Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Individual Permit Application

Prepared for: Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC 2200 Energy Drive, Canonsburg, Pennsylvania 15317

Prepared by: Tetra Tech, Inc. 661 Andersen Drive, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15220

Submitted to: United States Army Corps of Engineers – Pittsburgh District 1000 Liberty Avenue, Suite 2200, Pittsburgh, PA 15222

United States Army Corps of Engineers – Huntington District 502 Eighth Street, Huntington, WV 25701-2070

United States Army Corps of Engineers – Norfolk District 803 Front Street, Norfolk, VA 23510-1011

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 1111 E Main Street, Richmond, VA 23219

Virginia Marine Resources Commission 380 Frenwick Road, Fort Monroe, VA 23651

February 2021

Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page PROJECT INFORMATION ...... 1 Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination and USACE Individual Permit Application Forms ...... 1 Project Description and History ...... 1 General Construction Information ...... 3 1.3.1 Pipeline Construction Description ...... 3 1.3.2 Access Road Construction Description ...... 4 Project Location ...... 4 Watersheds and Hydrologic Unit Codes ...... 4 Property Owners ...... 4 Request for Expedited Consideration ...... 4 Directions to Site ...... 5 Project Authorizations ...... 6 1.9.1 Authorizations and Approvals ...... 6 1.9.2 Clean Water Act § 401 Water Quality Certification ...... 6 1.9.3 National Historic Preservation Act § 106 Consultation ...... 6 1.9.4 Endangered Species Act § 7 Consultation ...... 7 1.9.5 Inapplicable Authorizations and Approvals ...... 8 Project Schedule ...... 8 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED ...... 10 Basic Project Purpose ...... 10 Overall Project Purpose ...... 10 Overall Project Need ...... 10 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ...... 11 FERC’s Environmental Impact Statement ...... 11 Alternatives Analysis ...... 13 3.2.1 No Action (No Build) Alternative ...... 14 3.2.2 No Action (No Permit) Alternative ...... 14 3.2.3 Natural Gas Transportation Method Alternatives Analysis ...... 16 3.2.4 System Alternatives ...... 19 3.2.5 Route Alternatives ...... 21 3.2.6 Route Alternatives Considered Not Practicable ...... 23 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FACTORS ...... 33 Proposed Aquatic Impacts ...... 33 4.1.1 Jurisdictional Impacts ...... 33 4.1.2 Section 10 Waters ...... 33 4.1.3 Wetland Delineation and Stream Identification ...... 34 4.1.4 Water Withdrawals ...... 35 Sensitive Stream Resources ...... 35 4.2.1 National Wild and Scenic Rivers ...... 35 4.2.2 WV Natural Streams Preservation Act ...... 35 4.2.3 Tier 3 Protection ...... 35 4.2.4 Trout Waters ...... 35 4.2.5 Warm Water Fishery ...... 36 4.2.6 Anadromous Fish Use Areas ...... 36 4.2.7 Aquatic Life Movements ...... 36 4.2.8 Spawning Areas ...... 36 4.2.9 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation...... 36

Tetra Tech Page i Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

4.2.10 Freshwater Mussels ...... 37 4.2.11 Designated Critical Resource Waters ...... 37 404(b)(1) Guidelines Technical Evaluation Factors ...... 37 4.3.1 Substrate (§ 230.20) ...... 37 4.3.2 Suspended Particles/Turbidity (§ 230.21) ...... 37 4.3.3 Water (§ 230.22) ...... 37 4.3.4 Current Patterns and Water Circulation (§ 230.23) ...... 38 4.3.5 Normal Water Fluctuations (§ 230.24) ...... 38 4.3.6 Salinity Gradients (§ 230.25) ...... 38 4.3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species § (230.30) ...... 38 4.3.8 Fish, Crustaceans, Mollusks, and Other Aquatic Organisms in Food Web (§ 230.31) 38 4.3.9 Other Wildlife (§ 230.32) ...... 38 4.3.10 Sanctuaries and Refuges (§ 230.40) ...... 38 4.3.11 Wetlands (§ 230.41) ...... 39 4.3.12 Mud Flats (§ 230.42) ...... 39 4.3.13 Vegetated Shallows (§ 230.43) ...... 39 4.3.14 Riffle and Pool Complexes (§ 230.45) ...... 39 4.3.15 Municipal and Private Water Supplies (§ 230.50) ...... 39 4.3.16 Recreational and Commercial Fisheries (§ 230.51) ...... 39 4.3.17 Water-Related Recreation (§ 230.52) ...... 40 4.3.18 Aesthetics (§ 230.53) ...... 40 4.3.19 Parks, National and Historical Monuments, National Seashores, Wilderness Areas, Research Sites and Similar Preserves (§ 230.54) ...... 40 4.3.20 General Evaluation of Dredged or Fill Material (§§ 230.60, 230.61) ...... 40 4.3.21 Actions concerning the location of the discharge (§ 230.70) ...... 40 4.3.22 Actions concerning the material to be discharged (§ 230.71) ...... 40 4.3.23 Actions controlling the material after discharge (§ 230.72) ...... 40 4.3.24 Actions affecting the method of dispersion (§ 230.73) ...... 40 4.3.25 Actions related to technology (§ 230.74) ...... 41 4.3.26 Actions affecting plant and animal populations (§ 230.74) ...... 41 4.3.27 Actions affecting human use (§ 230.76) ...... 41 4.3.28 Other actions (§ 230.77) ...... 41 Public-Interest Review Factors ...... 41 4.4.1 Conservation (§ 320.4(a)) ...... 41 4.4.2 Economics (§ 320.4(a)) ...... 42 4.4.3 Aesthetics (§ 320.4(a)) ...... 42 4.4.4 General Environmental Concerns (§ 320.4(a)) ...... 42 4.4.5 Wetlands (§ 320.4(a) & (b)) ...... 42 4.4.6 Historic, Cultural, Scenic, and Recreational Values (§ 320.4(a) & (e)) ...... 43 4.4.7 Fish and Wildlife Values (§ 320.4(a) & (c)) ...... 43 4.4.8 Floodplain Hazards, Values, and Management (§ 320.4(a) & (l)) ...... 43 4.4.9 Land Use (§ 320.4(a)) ...... 44 4.4.10 Navigation (§ 320.4(a) & (o)) ...... 44 4.4.11 Shore Erosion and Accretion (§ 320.4(a)) ...... 44 4.4.12 Water Supply and Conservation (§ 320.4(a) & (m)) ...... 44 4.4.13 Water Quality (§ 320.4(a) & (d)) ...... 45 4.4.14 Energy Needs, Energy Conservation and Development (§ 320.4(a) & (n)) ...... 46 4.4.15 Safety (§ 320.4(a)) ...... 46 4.4.16 Food and Fiber Production (§ 320.4(a)) ...... 46 4.4.17 Mineral Needs (§ 320.4(a)) ...... 46 4.4.18 Consideration of Property Ownership (§ 320.4(a) & (g)) ...... 46 4.4.19 Needs and Welfare of the People (§ 320.4(a)) ...... 47 4.4.20 Effects on Limits of the Territorial Sea (§ 320.4(f)) ...... 47

Tetra Tech Page ii Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

4.4.21 Activities Affecting Coastal Zones (§ 320.4(h)) ...... 47 4.4.22 Activities in Marine Sanctuaries (§ 320.4(h)) ...... 47 4.4.23 Other Federal, State, or Local Requirements (§ 320.4(j)) ...... 47 4.4.24 Safety of Impoundment Structures (§ 320.4(k)) ...... 47 4.4.25 Environmental Benefits (§ 320.4(p)) ...... 47 4.4.26 Mitigation (§ 320.4(r)) ...... 48 MITIGATION ...... 49 Avoidance ...... 49 5.1.1 Avoidance and Minimization by Selection of Pipeline Crossing Method ...... 49 5.1.2 Avoidance Through Alignment Selection ...... 63 5.1.3 Avoidance Through ROW Configuration ...... 63 5.1.4 Site-Specific Onsite Avoidance Measures ...... 63 5.1.5 Avoidance Actions Dictated by Other Authorities ...... 64 Minimization ...... 64 5.2.1 Instream Pipeline Construction Practices ...... 64 5.2.2 Wetland Pipeline Construction Practices ...... 64 5.2.3 Duration of Pipeline Construction Activities in Waters ...... 64 5.2.4 Construction Practices Adjacent to Aquatic Resources ...... 64 5.2.5 Stream Crossing Geometry ...... 65 5.2.6 Time-of-Year Restrictions ...... 65 5.2.7 Wetland and Stream Crossings in ATWS ...... 65 5.2.8 Restoration of Temporary Wetland Impacts ...... 65 5.2.9 Restoration of Temporary Stream Impacts (Pipeline) ...... 66 5.2.10 Long Term ROW Maintenance in Wetlands ...... 67 Compensation ...... 67 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ...... 69

FIGURES Figures Figure 1 Project Overview Map Figure 2 Pipeline Activities Progress Map Figure 3 USGS Project Location Map Figure 4 Detail Map Figure 5 USACE Norfolk District Wetland and Waterbodies Overview Map

Tetra Tech Page iii Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

TABLES Tables Table 1 Section 10 River Crossings Table 2 Stream Impacts Table 3 Wetland Impacts Table 4 Stream Crossings Summary Table 5 Wetland Crossings Summary Table 6 Counties and Towns Crossed by the Project Table 7 Watersheds Crossed by the Project Table 8 List of Affected Landowners Table 9 State and Federal Permit Status Table 10 Completed Project Crossings Table 11 Completed Station and Interconnect Crossings Table 12 Stockpile Data Table 13 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut Crossing Method Cost Table 14 Bore Crossing Method Cost Table 15 Crossing Method Determination Summary Table 16 Streams and Wetlands Avoided at the Direction of Other Federal or State Authorities Table 17 Wetland Mitigation Table 18 Stream Mitigation

