, PING reduced the overall
width its corridor from 130 feet down to 70 feet.

1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques:

For the largest wetland crossing, the pipelines will be installed using HDD, which means the permanent pipeline easement will not require earth work.
Tree clearing will be required as part of PNG' s Integrity Management Plan; however stumps and root systems will remain in place.

2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U. S. or Waters of the State

2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for impacts to Waters of the U. S. or Waters of the State?

r Yes r No

2b. If this project DOES NOT require Compensatory Mitigation, explain why:

There will be no net loss of wetlands as a result of this Project. Only a conversion from PFO to PEM will occur.

F. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan ( required by DWR)

1. Diffuse Flow Plan

1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?

r Yes r No

If no, explain why:

There are no protected buffers, protected riparian zones, or protected watersheds within the Project area.

2. Stormwater Management Plan

2a. Is this a NCDOT project subject to compliance with NCDOT' s Individual NPDES permit NCS000250?*

r Yes r No

2b. Does this project meet the requirements for low density projects as defined in 15A NCAC 02H . 1003( 2)?

r Yes r No

2c. Does this project have a stormwater management plan ( SMP) reviewed and approved under a state stormwater program or state - approved local government stormwater
program?

r Yes r No

3. Stormwater Requirements

3a. Select whether a completed stormwater management plan ( SMP) is included for review and approval or if calculations are provided to document the project will not cause
degradation of downstream surface waters.*

r Stormwater Management r Antidegradation

Plan Calculations

3b. Stormwater Management Plan

3c. Antidegradation Calculations

Comments:

Only clearing operations are proposed in the wetlands with no or limited grubbing; therefore ground coverage will not change. No permanent development or new impervious surfaces
are proposed within wetlands. Impacts to post construction velocity and volume will be negligible.

G. Supplementary Information

1. Environmental Documentation

1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public ( federal/ state/ local) funds or the use of public ( federal/ state) land?*

r Yes r No

2. Violations ( DWR Requirement)

2a. Is the site in violation of DWR Water Quality Certification Rules ( 15A NCAC 2H . 0500), Isolated Wetland Rules ( 15A NCAC 2H . 1300), or DWR Surface Water or Wetland Standards or
Riparian Buffer Rules ( 15ANCAC 2B . 0200)? *

r Yes r No

3. Cumulative Impacts ( DWR Requirement)

3a. Will this project result in additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?*

r- Yes r No

3b. If you answered " no," provide a short narrative description.

4. Sewage Disposal ( DWR Requirement)

4a. Is sewage disposal required by DWR for this project?*

r Yes r No r N/A

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat ( Corps Requirement)

5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or habitat?

f Yes r No

5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act impacts?*

r Yes r- No

5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Raleigh

5d. Is another Federal agency involved?*

r Yes r No r- Unknown

5e. Is this a DOT project located within Division' s 1- 8?

r- Yes r No

5f. Will you cut anytrees in order to conduct the work in waters of the U. S.?

r Yes (- No

5g. Does this project involve bridge maintenance or removal?

r- Yes r No

Sh. Does this project involve the construction/ installation of a wind turbine( s)?*

r Yes r No

5i. Does this project involve ( 1) blasting, and/ or ( 2) other percussive activities that will be conducted by machines, such as jackhammers, mechanized pile drivers, etc.?

r- Yes r No

5j. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical Habitat?
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Consultation Documentation Upload

RLNG_ USF WS_ SelfCertify. pdf 1. 97 MB

6. Essential Fish Habitat ( Corps Requirement)

6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as an Essential Fish Habitat?*

r- Yes r No

6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact an Essential Fish Habitat?*
NOAA Essential Fish Habitat Mapper

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 status?*

r Yes r No

7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?*

PNG performed a Phase I Cultural Resources Site Investigation on over 90 percent of the project area. Although new artifacts were discovered, there
were no artifacts/ sites were eligible for listing on the NRHP. The SHPO is currently reviewing PNG' s Phase I Cultural Resources Survey Report for the
project. The report can be provided to the USACE upon request. A copy of any consultation or concurrence from SHPO will be forwarded to the
USACE once it is available.

7c. Historic or Prehistoric Information Upload

8. Flood Zone Designation ( Corps Requirement)

8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA- designated 100- year floodplain?*
r Yes r No

8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:

There will be no permanent changes to elevations within the floodplain. There will be no permanent aboveground structures or facilities constructed
within the floodplain.

8c. What source( s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?*
FEMA Floodplain mapper tool

Miscellaneous u

Comments

RLNG Parcel Map showing property owners is attached

Miscellaneous attachments not previously requested.

RLNG Parcel Map. pdf 664. 67KB

Signature u

W By checking the box and signing below, I certify that:

I have given true, accurate, and complete information on this form;

I agree that submission of this PCN form is a ' transaction" subject to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes ( the " Uniform Electronic Transactions Act");

I agree to conduct this transaction by electronic means pursuant to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General Statutes ( the " Uniform Electronic Transactions Act");
I understand that an electronic signature has the same legal effect and can be enforced in the same way as a written signature; AND
I intend to electronically sign and submit the PCN form.