ATTACHMENTS Attachments Attachment A WV DEP 401 Water Quality Certification Information Attachment B VA DEQ 401 Water Quality Certification Information and Virginia Water Protection Permit Application Attachment C Virginia Marine Resources Commission Permit Modification Request and Materials Attachment D USACE Pittsburgh District ENG Form 4345 Attachment E USACE Huntington District ENG Form 4345 Attachment F USACE Norfolk District Standard JPA Form Attachment G FERC Weekly Status Report Attachment H Plan and Profile Crossing Drawings and Inadvertent Return Plan Attachment I Wetland and Stream Data Forms and Photographs Attachment J Construction Details Attachment K Karst Mitigation Plan Attachment L Examples of Completed Project Stream and Wetland Restoration Attachment M Compensatory Mitigation

Tetra Tech Page iv Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

TABLE OF ACRONYMS AND KEY ABBREVIATIONS

APE Area of Potential Effect ATWS additional temporary workspace BLM Bureau of Land Management BMP best management practice 2020 BiOp 2020 Biological Opinion CWA Clean Water Act DWWM West Virginia DEP Division of Water and Waste ECD erosion control devices EPA United States. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act ESCP erosion and sediment control plan FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission HDD horizontal directional drill IP Individual Permit IR inadvertent return JPA Joint Permit Application LDC Local Distribution Company LEDPA Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alterntaive LNG liquified natural gas LOD limits of disturbance MTBM microtunnel boring machine MP Milepost NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFS National Forest System NSPA West Virginia Natural Streams Preservation Act NWP Nationwide Permit PCN Pre-Construction Notification PEM palustrine emergent wetland PFO palustrine forested wetland PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration PJD Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination

Tetra Tech Page v Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

Project Mountain Valley Pipeline Project PSD Red Sulphur Public Service District PSS palustrine scrub-shrub wetland RHA Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 ROW Right-of-Way SEIS USFS Supplemetal Environmental Impact Statement SWVM West Virginia Stream and Wetland Valuation Metric TOYR time-of-year restriction USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers US EIA United States Energy Information Administration USFS U.S. Forest Service USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlfe Service USM Unified Stream Methodology VA DEQ Virginia Department of Environmental Quality VDWR Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources VMRC Virginia Marine Reosources Commission VWP Virginia Water Protection Pemit Program WOTUS Waters of the United States WQC Clean Water Act § 401 Water Quality Certification WV DEP West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection WV DNR West Virginia Department of Natural Resources

Tetra Tech Page vi Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

PROJECT INFORMATION Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC (Mountain Valley1) is seeking an Individual Permit (IP) from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE or Corps) Pittsburgh, Huntington, and Norfolk Districts to conduct regulated activities below the ordinary high-water elevation of navigable waters under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (RHA) and for the discharge of dredged and fill material into Waters of the United States (WOTUS) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) for the Mountain Valley Pipeline Project (Project). In addition to the USACE IP Application, Mountain Valley is seeking CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) from the West Virginia (WV) Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the Virginia (VA) Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for portions of the Project within their respective jurisdiction (See Section 1.9.2 below). Additionally, this application package provides information to support CWA § 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) determinations by West Virginia (Attachment A) and Virginia (Attachment B). Requests for WQC will be submitted separately. This package also includes an application for a Virginia Water Protection (VWP) permit (included in Attachment B) and a request to modify Mountain Valley’s Virginia Marine Resources Commission permit (included in Attachment C).2 Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination and USACE Individual Permit Application Forms Mountain Valley will be relying on existing Preliminary Jurisdictional Determinations by the USACE Huntington, Pittsburgh, and Norfolk Districts identifying the potential presence of WOTUS in the Project limit of disturbance (LOD) located in their respective USACE Districts. The completed Applications for Department of the Army Permit (ENG Form 4345) for the Project are included in Attachment D for WOTUS located within the USACE Pittsburgh District; Attachment E for the WOTUS within the USACE Huntington District; and Attachment F for the WOTUS within the Norfolk District. Additional Project information is provided below and in the attached documents. Project Description and History Mountain Valley is constructing a pipeline approximately 304 miles in length and 42 inches in diameter to provide timely and affordable access to natural gas, which is in growing demand. The Project begins at an existing Equitrans, L.P. transmission system near the Mobley natural gas processing facility in Wetzel County, West Virginia and extends to the Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC’s (Transco) Zone 5 Compressor Station 165 in Transco Village, Pittsylvania County, Virginia (Figure 1). In addition to delivering natural gas to the Transco interconnect (Milepost (MP) 303.9), the Project is designed to deliver gas to four intermediate delivery points: WB Interconnect in Braxton County, West Virginia (MP 77.3); Greene Interconnect in Monroe County, West Virginia (MP 180.7); Roanoke Gas Lafayette Tap in Montgomery County, Virginia (MP 235.6); the Roanoke Gas Franklin Tap in Franklin County, Virginia (MP 261.4). To date, more than 256 miles of the pipe is laid, and more than 155 miles of land along the pipeline ROW is in final restoration and the three compressor stations (Bradshaw, Harris, and Stallworth Compressor Stations) are complete.

1 Mountain Valley is a joint venture between EQM Midstream Partners, LP; NextEra Capital Holding, Inc; Con Edison Transmission, Inc.; WGL Midstream; and RGC Midstream, LLC.

2 Virginia State Water Control Board regulations require that applications for impacts to state waters be submitted using the Norfolk District’s JPA form. 9 VAC 25-210-80. Applications to VMRC also are submitted through the JPA form.

Tetra Tech Page 1 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

The proposed Project crosses portions of three USACE districts: USACE Pittsburgh District, USACE Huntington District, and USACE Norfolk District. Approximately 33 miles of the pipeline and 14 miles of access roads are sited within the USACE Pittsburgh District. Approximately 164 miles of the pipeline, 135 miles of access roads, and three compressor stations (Bradshaw, Harris, and Stallworth Compressor Stations) are sited within the USACE Huntington District. Approximately 107 miles of the pipeline and 51 miles of access roads are sited within the USACE Norfolk District. In response to Mountain Valley’s pre-construction notification (PCN), USACE Huntington District issued a verification on December 22, 2017, confirming Mountain Valley’s proposed use of nationwide permit (NWP) 12 for the Project (Permit No. LRH-2015-592-GBR). Sierra Club and four other environmental organizations challenged the USACE Huntington District’s verification for the Project in the United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit (Fourth Circuit). By order dated October 2, 2018, and subsequent opinion dated November 27, 2018, the Fourth Circuit vacated the December 22, 2017 verification. See Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 909 F.3d 635 (4th Cir. 2018). In addition to the USACE Huntington District’s December 22, 2017 verification of the Project, the USACE Pittsburgh District issued a verification for the Project’s use of NWP 12 on December 19, 2017 (Permit No. LRP-2015-798). A Joint Permit Application (JPA) was approved by the USACE Norfolk District on December 26, 2017, (Permit No. NAO-2017-0898) and updated on January 23, 2018, for portions of the Project within Virginia. On October 5 and 19, 2018, the USACE Norfolk and Pittsburgh Districts, respectively, suspended their verifications. The USACE Pittsburgh and Huntington Districts issued new verifications on September 25, 2020. The USACE Norfolk District unsuspended the Project’s NWP 12 verification in that district on the same date. The USACE Huntington and Pittsburgh Districts’ respective verifications on September 25, 2020, are presently stayed, pending appeal in the Fourth Circuit. As a result of the stays of the USACE Huntington and Pittsburgh District verifications, the USACE Norfolk District suspended the Project’s NWP 12 verification in that district. The USACE’s current NWPs were issued in January 2017 for a five-year period. The USACE was not expected to re-issue or modify its NWPs until 2022. However, in September 2020, the USACE proposed to re-issue and modify its NWPs, including NWP 12. On January 5, 2021, the USACE announced that it had finalized its decision to re-issue some of the NWPs a year earlier than originally planned. On January 13, 2021, the USACE published the new NWPs, including NWP 12, in the Federal Register. Those new permits were scheduled to take effect on March 15, 20213. Although existing NWP authorizations generally allow activities authorized under the 2017 NWPs to continue until March 18, 2022, after that date unfinished activities would need a new authorization or permit. Mountain Valley plans to complete all USACE-regulated activities before March 2022, but the current judicially imposed stay of its existing NWP authorization will shorten the time available to Mountain Valley to complete activities before that date. Accordingly, to avoid the uncertainty created by both the outstanding challenge to its NWP authorization and the USACE’s action to shorten the duration of that authorization, Mountain Valley has elected to seek an Individual Permit (IP) rather than relying on its NWP 12 verifications. Although Mountain Valley firmly believes that the respective NWP 12 verifications issued by the USACE districts in September 2020 were lawful and that the pending legal challenges to those verifications are unfounded, Mountain Valley will be submitting a separate request

3 86 Fed. Reg. 2744 (Jan. 13, 2021). However, there is some uncertainty as to whether the 2021 NWP 12 will take effect on March 15. The Biden Administration issued a memorandum on January 20, 2021, directing agencies to consider whether to suspend the effective date of regulations that had been published in the Federal Register but had not yet become effective. R. Klain, Memo. for the Heads of Exec. Dep’ts and Agencies (Jan. 20, 2021). A second document titled “Fact Sheet: List of Agency Actions for Review” and issued by the Administration the same day specifically identified the 2021 NWP action as an action that should be reviewed in accordance with Section 1 of President Biden’s Executive Order on Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis (Jan. 20, 2021). For these and other reasons, the Individual Permit process provides a greater degree of regulatory certainty at this time than the NWP 12 process.

Tetra Tech Page 2 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

to the USACE Pittsburgh, Huntington, and Norfolk Districts to administratively revoke the previously NWP 12 verifications for the Project. Pre-application meetings regarding this IP application for the Project were held between representatives of Mountain Valley and the USACE Huntington, Pittsburgh, and Norfolk Districts on January 14, 22, and 28, 2021. Representatives for each district were present at all three meetings. Pre-application meetings regarding this IP application and subsequent state applications were held with representatives from the VMRC (February 2, 2021), VADEQ (February 2, 2021), and WVDEP (February 8, 2021) General Construction Information 1.3.1 Pipeline Construction Description

In uplands, the pipeline will generally require a 125-foot-wide construction right of way (ROW), which includes a 50-foot-wide permanent ROW. The additional temporary ROW will be necessary for the safe travel of construction and maintenance vehicles and equipment as well as stockpiling any additional material that may be encountered during trenching. Cathodic ground beds and mainline valves will also be located within project’s ROW. Additional temporary workspace (ATWS) areas will be required for construction activities requiring space outside the 125-foot-wide construction ROW. The ATWS will be utilized during construction for material storage, storage of excess spoil at crossings, parking, and equipment turning radius. The availability of previously used roads and other existing roads is sufficient to provide access to most work areas. However, new access roads are required in several locations that do not parallel existing road infrastructure. Maintenance will be required on some of the existing roads prior to hauling construction equipment and materials. Maintenance is considered to be the placement of additional gravel or stone on the existing road and the replacement of ineffective or undersized culverts. Some leveling may be required to eliminate ruts on existing access roads. Mountain Valley will use contractor yards during construction to stage construction equipment, store materials, and set up temporary construction offices. Depending upon the condition of these yards and their current use, some surface grading, drainage improvements, placement of surface materials (e.g., crushed rock), and internal roadways may be required. Pipeline construction through jurisdictional waters will be accomplished using either conventional dry-ditch open-cut methods or trenchless methods. For open-cut crossings, hydrological conditions along the construction corridor will likely dictate the use of either open-ditch lay or open-ditch push/pull lay methods. The conventional open-ditch lay method will be the most frequently used open-cut crossing technique for installing the pipeline in wetlands and streams. Selection of the push/pull method will be decided during construction by the construction supervisor and/or the Mountain Valley representative. Wetlands within the construction corridor that will not be crossed by the pipeline will be timber matted to protect impact to the wetland or avoided with erosion and sediment controls. Once construction is complete, the timber mats will be removed as soon as practicable and the affected areas will be de-compacted and returned to pre- construction elevations to the extent practicable. Cleanup and restoration will commence as soon as practicable following the completion of backfilling and testing. Cleanup and restoration activities include restoring grade cuts as close as practicable to preconstruction contours, with stockpiled topsoil re-spread and decompacted—followed by seeding with a regional native seed mix, fertilizing, and mulching to restore ground cover, minimize erosion, and stabilize stream banks for their natural reversion toward their previous state. Completed stream crossings using the flume or dam-and-pump methods will be stabilized before returning flow to the channel. Where the flume technique is used, stream banks will be stabilized before removing the flume pipes and returning flow to the stream channel. Stream banks and bed will be restored as described above for surface water and groundwater flow and mulch, jute thatching, or bonded fiber blankets will be installed on the stream banks.

Tetra Tech Page 3 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

A more detailed description of stream and wetland restoration can be found in Sections 5.2.8 (Restoration of Temporary Wetland Impacts [Pipeline]) and 5.2.9 (Restoration of Temporary Stream Impacts [Pipeline]). 1.3.2 Access Road Construction Description

Mountain Valley will utilize existing roads and newly constructed roads to facilitate construction. Typical road widths will be 25 feet but may require additional temporary widening to facilitate use by large equipment, pipe delivery trucks, and installation of erosion and sediment controls. Existing roads will be maintained with minor grading and gravel dressing (as needed) to maintain the road surface. Temporary erosion and sediment controls will be installed in accordance with the state-approved erosion and sediment control plans (ESCP). For existing roads that will need to be temporarily widened for use or that require waterbody crossing culverts to be replaced due to condition, Mountain Valley will either span the waterbody to avoid impact or, where necessary, install a culverted crossing. Culverts will be countersunk as appropriate and will be sized and installed in a manner to maintain low flows to allow the passage of aquatic life and to freely pass bankfull flows.

Following Project completion, existing roads that required temporary widening will be returned to preexisting contours and conditions, unless landowners have requested the widening to remain. Any drainage culverts damaged will be repaired as needed and returned to preexisting conditions. Areas of temporary widening will have the temporary road surface reclaimed and the disturbed areas revegetated. The road surface will be returned to the preexisting width and a topcoat of gravel applied (where necessary). Once disturbed areas are permanently stabilized with vegetation or other measures (e.g., gravel, where applicable), temporary erosion and sediment controls will be removed and properly disposed of at an approved waste disposal site.

Project Location The locations of the proposed Section 10 navigable waters crossings included in this permit application are listed on Table 1. The locations of the proposed stream and wetland WOTUS impacts included in this permit application are listed on Tables 2 and 3, respectively, and summaries of these proposed stream and wetland WOTUS impacts are included in Tables 4 and 5, respectively. Counties and towns crossed by the Project are listed in Table 6. Figure 1-Index and Figures 1-1 to 1-105 show the locations of the crossings included in this permit application. Watersheds and Hydrologic Unit Codes The watersheds and hydrologic unit codes (HUCs) for the proposed Project crossings included in this permit application are provided in Table 7. Property Owners A list of property owners for the portions of the Project included in this permit application is included in Table 8. Request for Expedited Consideration Completion of the Project has been substantially delayed by third-party legal challenges, and the expeditious completion of the Project is overwhelmingly in the public interest. The public has been adversely affected by the delay, which has prevented Mountain Valley from supplying the delivery of reliable, affordable, clean-burning for natural gas that underlies the Project purpose and need. The delays have caused unnecessary environmental impacts. Because of the work stoppages, significant areas of the Project ROW remain in a protracted state of temporarily stabilized construction managed with temporary erosion and sediment controls. Final restoration of the ROW includes restoring disturbed soils and establishing permanent vegetative cover, which are the most effective erosion and sediment controls available. The extended construction period also is a burden on landowners and other members of the public directly affected by Project construction activities in their communities. The best outcome for

Tetra Tech Page 4 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

residences and business who are relying on the Project for their natural gas supply and best environmental outcome for water quality, aquatic and terrestrial habitat, and landowners in the vicinity of the Project is for construction to be completed as soon as possible. Mountain Valley now holds all material approvals necessary to proceed with construction in upland areas. Obtaining authorization to complete the remaining stream and wetland crossings will allow Mountain Valley to expeditiously complete construction, restore the ROW, and commence the transport and supply natural gas. Through the past several years of permitting actions, the USACE already has considerable familiarity with the Project. The modifications proposed in this application are minor in scope and consist primarily of changes in construction practices that reduce the aquatic impacts previously reviewed by the USACE. In light of these considerations and the urgent public need to complete the Project, Mountain Valley respectfully requests the USACE expedite review of this application in a manner consistent with 33 C.F.R. § 325.2(d). Directions to Site Directions are provided from the USACE Huntington District, 502 Eighth Street, Huntington, WV 25701- 2070 to:  The northern extent of the Project, Project mile post (MP) 0 in Wetzel County, WV, located at 39.562409° North (N), -80.543079° West (W). o Take Interstate (I)-64 East (E) for approximately 50.4 miles to exit 59 for I-77N o Continue on I-77N for approximately 1.9 miles to exit 104 for I-79N o Take I-79N for approximately for approximately 118 miles to exit 119 (US-50 towards Clarksburg/Bridgeport) o Turn left onto US-50 West (W) and continue on US-50W for approximately 5.9 miles o Right onto County Road (CR) 5035 and continue for approximately 0.3 mile o Right onto Wilsonburg Rd and continue for approximately 0.7 mile o Right onto Bean Run/Gregory Run and continue for approximately 5.8 miles o Left onto WV-20N and continue for approximately 17.1 miles o Right onto CR 7/8 and continue for approximately 2.8 miles o Slight left onto Fallen Timber Rd / Shuman Hill and continue for approximately 2.3 miles o Left onto N Fork Rd and continue for approximately 0.3 mile o Right onto CR 15/3 and continue for 0.5 mile to destination  The WV – VA border crossing at Project MP 196.3 in Monroe County, WV, located at 37.402653°N, -80.690013°W o Take I-64E / I-77 South (S) from Huntington for approximately 114 miles o Continue on I-77S for approximately 31.6 miles to exit 9 for US-460 toward Princeton / Pearisburg, VA o Left onto US-460E and continue on US-460E for approximately 14.8 miles o Left onto Island St o Left onto US-219N / Federal St o Follow US-219N for approximately 7.4 miles and turn right onto Wilson Mill Rd o Follow Wilson Mill Rd for approximately 1.9 miles until destination is reached

Tetra Tech Page 5 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

Directions are provided from Roanoke, VA to the southern extent of the Project, Project MP 303.87 in Pittsylvania County, VA, located at 36.833466°N, -79.337119°W  Take VA-116 S/Mt. Pleasant Boulevard SE for approximately 13 miles.  Turn right onto VA-122 S  Turn left onto State Route 670, go 5 miles.  Turn right onto State Route 834, go 7.5 miles.  Turn left onto Turtle Hill Road, go approximately 0.3 miles  Turn left onto VA-40 E, go 16.5 miles  Turn right onto Old Mine Road, go 1.5 miles.  Turn left to stay on Old Mine Road, go 3.7 miles.  Turn right onto US-29 S, go 4 miles  Take the exit toward Chalk Level Road, turn left onto Chalk Level Road, go 2 miles  Turn right onto Transco Road and continue until destination is reached. Project Authorizations 1.9.1 Authorizations and Approvals

A complete list of all authorizations by federal, interstate, state, and local agencies for the work, including all approvals received or denials already made is summarized in Table 9.4

1.9.2 Clean Water Act § 401 Water Quality Certification

Mountain Valley previously obtained WQC (in Virginia, December 2017) or waivers thereof (in West Virginia, February 2020) for the impacts included in this application concurrently with the NWP 12 verifications discussed in Section 1.2. To ensure compliance with 33 U.S.C. § 1341(a) and 40 C.F.R. § 121.2, Mountain Valley will be submitting new requests for WQC to Virginia and West Virginia. On January 26, 2021, Mountain Valley sent letters to VA DEQ and WV DEP notifying them of Mountain Valley’s intent to submit a WQC request and requesting a pre-filing meeting. Mountain Valley met with the DEQ on February 3, 2021, and with the WV DEP on February 9, 2021. Formal requests for WQC will be submitted to DEQ and DEP no sooner than February 25, 2021. State-specific information for the VA DEQ 401 WQC is provided in Attachment B. Mountain Valley will provide the WV DEP all necessary information concurrently with the WQC request. 1.9.3 National Historic Preservation Act § 106 Consultation

As part of the Natural Gas Act pipeline certification process, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) developed a Programmatic Agreement in consultation with the USACE, State Historic Preservation Officers, and others parties, to resolve adverse effects to affected historic properties

4 The Project does not require authorizations or approvals from any interstate agencies. Mountain Valley occasionally conducts regulated activities, such as maintenance of preexisting culverts for landowners, streambank stabilization degraded by natural causes upon the request of relevant agencies or landowners, and water quality monitoring, under applicable NWPs. Those single and complete projects are not included in this application.