Full Name:

Robyn S. Susemihl

Signature

fh- 14 5 50-38-4 /

Date

10/ 11/ 2019

 PIEDMONT NATURAL GAS COMPANY - AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM

PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION: RLNG Pipeline Project

LOT NO. PLAN NO. PARCEL ID:

STREET ADDRESS: Pipeline corridor intersects Old Maxton Highway ( Robeson County)

Please print:
Property Owner: Piedmont Natural Gas ( holder of easement)

Property Owner: _ Jason Brown ( Project Manager at Piedmont Natural Gasj

The undersigned, registered property owners of the above noted property, do hereby authorize

Robyn Susemlhl , of Bums & McDonnell

Contractor / Agent) Name of consulting firm)

to act on my behalf and take all actions necessary for the processing, Issuance and acceptance of
this permit or certification and any and all standard and special conditions attached.

Property Owner' s Address ( if different than property above):

PO Box 33068, Charlotte, NC 28233

Telephone: ( 704) 731- 4681

We hereby certify the above information submitted in this application is true and accurate to the
best of our knowledge.

Jason rown, Otdmont Natural Gas Robyn Susemlhl, Burns & McDonnell

Date: _ August 29, 2019 Date: Au-qust_29. 2019

 Path:

D
l
r
i Old

rGo

RdPreston
J I

RdLacy
Rd

a
provided by

n
d

Bu

c
k

Do

Hendrson RdSpringe
uri R dDoc
R d Misso
on
s r

ed
R
L

RdN

NC-

71

H
W

JI
Rd Y

I
L

Geographic Society/ J
c
t

o
r
D
d er
r

e S

PNG. Study H t

ESRI, i-
cubed
seamless USGS c
quadrangles ( Wakulla and

Maxton, NC);
Study Corridor

li
Th
if

ti
regulatory review and is intended for use only
by a Professional Land Surveyor prior to regulatory
review.Source: 2011 National

d itd thi fi i f if ti l
1 Lumber River Basin 02,0001, 000 Feet Disclaimer: The information
depicted on this figure is for informational purposes
only and was not prepared for,and is not suitable for legal environmentalservicesinc. com Di
or engine ring purposes. This information presented is not for

P:\ Project 919)212-

GeoGra\ Projects\ E ENVIRONMENTAL
2018\ 082\ GIS\
Location 1760 919)
topo. mxd Date: Drive Raleigh, NC 27610
4/ 1/ 2019
Robeson County, 212-1707
1:40:19 PM
SERVICES, INC.4901 Trademark
North Carolina PNG FAX www.
S pri n g s R d Preston RdRev B i l l Rd Carter R d
 NoA NoA GoAWaBMc
Mapping Units Mc WaB

12:
NoA Bill

0800400 Feet RdJT

PoB
Study Corridor Proposed r
NoA NoA
Pipelines Pipe Stringing
Mc LaB
Area Lay Down
Mc Mc Mc
Mc
slopes
WaB
Mc NoA
Soil
prior to regulatory review. Source: High
Resolution NC Statewide Imagery, CGIA, 2017; NRCS digital
Soil Surveyfor informational
of Robeson purposes
County,2a 2009;
Location
Study

Corridor provided by PNG. Results are considered

Mc GoA
preliminary and subject to

Area NRCS Soils Survey Disclaimer: The information depicted

GoA
on this figure is for informational purposes only
and was not prepared for, and is not suitable LaB
for legal or engineering purposes. This information
PoB WaB
presented is not for regulatory review and is intended for NoB
use only by a Professional Land Surveyor

NoA

NoA NoA
sand, 0-
6% WaB
Approximate. PoB Ru
LaB PoB
Lumber WaB WkB
River Bibb soils Coxville loam Duplin sandy
Basin loam, 0-
2%slopes Goldsboro loamy
BB sand, 0- NoA
Co 2%
slopes Johnston Mc WaB
DpA soils Lynchburg
W
GoA sandy loam McColl
PoB loam Norfolk loamy
JT sand, 0-2%slopes Norfolk loamy
Ly sand, 2-
6%
Ly
Mc slopes Pactolus loamy sand Pocalla loamy
NoA sand, 0-
NoA
3% NoB
NoB slopes Rutlege loamy sand Wagram loamy
Pa sand, 0-6%
slopes Wakulla WaB

JT
WaB NoB

N NC-71 HWY Mc

rMcL eanGoverno
WaB
Ly

Mc
BB MaA

PoB

Mc
GoA
WaB

W
WaB

Mc

WaB

NoA
Mc RdRev

WaB
Ly
Mc
Ly Mc son

WkBNoA NoB

Mc

Ly
Ly
LaB Mc
JT

GoA
WaB
GoA
Mc

Ly
Mc
RdDoc H

WkB
ende

GoA
Ly
Mc

WaB
GoA
Mc
Dn

Mc

Mc
Ru WaB

WaBMaB
WaB Pt

Ra Ru
WkB
Dn
Mc

Co W

Mc
Ra and Extent is
FaB
GoA Dn NoA

2019 PNG Lines

51:
34 PM
919)212-
CW/ 456/ 457
E ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES,
INC. 4901 Trademark Robeson County, North Carolina
Drive Raleigh, NC
JH Figure: ER18082. 00
27610 919) 212- 1760
1707 FAX NRCS Soils
Project: Date: Drwn/ Apr is
Ra Mc WkBLaB PaLy Path: P:\
GeoGra\ Projects\ 2018\ 082\ GIS\ soils. mxd Date: 4/1/2019
 r WkB Ra
s
0-
6%

Date:
WaB WaB
NoA
g
slopes Soil
Ru
Ra
Mapping Units 0800400

Feet Study Corridor

NoB R
Proposed Pipelines Pipe Ra

Wakulla
Pt NoA
FaB Dn
sand, GoA n
NoA
a Professional Land Surveyor prior to Ra
regulatory review. Source: High Resolution NC Statewide Imagery,
CGIA, on
2017; this
NRCS digital figure
Soil is Survey
for of

Mc
Robeson County, 2009; Study Corridor provided by
PNG. Results are considered WaB WkB
Stringing Area Lay Down Area NRCS Soils Survey
Disclaimer: The information depicted on this figure is
for informational purposes only and was not prepared for,
and is not suitable for legal or
engineering purposes. This information presented is not for regulatory review
and is intended for use only by
LaB

WaB
0-
6%slopes
Location Mc NoA Ly
and NoB Pa Pa
GoACo
Extent PoB Ru WaB WkB Bibb
soils
is Coxville loam Duplin sandy loam, 0- Ra
Approximate. 2%
slopes WaB
Lumber Goldsboro loamy sand,
River 0-
2%
GoA
Basin slopes Johnston soils Lynchburg sandy loam
BB McColl loam Norfolk loamy sand, 0-
Co 2% slopes Norfolk
DpA loamyRasand, 2- 6%
slopes Pactolus
JT i LaB
GoA loamy sand Pocalla
JT loamy sand, 0-3%
slopes Rutlege NoB
Ly loamy sand Wagram loamy sand,
WaC
WaBGoA
WaB Mc
g D
rCar
te
r
Rd
Missouri
Rd
d WaB Old
R
e
d
S Mc
GoA DpA WaB
Mc
Mc
Ly

Mc
Mc WaB r
l

Dn

NoA

McRa NoA DpA

NoA
Mc
WaB

Mc

Mc NoA
Ly
BB Ra
DpA p NoA
DnLy
Mc

a
Co DpA

Mc
Dn GoA
W
WaC
LaB
WaB
GoA Mc Ra
Ra Rd

c
Pm
NoB WaB y

Ra
Dn

WaB
Ra

GoA
Ra NoA

GoA NoA
WaB
NoB

GoA
Ra

WaB

Ra

DpA
Ra
WaB
NoA

GoA

Rd J
I
Ra
GoA
Ra
WaB WaB GoA lLn
Spinks

J
I DrPreston
RdDoc
HenderRdBuck
son
RdDocHenderson

DpA
GoA
RdSt

Spring e
Ra in
dr
Ly NoA
NoA

Dr
i Katra
informational purposes 2b
Mc

Ly
457 Robeson County,
4/
1/
2019
27610 919)
ER18082. North Carolina
12: 51: 34
PM E ENVIRONMENTAL 1707 FAX NRCS Soils
SERVICES, INC. 4901
00 Apr PNG Lines
Trademark Drive Raleigh, NC
212-1760 919)212-
2019 CW/ JH 456/ depicted
DpA GoA Dn GoAWaB Ly Co Co DpANoANoA Path: P:\GeoGra\ Projects\ 2018\ 082\ GIS\ soils. mxd
 LL-
3)

CBHME
URA,
020MARY

9BUL316L3A6RDMB4970 (
ID:
94TAX
PG
38
TRACT

VERBSCOTT,
BRYBOY,
B
MELI
ONICASNUEDA

00 39+
00 38+
00 40+ 00 37+
00 36+
00 35+
00 34+
00 33+
00 32+
00 31+
00 30+
00 29+
00 28+
00 27+
00 26+
00 25+
00 24+
00 23+
00 22+
00 21+
00 20+
00 19+
00 18+
00 17+
00 16+
0014+ 0015+
0012+ 0013+
0010+ 0011+
008+ 009+
006+ 007+
004+ 005+
002+ 003+
100+ 001+
ID: 93164087910 207+
PG 413TAX
LOCKLEARDB 1294
ID: 931643514391BRUCE

1720
PG
818TAX

CHAD
ERIC
SCOTTDB

931642682 76VANESSA
SCOTT
ANDHUSBAND

PG
275TAX
ID:

LOCKLEAR
JRDB
1669

LOCKLEAR
andhusband
STANFORD

931644686000LL-
022ELLEN
FAYE

PG
819TAX
ID:

ANNE
OXENDINEDB
1193

OXENDINEand
wife
JO

931862738600LL-
018BTHOMAS
JAMES

PG
119TAX
ID:

PG
485MB
44,

COMPANY,
INCDB
1695

931784584200LL-
000PIEDMONT
NATURALGAS

PG
358TAX
ID:

FARM,
LLCDB
2107

931778581700LL-
004JORDAN
SWAMP

2034PG
756TAX
ID:

931862738600LL-
0 2LAR YJAMESFOWLERAND
WIFETERSEAHADLOCKFOWLERDB

PG
119TAX
ID:

PG
485MB
44

GASCOMPANY,
INCDB
1695

LL-
000PIEDMONT
NATURAL

32MONUMENT_
PT30816192.
35

90
MONUMENT_
PT30815192.

2in_
pipe30813196.
22stone30814196.