Tetra Tech Page 6 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

in accordance with 36 C.F.R. § 800.14(b)(3).5 Mountain Valley will adhere to the requirements of the Programmatic Agreement for all work conducted under the proposed permit authorization, including the previously approved plan for unanticipated historic properties and human remains.

There are no potential direct or indirect effects to historic properties subject to USACE’s permit area that warrant reinitiating consultation under Section 106. The “permit areas” (as that term is defined in 33 C.F.R. Pt. 325, Appendix C) associated with this application and subject to CWA § 404 were completely surveyed as part of the larger direct Area of Potential Effect (APE) and indirect APE for the Project, and no new effects to eligible or listed historic properties beyond those identified for the FERC Project will occur as a result of any USACE permit issued in connection with this application. Furthermore, the activities for which Mountain Valley is seeking authorization in this application (i.e., open-cut crossings of jurisdictional streams and wetlands) were considered and addressed in the process of developing the Programmatic Agreement.

1.9.4 Endangered Species Act § 7 Consultation

On September 4, 2020, following nearly a year of reinitiated Section 7 consultation with FERC under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) issued a Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statement (2020 BiOp) for the Project. As described in the 2020 BiOp, USFWS determined that the Project is “likely to adversely affect” five federally listed species: Virginia spiraea (Spiraea virginiana); Roanoke logperch (Percina rex); candy darter (Etheostoma osburni); Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), and northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis). USFWS thoroughly analyzed potential impacts to each at the individual, population, and species level, and it determined that “authorization to construct and operate the [Project], as proposed, including the activities that have already been completed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of” any of those species. In addition, USFWS thoroughly analyzed potential impacts from the Project to proposed critical habitat for the candy darter and determined that “authorization to construct and operate the pipeline, as proposed, including the activities that have already been completed, is not likely to destroy or adversely modify proposed critical habitat.” Refer to the 2020 BiOp for additional information about these analyses, as well as the reasonable and prudent measures, monitoring and reporting requirements, and other terms and conditions imposed on the Project to ensure compliance. Mountain Valley will adhere to the 2020 BiOp for all work conducted under the proposed permit authorization.

The 2020 BiOp considered all species-related impacts associated with the activities that were previously authorized under the relevant NWP 12 verifications issued in 2018 and 2020, including both upland and instream construction activities, as well as a number of trenchless crossings. Mountain Valley is proposing to avoid previously authorized aquatic impacts at various sites along the Project route by making greater use of trenchless crossing methods in place of certain instream open-cut crossings. With this application, the remaining proposed stream and wetland impacts represent a subset of the stream and wetland impacts that were evaluated in the development of the Biological Opinion. For these aquatic impact sites, Mountain Valley is not proposing to change the crossing method, authorized workspace, area of tree clearing, or environmental mitigation measures in any material respect (except to the extent additional measures are or may be implemented to further minimize those impacts). Similarly, the crossing methods proposed in this application for rivers subject to RHA § 10 are the same methods that were considered in the 2020 BiOp. Accordingly, the activities proposed in this application will not result in a change to the action area defined

5 Programmatic Agreement Among the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the State Historic Preservation Offices for West Virginia and Virginia, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regarding the Mountain Valley Project (FERC Docket No. CP16-10-000) (Nov. 21, 2017).

Tetra Tech Page 7 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

in the 2020 BiOp or affect any federally listed or proposed species or any designated or proposed critical habitat in a manner or to an extent that is not already considered in the 2020 BiOp.6 1.9.5 Inapplicable Authorizations and Approvals

The following authorizations, approvals, or consultation requirements listed in 33 C.F.R. §§ 320.3 and 325.2(b) as potentially relevant to the USACE permit application review process are inapplicable to the Project:

 Civil Works Projects – The Project will not alter or temporarily or permanently occupy or use a USACE federally authorized Civil Works project; therefore, Mountain Valley will not require permission for the Project from the USACE pursuant to 33 U.S.C § 408.  Section 302 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act – The Project is not the vicinity of a designated marine sanctuary.  Section 307(c) of the Coastal Zone Management Act – The Project is not located in or near a coastal zone.  Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act – The Project does not involve the control or modification of any body of water.  Federal Power Act – No Project activities involve the construction and the operation and maintenance of dams, water conduits, reservoirs, power houses, transmission lines, or other physical structures of a hydropower project.  Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act – the Project does not involve the sale or lease of land.  Deepwater Port Act of 1974 and Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Act – The Project is not located in or beyond the territorial seas.  Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 – The Project is not expected to affect any marine mammals.  Wild and Scenic Rivers Act – The Project does not cross the segment of the Bluestone River in West Virginia designated as a Wild and Scenic River. Virginia has no designated Wild and Scenic Rivers.  Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Act of 1980 – The Project does not involve an ocean thermal energy conversion facility or plantship. Project Schedule Since the commencement of Project construction, Mountain Valley has submitted weekly status reports identifying construction activities and progress to FERC in compliance with Environmental Conditions Nos. 8 and 14 of the Implementation Plan submitted to FERC for the Project. A summary of portions of the work

6 For the sake of clarity, Mountain Valley is proposing to change the crossing method from the open-cut method to a trenchless method at several locations where federally listed species may be present in the action area defined in the 2020 BiOp. However, those crossings are not within the scope of this application because (1) none of those streams are navigable under RHA § 10 and (2) the proposed trenchless crossing methods avoid instream impacts. Mountain Valley is submitting an application for a certificate amendment to FERC concurrently with this application that will request approval for the proposed changes in crossing methods at those locations. If warranted, FERC will initiate ESA § 7 review for those proposed changes with USFWS.

Tetra Tech Page 8 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

already complete at the time of this submittal can be found in the most recent Weekly Status Report submitted to FERC (Attachment G). Mountain Valley anticipates the Project crossings included in this permit application will be completed by the end of 2021 or a soon as practicable. Features previously crossed in 2018 under Permit Numbers LRH- 2015-592-GBR (USACE Huntington District), LRP-2015-798 (USACE Pittsburgh District), and NAO-2017- 0898 (USACE Norfolk District) are listed in Tables 10 and 11. Since Mountain Valley has been unable to complete all stream and wetland crossings, final stabilization of the entire Project is not complete, though it has been achieved in some areas. Once final stabilization of the Project is complete in the remaining locations, the corresponding protection of the sensitive resources crossed by the Project will be achieved. Figure 2 provide a summary of construction progress for each county.

Tetra Tech Page 9 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED Basic Project Purpose The basic Project purpose is to transport natural gas. The Project is not water dependent. Overall Project Purpose The overall purpose of the Project is detailed in the Mountain Valley Pipeline Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). In summary, the Project would provide timely, cost-effective access to suppliers to meet the growing demand for natural gas for use by local distribution companies (LDCs), industrial users, and power-generation facilities in the Mid-Atlantic, southeastern, and Appalachian markets. The Project will also provide the opportunity for unserved and underserved markets along the route to access natural gas supplies. For the purpose of the aquatic impacts included in this application, the overall Project purpose is to complete construction of a natural gas pipeline and associated infrastructure approved by FERC in Certificate Order, Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC, 161 FERC ¶ 61,043 (2017) (“FERC Certificate Order”), and any subsequent variations approved thereunder, to transport gas from the new Mobley Interconnect in Wetzel County, West Virginia to the WB Interconnect in Braxton County, West Virginia; Greene Interconnect in Monroe County, West Virginia; Roanoke Gas Lafayette Tap in Montgomery County, Virginia; the Roanoke Gas Franklin Tap in Franklin County, Virginia; and finally to the existing Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company LLC Station 165 in Pittsylvania County, Virginia. Overall Project Need A sizable portion of natural gas production growth is occurring in the Appalachian Basin shale region. According to the United States Energy Information Administration (US EIA), Appalachian Basin shale gas production has increased from 2 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) in 2010 to over 33 Bcf/d in December 2020 (US EIA, 2020). As described in the FERC FEIS (FERC, 2017), and the FERC Certificate Order, the Project will provide for transportation of these prolific natural gas supplies to Station 165, the pooling point for natural gas in Transco Zone 5, where this natural gas can serve the growing demand for natural gas use by LDCs, industrial users, and power-generation facilities along the Eastern seaboard. Additionally, the Project is needed to provide natural gas to users at four intermediate delivery points. Natural gas delivered to the WB Interconnect and the Greene Interconnect is needed to supply markets and customers on Columbia Lines WB and WB-5 and the Columbia KA system, respectively. Natural Gas delivered to Roanoke Gas’s Lafayette Tap and Franklin Tap is needed to provide gas within the service area of the utility purchaser.

Tetra Tech Page 10 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS As the USACE s aware in its role as a cooperating agency with FERC for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review of this Project, the Project route has undergone extensive scrutiny by the Commission, state environmental agencies in West Virginia and Virginia, cultural resource agencies, landowners directly impacted by the proposed route, and numerous stakeholders in the Mid-Atlantic region. In addition, Mountain Valley has conducted its own engineering work and extensive field surveys—including civil, environmental, cultural resource, geotechnical, and constructability assessments. Mountain Valley has summarized below the principal reasons why the proposed alternatives to the proposed Project would not be practicable or less environmentally damaging under the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines.7 This analysis will also inform the Corps’ public-interest review.8 It must be acknowledged as a factual matter that substantial portions of the proposed Project have been constructed. Any decision to substantially modify the proposed alternative route would result in impacts to previously undisturbed areas in addition to the impacts that have already occurred constructing the proposed Project as it was previously authorized. To present a fair and true alternatives analysis, Mountain Valley has evaluated the alternatives below under the hypothetical scenario that construction had not commenced. Nevertheless, where present factual circumstances would have a bearing on whether an alternative is the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA), those facts have been referenced in the analysis. At bottom, this analysis demonstrates that the proposed Project is the LEDPA irrespective of whether it is evaluated as a “new” project or as a project that is substantially constructed.