13
RBR30811196.
21

AT
BEND)
30810196.

1"
IRON
PIPE (

WITH_
NAIL30809197.
66

68
BENT_
IP_

PT30799207.
09
rbr30807198.

93165025850 6RB30798203.
92
MONUMENT_
 Raleigh Field Office
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726

Date:__________________________

Self-Certification Letter

Project Name______________________________

Dear Applicant:

Thank you for using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) Raleigh Ecological
Services online project review process. By printing this letter in conjunction with your
project review package, you are certifying that you have completed the online project
review process for the project named above in accordance with all instructions
provided, using the best available information to reach your conclusions. This letter,
and the enclosed project review package, completes the review of your project in
accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat.
884), as amended (ESA), and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C.
668-668c, 54 Stat. 250), as amended (Eagle Act). This letter also provides
information for your project review under the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (P.L. 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, 83 Stat. 852), as amended. A copy of this
letter and the project review package must be submitted to this office for this
certification to be valid. This letter and the project review package will be maintained
in our records.

The species conclusions table in the enclosed project review package summarizes
your ESA and Eagle Act conclusions. Based on your analysis, mark all the
determinations that apply:

no effect” determinations for proposed/listed species and/or

proposed/designated critical habitat; and/or

may affect, not likely to adversely affect” determinations for proposed/listed

species and/or proposed/designated critical habitat; and/or

may affect, likely to adversely affect” determination for the Northern long-
eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and relying on the findings of the January 5,
2016, Programmatic Biological Opinion for the Final 4(d) Rule on the
Northern long-eared bat;

no Eagle Act permit required” determinations for eagles.

Applicant Page 2

We certify that use of the online project review process in strict accordance with the
instructions provided as documented in the enclosed project review package results in
reaching the appropriate determinations. Therefore, we concur with the “ no effect” or
not likely to adversely affect” determinations for proposed and listed species and
proposed and designated critical habitat; the “ may affect” determination for Northern
long-eared bat; and/or the “ no Eagle Act permit required” determinations for eagles.
Additional coordination with this office is not needed. Candidate species are not
legally protected pursuant to the ESA. However, the Service encourages consideration
of these species by avoiding adverse impacts to them. Please contact this office for
additional coordination if your project action area contains candidate species.
Should project plans change or if additional information on the distribution of
proposed or listed species, proposed or designated critical habitat, or bald eagles
becomes available, this determination may be reconsidered. This certification letter is
valid for 1 year. Information about the online project review process including
instructions, species information, and other information regarding project reviews
within North Carolina is available at our website http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/pp.html.
If you have any questions, you can write to us at Raleigh@fws.gov or please contact
Leigh Mann of this office at 919-856-4520, ext. 10.

Sincerely,

s/Pete Benjamin

Pete Benjamin
Field Supervisor
Raleigh Ecological Services

Enclosures - project review package

 United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636- 3726
Phone: ( 919) 856-4520 Fax: ( 919) 856-4556

In Reply Refer To: March 28, 2019

Consultation Code: 04EN2000- 2019- SLI- 0720
Event Code: 04EN2000- 2019- E-01627
Project Name: PNG Lines 456/ 457

Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project
location, and/ or may be affected by your proposed project

To Whom It May Concern:

The species list generated pursuant to the information you provided identifies threatened,
endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical
habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/ or may be affected by
your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service ( Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act ( Act) of 1973, as amended
16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of
species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to
contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to
federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical
habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402. 12( e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the
Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be
completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be
completed by visiting the ECOS- IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and
implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested
through the ECOS- IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.

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
03/ 28/ 2019 Event Code: 04EN2000- 2019- E- 01627 2

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

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.

Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.), and projects affecting these species may require
development of an eagle conservation plan ( http:// www.fws.gov/ windenergy/
eagle_ guidance. html). Additionally, wind energy projects should follow the wind energy
guidelines ( http:// www.fws.gov/ windenergy/) for minimizing impacts to migratory birds and
bats.

Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications
towers ( e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at: http://
www.fws.gov/ migratorybirds/ CurrentBirdIssues/ Hazards/ towers/ towers. htm; http://
www.towerkill. com; and http:// www.fws.gov/ migratorybirds/ CurrentBirdIssues/ Hazards/ towers/
comtow. html.