FERC’s Environmental Impact Statement NEPA requires federal agencies to consider reasonable alternatives to the proposed action. “Reasonable alternatives must be those that are feasible and such feasibility must focus on the accomplishment of the underlying purpose and need (of the applicant or the public) that would be satisfied by the proposed Federal action (permit issuance).”9 To prevent the duplication of efforts by Federal agencies and encourage information sharing and integration of agency processes, NEPA allows for the designation of a lead federal agency for environmental review.10 Other agencies that have authorities related to the same project may serve as cooperating agencies for the environmental review.11 USACE district engineers will coordinate with the lead agency “to insure that agency’s resulting EIS may be adopted by the Corps for purposes of exercising its regulatory authority.”12 Although the USACE should exercise its independent judgment while carrying out its regulatory responsibilities, it should give deference, to the maximum extent allowed by law, to FERC’s determinations of project purpose, need, and alternatives.13

7 40 C.F.R. Part 230. 8 33 C.F.R. § 320.4(a)(2). Refer also to Section 4.4 for a discussion of each public-interest review factor. 9 33 C.F.R. Part 325, App. B ¶ 9(b)(5)(a). 10 40 C.F.R. § 1501.7. 11 40 C.F.R. § § 1501.8. 12 33 C.F.R. Part 325, App. B ¶ 8(c). 13 See Memorandum of Understanding between United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Supplementing the Interagency Agreement on Early Coordination of Required Environmental and Historic Preservation Reviews Conducted in Conjunction with the Issuance of Authorizations to Construct and Operate Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines Certificated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (June 30, 2005), at ¶ 5; see also Hoosier Environmental Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 722 F.3d 1053, 1061 (7th Cir. 2013) (stating, in the context of the USACE’s alternatives analysis for a highway project that “[a]lthough the Corps has an independent responsibility to enforce the

Tetra Tech Page 11 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

FERC is the lead agency for the Mountain Valley Project. As part of FERC’s environmental review process under NEPA, and in accordance with FERC policy, Mountain Valley made all practicable efforts to avoid and minimize impacts to Section 10 waters and WOTUS during the route development process for the entire Project. Mountain Valley considered alternatives to natural gas delivery via underground steel pipeline and evaluated major route alternatives, as well as route variations that could accomplish all or a portion of the Project’s overall purpose. As part of this analysis, Mountain Valley reviewed over 1,700 miles of pipeline route alternatives and over 3,000 miles of pipeline route variations before identifying the proposed pipeline route. In response to comments received from the public and commenting agencies, Mountain Valley also made over 500 minor route modifications to the proposed route to avoid or minimize potential impacts on resources including, but not limited to, wetlands and waterbodies. In a May 5, 2015 letter to FERC, the Norfolk District agreed to be a cooperating agency in the production of FERC’s EIS, and on March 18, 2015, the Huntington District also agreed to be a cooperating agency. In communications with FERC staff, representatives of the USACE indicated that individual Districts would not finalize their permit processes until after FERC completed relevant environmental analyses.14 Consistent with NEPA requirements and Commission policy, FERC completed a detailed evaluation of a range of reasonable alternatives and considered other alternatives that were ultimately eliminated from detailed review because they were not reasonable or practicable. The alternatives evaluated were provided by Mountain Valley, cooperating and other governmental resource agencies, affected landowners, the public, and FERC staff. FERC, as the lead agency, reviewed the no action alternative, alternative modes of transportation, system alternatives, a number of major route alternatives, and over 25 route variations in the FEIS. Based on its technical analysis and comments received, FERC concluded that the proposed Project, with the adoption of one route variation, was the preferred alternative that could meet the project purpose15.

Clean Water Act and so cannot just rubberstamp another agency’s assurances concerning practicability and environmental harm, it isn't required to reinvent the wheel”); Sierra Club, Inc. v. United States Forest Serv., 897 F.3d 582, 600 (4th Cir. 2018) (“the Forest Service did not act arbitrarily in failing to tick through each alternative and the reasons for rejecting them. By adopting the EIS and rendering its decision, it sufficiently ‘identified’ all alternatives considered and ‘specified’ that [Mountain Valley’s] preferred route was environmentally preferable.”). 14 November 1, 2016 letter from K. Bumgardner Chief Real Estate Division USACE Huntington District, to K. Bose, Secretary of FERC (accession number 20161107-0096). October 20, 2016 letter from J. Frye, Chief Western Virginia Regulatory Section USACE Norfolk District, to K. Bose, Secretary of FERC (accession number 20161027-0011). March 1, 2017 emails from J. Shaffer, Senior Regulatory Specialist USACE Pittsburgh District, and C. Carson, Regulatory Project Manager USACE Huntington District to FERC staff. 15 Other federal agencies have evaluated the Project alternatives under materially similar standards and reached the same conclusion. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) reviewed nine route alternatives under its “practicality” standard, which considers alternatives in light of the project purpose, technical and logistical challenges to construction, cost, and environmental impacts. See BLM Practicality Analysis (Aug. 23, 2018) & Addendum to Practicality Analysis (Sept. 2, 2020), appended as Attachment A to U.S. Forest Service, Mountain Valley Pipeline and Equitrans Expansion Project, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Dec. 2020) (SEIS). BLM determined that no alternative to the proposed Project is “practical.” The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) conducted its own alternatives analysis under NEPA that evaluated the proposed Project and a route that would avoid the Jefferson National Forest. USFS determined that the proposed Project is the environmentally preferable alternative. SEIS § 3.3.

Tetra Tech Page 12 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

Alternatives Analysis The CWA requires that the location of discharges authorized under Section 404 be determined through the application of guidelines developed by the USACE and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).16 The guidelines required by Section 404(b), which are set forth at 40 C.F.R. Part 230, require that an applicant demonstrate that the proposed discharge of dredged or fill material is the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA).17 The 404(b)(1) Guidelines allow rejection of an alternative when it has impacts to the aquatic ecosystem, including wetlands and streams, that are similar to or greater than impacts under the preferred alternative. The Guidelines also allow rejection of an alternative if it has “other significant adverse environmental consequences.”18 Such environmental consequences encompass a full range of resources including, for example, effects on threatened or endangered species, effects on cultural resources, and impacts on viewshed, air quality, or the human environment. The 404(b)(1) Guidelines also allow rejection of alternatives that are not practicable. An alternative is practicable if it is “available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics, in light of overall project purposes.”19 For actions subject to both CWA § 404(b) and NEPA, the analysis of alternatives under one statute will in most cases provide sufficient information for the evaluation of alternatives under the other.20 The analysis of alternatives to address the Guidelines and NEPA will also normally satisfy the requirements of the USACE’s public interest review. Consistent with the June 2005 Memorandum of Understanding the USACE entered into with FERC and the goals of NEPA to prevent duplication of efforts by federal agencies and encourage information sharing and integration of agency processes, the following alternatives analysis draws from the comprehensive analysis conducted by FERC in its FEIS and provides additional information for the USACE’s evaluation under NEPA and the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. The alternatives evaluated include alternative transportation methods, route alternatives, and alternative crossing methods for each crossing included in Mountain Valley’s permit application. Each alternative was evaluated based on its adverse environmental consequences and practicability, and the LEDPA was identified. The Project, as proposed by Mountain Valley and certified by FERC, should be considered the LEDPA for the purposes of the USACE’s Section 404(b)(1) evaluation. The other alternatives proposed and evaluated to date are either not practicable in implementation, do not satisfy the project purpose, or pose significantly greater aquatic and overall environmental impacts than the Project’s proposed route, as demonstrated below.

16 33 U.S.C. § 1344(b).

17 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(a) (“no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental consequences”).

18 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(a).

19 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(a)(2).

20 See 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(a)(4); Corps Standard Operating Procedures for the Regulatory Program, § 12 (stating that the “analysis of alternatives, pursuant to the Guidelines will also satisfy NEPA”).

Tetra Tech Page 13 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

3.2.1 No Action (No Build) Alternative

Under the No Action (No Build) Alternative, the USACE would not authorize the proposed activities and the Project would not be constructed21. If the Project is not constructed, other natural gas shippers may seek alternative means of transporting the proposed volumes of natural gas from production areas in the Appalachian Basin to markets in the Mid-Atlantic, Appalachia, and southeast United States. This may result in the expansion of existing natural gas transportation systems or the construction of new infrastructure; both of which may result in equal or greater environmental impacts in comparison to the Project. It could also limit the economic growth of these regions by not providing improved access to a natural gas supply. Thus, the No Action Alternative would have both adverse economic consequences and likely would not offer a significant environmental advantage if another similar project took its place. In addition, the No Action (No Build) Alternative would not satisfy the overall project purpose. If the Project is not completed, Mountain Valley will not be able to supply natural gas to customers at and downstream of the Mobley Interconnect in Wetzel County, West Virginia to the WB Interconnect in Braxton County, West Virginia; Greene Interconnect in Monroe County, West Virginia; Roanoke Gas Lafayette Tap in Montgomery County, Virginia; the Roanoke Gas Franklin Tap in Franklin County, Virginia; and Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company LLC Station 165 in Pittsylvania County, Virginia. Therefore, the No Action (No Build) Alternative is not a practicable alternative.22 3.2.2 No Action (No Permit) Alternative

Under the No Action (No Permit) Alternative, the USACE would not authorize the proposed activities and Mountain Valley would construct the Project in manner that avoids all activities that require a permit from the USACE under CWA § 404 and RHA § 10.23 In any conceivable pipeline routing scenario, there are hundreds of streams and wetlands subject to the USACE’s Section 404 jurisdiction between the Project starting point in Mobley, West Virginia and its terminus in Pittsylvania County, Virginia that would need to be crossed by the pipeline and access roads. Constructing the Project without USACE authorization would necessitate that the Project avoid each jurisdictional water through a combination of routing the pipeline around resources, installing the pipeline underneath resources using trenchless crossing methods, and/or bridging over resources. Furthermore, because authorization from the USACE would be necessary to cross any navigable water under RHA § 10 using any of the available crossing methods, the only option to bypass Section 10 waters without USACE authorization is to avoid those waters altogether. Mountain Valley could not implement a No Action (No Permit) Alternative using its proposed route, which crosses at least five rivers that have been determined to be or are presumptively “navigable” under RHA § 10. Those and other navigable rivers in Virginia and West Virginia would serve as barriers to the development of any potential no-permit route. In particular, the West Fork River, Greenbrier River, and New River in West Virginia and the Roanoke River and Jackson River in Virginia obstruct any reasonably direct path between the Project termini, meaning that a potential no-permit route necessarily would be

21 As a practical and factual matter, the No Action (No Build) Alternative evaluated in the FEIS is not available at this time because a substantial portion of the Project has been constructed. Whether this alternative is evaluated (1) as it was during the 2017 FEIS (i.e., hypothetical scenario in which no Project construction occurs) or (2) as it would be at this time (i.e., no further Project construction occurs), the result is the same. The No Action (No Build) Alternative is not a practicable alternative in either case.