Not all Threatened and Endangered Species that occur in North Carolina are subject to section 7
consultation with the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon, sea
turtles, when in the water, and certain marine mammals are under purview of the National Marine
Fisheries Service. If your project occurs in marine, estuarine, or coastal river systems you should
also contact the National Marine Fisheries Service, http:// www.nmfs. noaa. gov/

We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages
Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project
planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in
the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project
that you submit to our office. If you have any questions or comments, please contact John Ellis
of this office at john_ellis@fws. gov.
03/ 28/ 2019 Event Code: 04EN2000- 2019- E- 01627 3

Attachment( s):

Official Species List

03/ 28/ 2019 Event Code: 04EN2000- 2019- E- 01627 1

Official Species List

This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the
requirement for Federal agencies to " request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether
any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed
action".

This species list is provided by:

Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office

Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636- 3726
919) 856- 4520
03/ 28/ 2019 Event Code: 04EN2000- 2019- E- 01627 2

Project Summary
Consultation Code: 04EN2000- 2019- SLI- 0720

Event Code: 04EN2000- 2019- E-01627

Project Name: PNG Lines 456/ 457

Project Type: OIL OR GAS

Project Description: Piedmont Natural Gas intends to install two parallel natural gas lines
456/ 457). One line is 8" and the other is 24". Due diligence efforts are
currently underway.

Project Location:
Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https://
www.google. com/ maps/ place/ 34.77001216075526N79. 27036246880279W

Counties: Robeson, NC
03/ 28/ 2019 Event Code: 04EN2000- 2019- E- 01627 3

Endangered Species Act Species

There is a total of 4 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.

Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include
species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species
list because a project could affect downstream species.

IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA
1
Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the
Department of Commerce.

See the " Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially
within your project area under this office' s jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office
if you have questions.

1. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service ( NMFS), is an
office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of
Commerce.

Birds

NAME STATUS

Red- cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered

No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https:// ecos. fws. gov/ ecp/ species/ 7614

Wood Stork Mycteria americana Threatened

Population: AL, FL, GA, MS, NC, SC

No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https:// ecos. fws. gov/ ecp/ species/ 8477

Reptiles

NAME STATUS

American Alligator Alligator mississippiensis Similarity of

No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Appearance
Species profile: https:// ecos. fws. gov/ ecp/ species/ 776
Threatened)
03/ 28/ 2019 Event Code: 04EN2000- 2019- E- 01627 4

Flowering Plants

NAME STATUS

Michaux' s Sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered

No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Species profile: https:// ecos. fws. gov/ ecp/ species/ 5217

Critical habitats

THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE' S
JURISDICTION.
 rim Roy Cooper, Governor
NC DEPARTMENT OF
Suss Hamilton, Secretary
i i NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
INNS
Walter Clark. Director, Land and Water Stewardship

NCNHDE- 8082

February 4, 2019
Katie Talavera
Env' ronmental Services, Inc. ( ESI)
4901 Trademark Drive
Raleigh, NC 27603
RE: lmile search: esil

Dear Katie Talavera:

The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program ( NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide
information about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.

A query of the NCNHP database indicates that there are records for rare species, important natural
communities, natural areas, and/ or conservation/ managed areas within the proposed project
boundary. These results are presented in the attached ' Documented Occurrences' tables and map.

The attached ' Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that
have been documented within a one -mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these
records suggests that these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area
if suitable hab' tat exists. Tables of natural areas and conservation/ managed areas within a one -mile
radius of the project area, if any, are also included in this report.

If a Federally - listed species is documented within the project area or indicated within a one - mile
radius of the project area, the NCNHP recommends contacting the US Fish and Wildlife Service
USFWS) for guidance. Contact information for USFWS offices in North Carolina is found here:
httnc-/ A" k A11Ai r= lc eu.1% I 1nff eGC i ir f rYSr4/ A . 0 PC) FF L,-" F mlC IiAe rr%
ma= ZT

Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation
planning, project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria
for regulatory decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published
without prior written notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information
source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP data may not be redistributed without permission.

Also please note that the NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional
correspondence if a Dedicated Nature Preserve, Registered Heritage Area, Clean Water
Management Trust Fund easement, or an occurrence of a Federally - listed species is documented
near the project area.

If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance,
please contact Rodney A. Butler at mtirn y. i, tEerggn dcr_{ v or 919- 707- 8603.

Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL PESOURCES

121 W JONES ifREET. RALEIGH. NC 27603 • 1651 MAIL SERVICE CENT[ R RALEIGH. NC 27699
OFC' JI9. 7079120 • FAX 9197079121
 m q U

Y. z

o m q/ k

0
k F
m
k %E
q 3

E 7
c

E E j
cn
uu 2: X a
D
@

B
C
E k
m
7U
f£\ K k
CN
OD c

22¥ w g
2 0 U X
Z 0\ K
aj

E U
z I
k&ƒ I 2 k
z 2
t
u E
Ln

m D
Z w D
m 2 .0
I§ 2 a
t E 2$ 2 CL
41
0 ,

E 0
Lu
2k
a 7
Q a)§ 2
C
6
E S D
c

q K
w

kl C

k c
2E
 Q1 1 M
C Nl M to N N M
N '
v) Lr1 N 0( n V) in N MUl MIn C!)
N
N

O
O
C
m
IU U' Li C C7 0 M 0 rJ D
l7 C7 U
9 N7 NU` 17
Q C} 0
NL
C C C C C C E E C O
i+
U y a N m a) m of m N ro O ro O 0) Q1 m a7 m m N
Q) JA U L U L U L U L 1 1 1 U L L U L U L U L
t° m vm rowro ro U Lm roaa cIvm CD ro

a
n ca ca ca c c c ao c ao c c o
a) rn rn c, a) rn u a U a
Ln cn U7 Lfi h U) In H

O
V)
H

CD 1 1 1 1 1 I I

ro
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 11 1I 1
1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

W N

r t >t
2 3
O
mo° ioa
coa+ m a`' 0( 1) Ca` 00
I J J
i
f^_
0_
1 ci
a cai
u
U.
V L 4 4

a-+ G
E 0 r = w . s m co
m m s

u
Ll3 u
N O
rn Noao
a' NO
ro
O 1
N(
vOi
Z '
m + a d Q CL I t N
n 00 c 0 m
co
n
w -
I 1
O O O O 1 1

C
d u m ar m O 00 DO rn of 0a U3
Ln

z
D Q H 0 0 Ohl Onl
N N O
N MOl 0) Ail

a/
L(
L)
L Z U
N I O N
ON
a
YI
mU
C 1 1

fo a r to 3 3 0
L
O aDE. w E w
C
O O

W O V) a1 al
u
C L

N N O 03
W O U O N
c
u E O. 0 u
c c Ln c m ac
u E' o o m
m o 1 1 L >, 3 0) 3 m
O W; u u a m m L
m Qm Q- 0 O

O
m
w CO
a
E
c
a) roL
0
L Q} O ii c c o' O m 0
E
a0 > a 0 o o
o
m 3Z mac u
ro

roDmQL>
4J a, a E
m
n IA In

U sue. E
N! 7 ul v) J m m m m
d
 U

E
O
L
C_

3
C
a LO

Nro w
0
ca C
d
ro
CD
c a

r v

Ca
0

a
c
0
6
C
t
 Projects\

r R

l
i
d
n Missouri
g RdDoc
D
r
G
o

v
e
r
n
o

by PNG.
d

B
u

k
R

r
d
D
o
c
H
e

c
L
e
a

Henderson Rd
n
R

only
i-
cubed

seamless USGS quadrangles (

Wakulla and Maxton,

NC);
Study Corridor provided

a
Professional by
o Study Corridor e
R
JIRd
J

RdL

e
c
t
o
r
D
a

r
St
a
d
J
I
RdPreston
RdN
NC-
71
HWYL

Land
is intended for use only by a Professional
Land Surveyor prior to regulatory review. Source: 2011
National Geographic Society/ ESRI,

Surveyor prior to regulatory review. 1 Lumber River Basin

0 2, 0001, 000 Feet Disclaimer: The information depicted on this
figure is for informational purposes only and was
not prepared for, and is not suitable for legal or engineering purposes. intended for use
This information presented is not for regulatory review and

County, 919)212-
2018\
082\ INC.4901
North 1707 FAX
GIS\ topo. mxd
Date: 4/1/
2019 1:40:
27610 919)212-1760 Carolina PNG Project Location
19 PM E ENVIRONMENTALSERVICES,

Lines 456/
457
Trademark Drive Raleigh, NC
Robeson is
Springer DrOld Red Springs RdPreston RdRe v B i l l Rd Carter Rd Path: P:\
GeoGra\
 PoB
GoAWaBMc NoA
NoA
NoA
800400 Feet JT
Study Corridor
Proposed Pipelines Pipe
NoA
Stringing Area Lay
LaB
Mc
PoB
Mc
Mc

WaB
JT
11 Rev

Mc
Down Area NRCS
Mc
Map ing Units
Mc
NoA NoA
0
regulatory review. Source: High Resolution NC
Statewide Imagery, CGIA, 2017; NRCS digital Soil Survey
of Robesonreview. 2a Location
County, 2009; Studyand Corri
Extent
dor provided

by PNG. Results are considered preliminary and

subject to change absent
NoB WaB
Soils Survey Disclaimer: The information depicted on this
WaB
figure is for informational purposes only and was
not prepared for, and is not suitable for legal NoA McPoB
or engineering purposes. This information presented is
not for regulatory review and is intended for use only Mc Mc
by a Professional Land Surveyor prior to

Mc
6%
slopes Soil NoA GoA PoB
Basin B CoDpAGoAJTLyMcNoANoBPaPoBRuWaBWkB
Bibb soils WaB NoB
Coxville loam Duplin sandy loam, 0-
2% slopes Goldsboro loamy sand, 0-

River
2% slopes WaB
Johnston soils Lynchburg Ly Mc
sandy loam
GoA McColl loam Norfolk loamy sand, 0-
WaB
2% slopes Norfolk loamy sand, 2-
6% slopes Pactolus Mc
loamy sand Pocalla loamy sand, 0-
3% slopes Rutlege
LaB W
loamy sand Wagram loamy sand, 0-
6% slopes Wakul a sand, 0- WaB
NoA
GoA WaB
M
G
N NC-71 HWY MaA
o
c
v
L
e
e r
a n
WaB NoB
no