22 Refer to FERC FEIS §§ 3.1 and 5.1.14 for additional information about the No Action Alternative.

23 The FERC FEIS did not evaluate an alternative that entailed construction of the Project without authorization from the Corps.

Tetra Tech Page 14 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

substantially longer than the current route. This would result in a proportionate increase in upland environmental impacts, landowner impacts, and costs. Constructing a pipeline without Corps authorization is not practicable. Mountain Valley attempted to avoid stream and wetland resources whenever practicable in the development of its proposed route, and there still are hundreds of unavoidable crossings. A longer no-permit alternative route would be no different. There is no feasible, much less practicable, way to wholly avoid hundreds of resources when constructing a 42-inch pipeline through and across the Appalachian Mountains. Bridging a 42-inch natural gas pipeline over streams and wetlands is not practicable due to safety and maintenance concerns.24 Accordingly, crossings would have to be installed with trenchless crossing methods. Mountain Valley performed site- specific analyses of every crossing along the proposed route.25 That exercise demonstrated that there are many common circumstances under which crossings cannot be practicably completed with trenchless methods. In particular, the analysis showed that trenchless crossings methods often are impracticable in difficult terrain, including on steep slopes and karst areas. Those conditions would be unavoidable given that the Appalachian Mountains and a long band of karst terrain separate the two Project termini. Assuming it would be impracticable to cross a comparable percentage of streams and wetlands along a no-permit route with trenchless methods, constructing a no-permit alternative is not practicable on its face. Furthermore, it may not be possible. Geotechnical conditions such as karst features and hard rock do not allow bores to be attempted in all areas. Even when geotechnical conditions appear to be favorable to boring, there always remains a small but material risk that unexpected conditions will be encountered that prevent a bore from being completed—thereby requiring the crossing to be completed though open cutting. Lastly, the site-specific crossing analysis showed that trenchless crossings are generally many times more costly than open-cut crossings. Assuming the costs to utilize trenchless methods on the No Action (No Permit) Alternative route are comparable to the preferred alternative, then utilizing such methods for every crossing would make the cost of Project construction prohibitive. Avoiding all stream and wetland impacts would have other logistical impacts on the Project. Building construction access roads, and upgrading existing access roads, would present significant technical challenges (and costs) if Mountain Valley could not install, repair, or replace culverts. In many cases on the Project to date, Mountain Valley has found it necessary to install, repair, or replace culverts to allow construction equipment to safely access the work area. Similarly, despite best efforts, Mountain Valley has been unable to construct access roads to the ROW and travel lanes within the ROW that avoid all impacts to wetlands. Mountain Valley inevitably would face the same challenges, and likewise would have no practicable options, in attempting to construct a No Action (No Permit) Alternative. Lastly, it is important to recognize that no pipeline of comparable size or length has ever been constructed without authorization from the USACE. Considering the inherent engineering and cost challenges that must be overcome to construct the Project in mountainous terrain, attempting to do so while avoiding all stream and wetland impacts likely would prove not only impracticable, but impossible. This section highlights several specific engineering, logistical, and cost challenges that Mountain Valley would face attempting to construct the Project without Corps authorization. Those challenges—and many others that undoubtedly would arise if this unprecedented approach to construction is attempted—would be experienced by Mountain Valley cumulatively. In sum, the No Action (No Permit) Alternative is neither practicable nor a less environmentally damaging alternative.

24 Refer to Section 3.3.1.1 (Bridging) for more information.

25 See Sections 3.3.2 (Pipeline Crossing Constraints) and 3.4 (Crossing Method Practicability Determination).

Tetra Tech Page 15 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

3.2.3 Natural Gas Transportation Method Alternatives Analysis

Other methods of natural gas transportation, besides the transportation of natural gas via underground steel pipelines, were considered, including transportation by ships, trucks, and railroads. These alternative methods of transportation require the natural gas to be converted to liquified natural gas (LNG) by cooling the gas to approximately -260 degrees Fahrenheit (°F). As a liquid, LNG is approximately 600 times more compact than its gaseous phase. Once liquefied, it can be stored in cryogenic containers and transported via ship, truck, or train. After receipt at a reception terminal, the LNG can be warmed and vaporized back into a gaseous state and put into pipelines for further distribution. While these following options were originally considered in the FEIS, before construction began, it is worth noting that any of the environmental impacts that would result from implementing these alternatives would be in addition to the many environmental impacts of the Project, including tree clearing and WOTUS crossings, that have already occurred (Attachment G; Figure 4). 3.2.3.1 LNG Water Vessel Delivery

One alternative to transported natural gas by the Proposed pipeline is for LNG to be transported by water to import/export terminals via specially designed ships. The closest LNG import/export terminal to the Project is the Dominion Cove Point terminal in Calvert County, Maryland. The total send-out capacity of the Cove Point terminal (1.8 Bcf/D)26 is less than the volume of natural gas to be delivered by the Project (2.0 Bcf/D). Moreover, the terminal’s capacity presently is fully subscribed.27 Therefore, to handle the additional volumes of the Project, the Cove Point terminal would have to be expanded to more than double its present capacity, resulting in additional temporary and permanent environmental impacts to marine communities along the Chesapeake Bay shore and to wetlands. The regulatory risk of obtaining approvals to expand the terminal, the cost of the expansion, and the many years it would take to complete the expansion appear to present significant obstacles. Accordingly, this option is not an “available” alternative within the meaning of 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(a)(2). Even if this alternative were available, two of the possible methods of transporting natural gas from the Project terminus in West Virginia to the Cove Point terminal are impracticable. As discussed in detail below, LNG Truck Delivery and LNG Railroad Delivery are not practicable alternatives to transport the Project’s volume of gas. The third method of transporting natural gas from the Project terminus in West Virginia to the Cove Point terminal—by pipeline—is not less environmentally damaging than the Project. Mountain Valley would have to construct a roughly 310-mile-long pipeline through the densely populated Washington, DC metropolitan area to reach the terminal.28 Nor would this alternative satisfy the overall project purpose. Theoretically, LNG could be shipped out of Cove Point to potential end users up and down the Atlantic coast. But that would do little to meet the overall project purpose of transporting low-cost natural gas produced in the Appalachian Basin to markets in the Mid-Atlantic, Appalachia, and southeastern United States. The Project’s delivery points in West Virginia and Virginia are all located well inland and are inaccessible to cargo ships. The only other LNG terminals on the East or Gulf coasts capable of importing gas shipped from Cove Point are terminals in Elba Island, Georgia (Southern LNG); Freeport, Texas (Freeport LNG); Everett, Massachusetts (Everett); and Boston,

26 Dominion Energy, Cove Point, https://www.dominionenergy.com/projects-and-facilities/natural-gas- facilities/cove-point (last visited January 26, 2021).

27 NGI, Berkshire Hathaway Taking Over Cove Point LNG from Dominion, available at https://www.naturalgasintel.com/berkshire-hathaway-taking-over-cove-point-lng-from-dominion/ (Nov. 3, 2020).

28 FERC FEIS § 3.2.1.

Tetra Tech Page 16 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

Massachusetts (Northeast Gateway)—all of which are significant distance farther away from the Project’s delivery points than the Project terminus in Mobley, West Virginia.29 Lastly, this alternative is not less environmentally damaging. Mountain Valley would have to either construct a new pipeline of comparable size and length—or rely on impracticable LNG Truck delivery or LNG Railroad delivery methods—to convey gas to Cove Point. The Cove Point terminal would have to be more than doubled in capacity, in an environmentally sensitive area on the Chesapeake Bay. The liquefied gas would then have to be shipped to and unloaded at LNG import terminals elsewhere on the eastern seaboard, from which additional new infrastructure likely would have to be constructed to supply the gas to the intended recipients. Each of these steps would entail significant environmental impacts that, when considered cumulatively, would dwarf the impacts of the proposed Project. Therefore, the Project would be less environmentally damaging than this alternative. Based on the considerations above, the Cove Point LNG alternative is not available, practicable, or less environmentally damaging than the Project. 3.2.3.2 LNG Truck Delivery

Another potential transportation alternative would involve using trucks to transport LNG on existing roadways. LNG in relatively small volumes is already transported via trucks in many locations throughout the United States. This alternative is not logistically practicable. To replace the Project, new liquefaction facilities would have to be constructed in the Appalachian Basin and new regasification facilities would need to be constructed at each of the delivery points. In addition, new natural gas pipelines would need to be constructed to deliver the gas to the liquefaction facilities. Most significantly, a massive fleet of specialized tanker trucks approved to carry LNG would need to be secured. According to the FERC FEIS, the conversion of the Project’s contracted natural gas volume of 2.0 Bcf/d would yield a production of 23,865,200 gallons of LNG per day. Commercially available LNG tanker trucks have storage capacities ranging between 7,500 gallons and 16,000 gallons. Assuming a truck tanker capacity of 7,500 gallons, FERC calculated that 3,182 trucks would be required to transport this volume of LNG per day. Because it is not feasible for a fleet of that size to operate every day due to maintenance and other issues, the actual number of trucks needed would be higher. Due to the extremely large LNG tanker truck fleet size required to transport this volume of LNG per day, this is not a practicable alternative. Further, the addition of 3,182 trucks per day traveling over 300 miles from the area of natural gas production to the end users on public roads and highways raises additional safety concerns. Using a U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) published accident rate of 6x10-7 accidents per mile per year for LNG tanker trucks (US DOT PHMSA, 2019) yields an estimated 418 accidents per year that could be anticipated using LNG trucks to deliver the Project’s contracted natural gas volume. In addition to the increased safety hazard from the anticipated increase in vehicle accidents, a subset of the anticipated accidents would result in the release of LNG, which could result in additional safety and environmental hazards. This alternative does not present any environmental benefits over the Project. The fleet of LNG tanker trucks would have to travel over 300 miles on public highways from the area of natural gas production to the end users. Assuming an average fuel economy of 6 miles per gallon for a tractor trailer (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2016) and a 600-mile-long round trip, each truck would consume an estimated 100 gallons of fuel per round trip (220,100 gallons of truck fuel per day) and each truck would also emit air

29 LNG terminal information gathered from the Energy Information Agency’s U.S. Mapping System, available at https://www.eia.gov/state/maps.php?v=Natural%20Gas (last visited January 26, 2021).

Tetra Tech Page 17 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

pollutants.30 Further, the liquefaction and regasification facilities would also consume energy and/or fuel during their processes and emit air pollutants either directly on-site or indirectly via obtaining power from an off-site source. The construction and operation of the new liquefaction and regasification facilities and associated pipelines, along with the addition of several thousand tractor trucks on public highways each day, the amount of fuel usage per day, and the amount of additional air pollutants emitted from the new facilities and trucks, would result in greater environmental impacts when compared to the proposed Project. The construction of new liquefaction facilities and associated pipelines would result in additional impacts to WOTUS and/or Section 10 navigable waters. Due to the technical and logistical constraints associated with the construction and operation of new liquefaction and regasification facilities and associated pipelines, this is not a practicable alternative. In addition, given the increased risk to public safety due to the increased number of tractor trailer trucks that would need to be added to public roads and highways daily to transport the 2.0 Bcf/d of natural gas that would be supplied by the Project, and the substantial environmental impacts that would result from the construction of new liquefaction facilities and associated pipelines, this alternative entails significant adverse environmental impacts. The environmental impacts that would result from the implementation of this alternative would be in addition to the many environmental impacts of the Project, including tree clearing and WOTUS crossings, that have already occurred (Attachment G; Figure 4). Therefore, the Project would be less environmentally damaging than this alternative. 3.2.3.3 LNG Railroad Delivery

LNG could also be transported by railroad tanker cars along existing tracks. New liquefaction facilities would need to be constructed in the production area, and new regasification facilities constructed at the delivery points. This alternative is not available or practicable. Assuming a rail car capacity of 30,680 gallons, in the FEIS, FERC calculated that 779 rail cars per day would be required to transport the 2.0 Bcf/d of natural gas that would be supplied by the Project. Based on FERC’s review,31 other than the proposed Roanoke Gas Lafayette Tap (where an existing railroad is located near MP 235.6), there are no existing rail lines located near any of the Project’s other proposed delivery points, with the closest existing railway located approximately 3.5 miles from Transco Station 165. Railroad extension projects are highly regulated; therefore, any new railway extension, if feasible, would require a significant additional cost and multiple years to design, permit, and build. Moreover, because Mountain Valley owns no railroad assets, and it would have no control over whether any railroad operators would be willing and able to extend their system to serve the Project. Likewise, this alternative is not less environmentally damaging. The increased rail traffic and new liquefaction and regasification facilities required to implement this alternative would result in a significant environmental impact on air quality. Assuming an average fuel economy of 1 ton of cargo (i.e., LNG) moved 300 miles per 1 gallon of fuel consumed for a freight train (actual mileage estimate is 436 miles per 1 gallon of fuel; University of Connecticut, 2013) and a 600-mile-long round trip, each daily delivery of trains totaling 779 rail cars would consume an estimated 95,600 gallons of fuel, and each train would also emit air pollutants. Further, the liquefaction and regasification facilities would also consume energy and/or fuel

30 The carbon dioxide emissions from the increased truck traffic alone would equal 4.9 million pounds per day (220,100 gallons diesel x 22.40 pounds CO2/gallon). Energy Information Agency, Carbon Dioxide Emissions Coefficients, https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php (last visited January 26, 2021).

31 FERC FEIS § 3.2.3.

Tetra Tech Page 18 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

during their processes and would emit air pollutants either directly on-site or indirectly via obtaining power from an off-site source. Likewise, this alternative is not less environmentally damaging. The increased rail traffic and new liquefaction and regasification facilities required to implement this alternative would result in a significant environmental impact on air quality. Assuming an average fuel economy of 1 ton of cargo (i.e., LNG) moved 300 miles per 1 gallon of fuel consumed for a freight train (actual mileage estimate is 436 miles per 1 gallon of fuel; University of Connecticut, 2013) and a 600-mile-long round trip, each daily delivery of trains totaling 779 rail cars would consume an estimated 95,600 gallons of fuel, and each train would also emit air pollutants. Further, the liquefaction and regasification facilities would also consume energy and/or fuel during their processes and would emit air pollutants either directly on-site or indirectly via obtaining power from an off-site source. The construction of new liquefaction facilities and considerable railway extensions would result in additional and substantial environmental impacts, including impacts to WOTUS and/or Section 10 navigable waters. The transportation of LNG via railroad is not a practicable alternative due to the technical and logistical constraints associated with the construction and operation of new liquefaction and regasification facilities and the need to secure the assistance of railroad operators willing to serve the Project. This alternative would also result in significant additional costs and delays based on the multiple years required to design, permit, and build new railway extensions. It also would result in substantial environmental impacts resulting from the construction of new liquefaction facilities and railroad extensions. The environmental impacts that would result from the implementation of this alternative would be in addition to the many environmental impacts of the Project, including tree clearing and WOTUS crossings, that have already occurred (Attachment G; Figure 4). Therefore, the Project would be less environmentally damaging than this alternative. 3.2.4 System Alternatives

System alternatives to the proposed action would make use of existing or other proposed natural gas transmission systems/facilities to meet the overall purpose of the Project. Implementing a system alternative would make it unnecessary to construct all or part of the Project, although some modifications or additions to an existing transmission system/facility or other proposed transmission system/facility may be necessary. Several existing natural gas transportation systems were considered in FERC’s review, including those operated by Texas Eastern, East Tennessee Natural Gas (East Tennessee), Columbia, and Transco. FERC included a thorough analysis of the system alternatives in its FEIS. The following existing systems were included in this review:  Texas Eastern Pipeline System Alternative  Columbia Pipeline System Alternative  East Tennessee Pipeline System Alternative  Transco Pipeline System Alternative Additional information for each system pertaining to USACE’s alternatives evaluation under the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines of the CWA (40 CFR § 230.10(a)) and for the USACE Public Interest Review (33 CFR § 320.4(a)) is presented below. As described below, these system alternatives either have similar or greater environmental impacts than the proposed Project or are not practicable for the following reasons.  The system locations did not provide the necessary geographic coverage;  System volume constraints did not allow for the increased volume proposed in the Project without significant system upgrades and retrofits;  The construction footprint necessary to retrofit or upgrade the existing systems would result in similar or greater environmental impact than the Project; and

Tetra Tech Page 19 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

 Significant additional cost and Project delays would result from multiple years to design, permit, and build new system alternatives. 3.2.4.1 Texas Eastern Pipeline System Alternative

The Texas Eastern Pipeline System extends from Texas to New York and crosses Pennsylvania. Given its current contracted capacity, FERC determined that Texas Eastern’s existing mainline in Pennsylvania could not transport the additional 2.0 Bcf/d of natural gas that would be supplied by the Project without substantial looping and compression capacity.32 Therefore, this alternative is not available to Mountain Valley. In addition, the Texas Eastern mainline route does not connect to the Project’s proposed southern terminus at the Transco Station 165 in Pittsylvania County, Virginia nor does it connect with the Project’s proposed interconnections or taps. FERC determined that a new 435-mile-long pipeline extension would have to be constructed to transport natural gas from the Texas Eastern mainline to the proposed Project terminus at the Transco Station 165, resulting in over 2,000 more acres of impacts when compared to the Project. This 435-mile-long pipeline extension would result in significantly greater environmental impacts to WOTUS and/or Section 10 waters considering that the Project is approximately 131 miles shorter. The significantly greater environmental impacts that would result from the implementation of this alternative would also be new environmental impacts, whereas, many of the Project’s environmental impacts, including tree clearing and WOTUS crossings, have already occurred (Attachment G; Figure 4). Therefore, the Texas Eastern pipeline system alternative would have greater environmental impacts than the proposed Project. Lastly, implementation of this alternative would result in significant additional cost and Project delays due to the multiple years necessary to design, permit, and build a new system alternative. 3.2.4.2 Columbia Pipeline System Alternative

The Columbia Pipeline System extends from the Mobley area to Clay County, West Virginia, where Columbia’s WB Line begins, and continues into Virginia where it interconnects with the Transco system. Given its current contracted capacity, FERC determined that the Columbia system could not transport the additional 2.0 Bcf/d of natural gas that would be supplied by the Project without substantial looping, compression, and new pipeline construction.33 Therefore, this alternative is not available to Mountain Valley. In addition, the Columbia system is not located close to either the Project’s proposed northern or southern termini. FERC determined that Columbia would have to develop new greenfield projects similar in scale to the Project to access the Project’s proposed northern and southern termini.34 In addition to the environmental impacts that have already occurred with Project (Attachment G; Figure 4), these new greenfield projects of similar scale to the Project would result in similar, or greater, environmental impacts to WOTUS and/or Section 10 waters.. Lastly, implementation of this alternative would result in significant additional costs and delays due to the multiple years necessary to design, permit, and build a new system alternative. 3.2.4.3 East Tennessee Pipeline System Alternative

The East Tennessee Pipeline System extends from Georgia to Virginia and intersects the Project in the vicinity of Roanoke, VA. Given its current contracted capacity, FERC determined that the East Tennessee system could not transport the additional 2.0 Bcf/d of natural gas that would be supplied by the Project