R
r
d

PoB W
WaB
Mc
Ly
Mc Mc
NoA GoA
WaB
NoB

Mc
Mc RdJT

Ly Ly
WkBNoA Bill Mc
Ly
Mc WaB
Ly
Mc
NoA GoA
NoA
WaB WkB
LaB D

o
c

e
n
GoAMc Mc
d
e
r
s
o
GoA
n

BB
Ly Mc

WkB
McMc WaB
NoA

Dn
Ly
Dn Ru
Ra
Mc WaB
WaB Pt WaBMaB
Co
W

Ra GoA
LaB FaB is Approximate. Lumber

Dn
JH 456/457
AM
E 1707 FAX
Figure: ER18082. 00
ENVIRONMENTALSERVICES, INC. 4901
Trademark Drive Raleigh,
NC 27610 919)
North Carolina PNG Lines Project: Date: Apr 2019
212- 1760 919) 212-

Drwn/Chkd:
www.
NRCS Soils Robeson County,
CW/ regulatory
Ra McWkBLaBLy Path: P:\
GeoGra\ Projects\ 2018\ 082\ GIS\ soils. mxd Date: 4/1/2019 11: 06:
 r WaBWkB Ra
6%
slopes g WaB NoB NoA

Date:
NoA
Soil Mapping Ru
Units 0 800400
Ra
Feet Study Corridor
NoA s
Proposed Pipelines Pipe
Wakul a sand,
Pt GoA
Ra
0- FaB n JT
a Professional Land Surveyor prior to
regulatory review. Source: High Resolution NC Statewide Imagery,
Dn
CGIA, 2017; Professional Land Surveyor
NRCS digital Soilprior Survey
to of

Robeson County, 2009; Study Corridor provided by

PNG. Results are considered

Stringing Area Lay Down Area NRCS Soils Survey

WaB Ra
L

Disclaimer: The information depicted on this figure is

for informational purposes only and was not prepared for,
and is not suitable for legal or
n

engineering purposes. This information presented is not for regulatory review

Spinks
and is intended for use only by
DrPreston

RdDoc
Mc
H Mc
0-6%
slopes
and Extent
is Approximate. WkB
GoA
Lumber River Basin BCoDpAG JTLyMcNoA BPaoRuWaBk Bibb
Coxville loam Duplin sandy loam,
soils
0-

Locatin
WaB
2% slopes
Goldsboro loamy sand,

WaBMc 0- 2%
slopes Johnston soils Lynchburg sandy loam
McColl loam Norfolk loamy sand, 0-
2% slopes Norfolk
loamy sand,2- GoACoRa 6% slopes Pactolus
i
d loamy sand Pocalla
loamy sand,0-
loamy sand Wagram loamy sand,
3% slopes Rutlege WaC
Ra
DpA NoA NoA rt
er
R
dMiRd
s ourOld
i
R WaB Red
S Ly
WaB WaBGoAMc LaB
Mc
Mc
DocHenderson

WaB Rd

Ly GoAWaB
Starl
i
n

Mc
D

NoB

McMcRa NoA Dn
Ra LaB
WaB
Ra
Mc NoACo
DnLy p
DpA Mc
DpA Ly
Mc LaBDpA

Dn W
Mc
WaB
NoA
GoA GoANoB
WaC I Rd

Mc
WaB
Ra La
c
y

Ra
GoA WaB
e

nd

e
WaB
r

son Ra PmNoBDn
Rd

NoA NoA
GoAWaB Ra
GoA
Ra
WaB
Ra
DpA
Ra
WaB
NoA
GoA
IRdJ
BB
GoA
Ra
Ra J GoA Bu c
k
DpA R
d
Ra
Ly
Ca
WaB
R
d

SpringerDr
GoA
K
i
a

l
t

r
a
regulatory review. 2b
Mc
NoA
457 Robeson County,
4/
1/ 27610 919)
ER18082. North Carolina
2019 11:06:
11 AM E
ENVIRONMENTALSERVICES, INC. 4901
1707 FAX NRCS Soils 00 Apr PNG Lines
Trademark Drive Raleigh, NC

2019 CW/
JH
212-
1760 919)212-
456/ a
NoA Ly DpA GoA DnGoAWaB Ly CoCo DpANoANoA Path: P:\
GeoGra\ Projects\ 2018\ 082\ GIS\ soils. mxd
 3/
of wetland
boundaries. 0 800400
Feet Study Corridor Potential
Wetland (WOTUS) Potential
Surface Waters (WOTUS)
Potential Stream (
WOTUS) Potential Tributary (
WOTUS) Proposed Pipelines
regulatory review. 3a Not A
Pipe Stringing Area Lay

require re-

Extent is Approximate. Lumber River evaluation Basin Note: Vegetation removal or alteration
of soils or hydrology after initial site evaluation can affect
Land Surveyor prior to regulatory review. Source: High Resolution
jurisdictional status and may
NC Statewide Imagery, CGIA,

2017; Study Corridor provided by PNG. Results are considered

preliminary and

Down Area USACE Wetland Data Point Disclaimer: The information depicted
on this figure is for informational purposes only and was not prepared for, and
is not suitable for legal or engineering purposes. This
information presented is not for regulatory review and is intended for use
only by a Professional

Surface Waters/Ponds:
subject to change absent
USACE concur ence. Wetlands:
WHA 1-26
WHB 1-141
WHC 1-15
WHD 1-12
o
WHE 1-
71
THB THC N NC-
HWY
r
M
G
o
9 WXA 1-
cv
L e 66 Streams/ Tributaries:
er
n
SXA 1-8
a

SXB 1-4
THA 1-8
THB 1-6
THC 1-7
THD 1- 7 WHC
TXA 1-6 Jordan
P1 1-5 Delineated Feature
Labels*These labels correspond

SwampGum

SwampWHD

WHB

WHB

Surveyor prior to Survey Location and

00 North Carolina
2019
8: 212-
1760 919)212- 1707 FAX Potential
Apr PNG Lines
56:57 AM
E ENVIRONMENTALSERVICES, INC.
4901 Trademark Drive
US WOTUS)Robeson
( County, 2019 CW/ 456/ 457
Raleigh, NC 27610 919)
Wetlands/Waters of the
JH Figure:Project: WHB ER18082. Land
R d Doc Henderson RdRev Bill RdPath: P:\GeoGra\ Projects\ 2018\ 082\ GIS\ JD_fig. mxd Date: 4/
 fig.
may require
re-
evaluation of
wetland boundaries. 0 800400
Feet Study Corridor
Potential Wetland ( WOTUS)
Potential Surface
Waters (WOTUS)Potential WHB
Stream (WOTUS) Potential
Land Surveyor prior to regulatory WHA
Tributary (WOTUS) Proposed Pipelines
i

jurisdictional status

l
A Survey Location and Extent and is Approximate. Lumber River Basin Note: L

Vegetation removal or alteration of soils or hydrology after initial n

only by a Professional Land Surveyor prior to regulatory

site evaluation can affect
review. Source: High Resolution
Spinks
NC Statewide Imagery, CGIA, 2017; Study Corridor provided by
PNG. Results THD
Pipe Stringing Area Lay Down Area USACE Wetland Data Point
Disclaimer: The information depicted on this figure is for informational purposes only and was
not prepared for, and is not suitable for legal
or engineering purposes. This information presented is not for regulatory review and
is intended for use

7 TXA 1-
are considered preliminary and Ca
subject to change rt
absent USACE concurrence.
erR
dMissourRdi
Wetlands: WHA 1- Old
Re
26 WHB 1-
141 WHC 1-
15 WHD
1- 12 WHE
1- 9 WXA SXA
1- 66 Streams/
Tributaries: SXA 1-
8 SXB 1-
4 THA 1-
Gum R

DocHenderson
Rd
8 THB 1- Starl

6 THC 1-
n

7 THD 1- THA
6 Surface Waters/Ponds: P1
1- 5 Delineated Feature

WXA

SwampWHE

Rd

TXA

DrPreston

RdDoc

H
end

r
SXB

JIRd

P1
sonRdBu
c
k

Dr c
by a Professional
y

d
r
SpringerDr
K
a

review. 3b Not
a
t

Lines US WOTUS)
(
mxd
Date: Raleigh,NC 27610 919) 212-1760 919)
456/ Robeson County,
4/
8:
3/
56: 57
AM E ENVIRONMENTALSERVICES,
2019
Wetlands/Waters of the 457 ER18082. North Carolina
INC. 4901 Trademark Drive

00 Apr 2019
212-
1707 FAX Potential
PNG only
d S p r i n g s R d Path: P:\GeoGra\ Projects\ 2018\ 082\ GIS\ JD_
Determination Table: Piedmont Natural Gas Lines 456/ 457, Robeson County, North Carolina

Species/Resource Conclusion ESA Section 7/Eagle Act Notes/Documentation

Name Determination
American alligator Suitable habitat present is deeper Not Required American alligator is listed as Threatened due to
portion of Gum Swamp; surveys not Similarly in Appearance T(S/A). No NCNHP
conducted occurrences within 1 mile.
Wood stork No suitable habitat present No effect Qualified ESI biologists did not identify habitat
associated with Gum Swamp or Jordan Swamp
that would be conducive for wood stork. The
forested wetland is thickly vegetated, and no
large areas of open water were identified during
the evaluation of the study corridor. No
NCNHP occurrences within 1 mile.
Red- cockaded No suitable habitat present No effect Qualified ESI biologists did not identify any
woodpecker suitable pine stands capable of supporting RCW
nesting or foraging. No NCNHP occurrences
within 1 mile.
Michaux’ s sumac No suitable habitat present No effect Qualified ESI biologists walked the ecotone
between the agriculture field and the forested
wetlands throughout the entire study area. The
agriculture activities occur all the way up to the
tree line. Once at the tree line, the vegetation
becomes extremely thick and the landscape
quickly drops into the jurisdictional wetland.
No NCNHP occurrences within 1 mile.
Bald eagle Unlikely to disturb nesting bald eagles No Eagle Act permit No nest within the action area. No NCNHP
required occurrences within 1 mile.
Critical habitat No critical habitat present No effect Per the species list generated through the
ECOS- IPaC online portal