32 FERC FEIS § 3.3.1.1.

33 FERC FEIS § 3.3.1.1.

34 FERC FEIS § 3.3.1.1.

Tetra Tech Page 20 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

without the addition of substantial looping, compression capacity, and new pipeline construction.35 Therefore, this alternative is not available to Mountain Valley. FERC determined that a new 263-mile-long pipeline would have to be constructed to transport natural gas from the northern terminus of the Project to the existing East Tennessee mainline near Roanoke, Virginia. Additional upgrades and retrofits to the East Tennessee system, including a 95-mile-long loop to tie-in to the 263-mile-long pipeline, would then be required to transport the additional 2.0 Bcf/d of natural gas from the East Tennessee mainline near Roanoke, Virginia to its interconnect with the Transco system in Eden, North Carolina. The 263-mile-long new pipeline along with needed system upgrades and retrofits would result in similar or greater environmental impacts to WOTUS and/or Section 10 waters as compared to the proposed Project. Therefore, impacts from the proposed Project would likely be less environmentally damaging than this alternative. Lastly, implementation of this alternative would result in significant additional costs and delays due to the multiple years necessary to design, permit, and build a new system alternative. 3.2.4.4 Transco Pipeline System Alternative

The Transco Pipeline System extends from Texas to New York and crosses through Virginia. The Project proposes to interconnect with the Transco system at Station 165 in Pittsylvania County, Virginia. The Transco system does not extend into the natural gas production areas of West Virginia; therefore, a new pipeline similar in length to the Project would need to be constructed to connect the Transco system with the natural gas production areas of West Virginia.36 This new pipeline of similar length to the Project would result in similar, or greater, environmental impacts to WOTUS and/or Section 10 waters as compared to the proposed Project considering that they would cover similar distances. Therefore, the proposed Project would be less environmentally damaging than this alternative. Lastly, implementation of this alternative would result in significant additional costs and delays due to the multiple years necessary to design, permit, and build a new system alternative. 3.2.5 Route Alternatives

During Project development, Mountain Valley conducted an extensive review of potential pipeline routes to identify reasonable pipeline corridors and then evaluated these reasonable pipeline corridors to identify the LEDPA route within a practicable corridor. One of Mountain Valley’s primary objectives during pipeline routing was to avoid, where practicable, and minimize crossings of major population centers and significant natural resources, especially crossings of National Forests, National Parks, the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, and the Blue Ridge Parkway. A straight line between the Project’s start and end point would result in the shortest route and lowest possible footprint of disturbance. While a straight-line route does not allow for consideration of engineering and constructability issues or avoidance of sensitive areas and resources (both primary criteria for Mountain Valley), the shortest practicable length of pipeline is generally preferred in order to reduce the footprint of environmental and land use impact in addition to overall cost. Therefore, pipeline route length was used as a siting criterion and proxy for general environmental impact during the initial route selection. Analysis began with the identification of a study area that encompassed the Project interconnect points to the north (beginning) in the Mobley area and the south (end) at Transco Station 165 and was wide enough to cover a reasonable range of corridor locations. The review encompassed enough area to be able to avoid large population centers as necessary. Using publicly available data from state, Federal, and private entities, a geodatabase was developed within which data were categorized based on the character of the resources relative to its compatibility with pipeline construction and operation. Resources were classified as being either a compatible use or one of two types of constraints: sensitive area or exclusion area. A combination of spatial data, existing information, published reports, local knowledge, and prior experience was used to

35 FERC FEIS § 3.3.1.1.

36 FERC FEIS § 3.3.1.1.

Tetra Tech Page 21 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

review the study area and identify individual corridor segments that were practicable, with an emphasis on potential for collocation with existing utility corridors. Collocation with existing utility corridors is generally preferable as a means to reduce environmental and land use impacts and is encouraged by FERC in the siting of new natural gas pipelines. Mountain Valley evaluated existing linear utilities and highways in the region to determine if these existing ROW would provide collocation opportunities for the Project and avoid creation of new linear ROW. Existing major pipelines in the region traverse generally from the southwest-to-northeast and do not provide a north-south option for collocation. Major highways in the region generally traverse either southwest-northeast, or east- west, providing limited opportunities for significant collocation. Similarly, major electric transmission lines traverse primarily east-west, although some sections of electric transmission lines were identified for possible collocation, as discussed below. During corridor identification, special consideration was given to avoiding population centers and, where practicable, National Forests, National Parks, the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, and the Blue Ridge Parkway. If avoidance was not practicable, special consideration was given to finding an optimal location for the crossings. This refined analysis resulted in identifying 94 possible corridor segments, consisting of approximately 2,362 miles of potential pipeline routes, which could be pieced together to create end-to-end routes between the Project’s beginning and end points. Based on a review of desktop constructability, collocation with existing ROW, and length, a set of corridor segments that together created an end-to-end route was identified as the highest-ranking corridor and was initially selected for further study. Mountain Valley then conducted a more detailed analysis of existing publicly available site-specific data for the selected corridor to identify the most practicable pipeline route within that corridor. Analysis at this level included identification of difficult topography at road and waterbody crossings. It also identified ridge lines, which in mountainous terrain generally provide the greatest potential for constructability while minimizing crossings of waterbodies, wetlands, and floodplains. Special consideration was also given to residential areas, which were avoided whenever practicable. The pipeline route within the study corridor was also sited to avoid or minimize crossings of known sensitive biological and cultural resources including historic districts, protected lands, wetlands and waterbodies, and floodplains. The route identified after this initial review was identified as Route Alternative 1. At the completion of the initial routing process using desktop data, Mountain Valley conducted a flyover of Route Alternative 1 to further evaluate the feasibility of construction. Additionally, land personnel contacted landowners to request land access and GPS survey permission to further evaluate the pipeline route from the ground. Initial flight reconnaissance and ground check revealed that approximately half (105 miles) of the first 200 miles of Route Alternative 1 that followed existing overhead electric transmission lines would traverse severe side slopes. While the transmission lines can span significant areas of side slope, the pipeline would need to directly cross these areas. As a result, Mountain Valley determined that Route Alternative 1 was not practicable because it presented significant construction challenges, as well as a high risk of slope failure and pipeline slips in the side-slope areas once the pipeline was in operation. Mountain Valley then continued the routing evaluations using the same siting criteria from a combination of publicly available desktop data and reconnaissance-level ground surveys to identify the most suitable route. That evaluation ultimately resulted in identification of the proposed route included in Mountain Valley’s FERC application. In addition to Route Alternative 1, Mountain Valley identified and evaluated a number of reasonable route alternatives during the process of identifying the proposed route prior to filing the FERC application, and FERC requested evaluation of additional route alternatives during its review of Mountain Valley’s application and ultimately approval of the route authorized in FERC’s Order. The results of the analysis of individual route alternatives are summarized below. Moreover, because construction of the majority of the Project has now already been completed, the impacts resulting from that Project construction combined with the additional impacts of any of the route alternatives would be even greater than the impacts disclosed in FERC’s alternatives analysis in the FEIS.

Tetra Tech Page 22 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

3.2.6 Route Alternatives Considered Not Practicable

3.2.6.1 Highway Collocation Alternative

One major route alternative concept, a pipeline route collocated entirely within or adjacent to public roads and highways, was evaluated and determined to be not practicable. Mountain Valley identified a conceptual route alternative that would connect the proposed Project start and end points and be collocated with roads and highways for over 95 percent of its length. This alternative concept was not practicable because there are federal and state restrictions on placement of utilities and natural gas pipelines within the ROW of access-controlled freeways. While there are no restrictions for placement of natural gas pipelines adjacent to, but outside of, road and highway ROW, the alternative would present significant constructability challenges due to numerous roadway overpasses and underpasses, large interchanges, elevated sections of roadway including bridges, roadway cuts and fills, areas congested with development and homes, and narrow valleys where suitable terrain is already partially or fully encumbered by the roadway. Further, the alternative would be about 143 miles longer, impact approximately 2,100 more acres, and cross 104 more perennial waterbodies than the authorized pipeline route. For these reasons, a highway collocation alternative is neither practicable nor less environmentally damaging.37 3.2.6.2 Route Alternatives Evaluated in Detail

Between FERC’s FEIS and the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) prepared by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the agencies evaluated 27 route alternatives and compared their impacts to the proposed pipeline. With one exception, none of the alternatives were found to be practicable or have less adverse environmental impacts than the proposed Project route. One alternative, Variation 250, was found to be practicable and have less adverse environmental impacts and has therefore been incorporated into the proposed Project route prior to completion of the FEIS. The results of each analysis are summarized in the table below. Additional details and maps for these alternatives can be found in the FERC FEIS § 3.4.2 and USFS SEIS § 2.

37 See FERC FEIS § 3.4.1.1 for additional information on this alternative.

Tetra Tech Page 23 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

Summary of Route Alternatives

Route Alternative Key Rationale for Determining that Alternative is Not the LEDPA MAJOR ROUTE ALTERNATIVES The USFS’s Record of Decision evaluates an alternative that avoids all National Forest System (NFS) lands (3.5 miles). This alternative would be approximately 50 miles longer than the proposed Project and would have approximately 750 more acres of land disturbance, over 100 more perennial waterbody crossings, and substantially more wetlands impacts than the proposed Project. Therefore, even if this alternative is practicable, it is not Forest Service less environmentally damaging than the proposed Project. Further, impacts Avoidance Alternative have already occurred along the corresponding segment of proposed Project where approximately 93 percent of the ROW has been cleared and approximately 87 percent of the pipeline has been installed and backfilled. The environmental impacts that would result from the implementation of this alternative would be in addition to the prior environmental impacts of the Project, including tree clearing and WOTUS crossings, that have already occurred (Attachment G; Figure 4). This alternative route is 20 miles longer, potentially disturbing 336 more acres of land and 90 more parcels. Compared to the proposed Project, this alternative crosses approximately 1,924 feet more of wetlands and 38 more perennial waterbodies; 43 more miles of steep slopes; 7 more miles of side slopes; and 14 more miles of karst terrain. Therefore, even if this alternative is practicable, it is not less environmentally damaging than the proposed Route Alternative 1 Project. Further, impacts have already occurred along the corresponding segment of the Project where approximately 93 percent of the ROW has been cleared and approximately 87 percent of the pipeline installed and backfilled. The environmental impacts that would result from the implementation of this alternative would be in addition to the prior environmental impacts of the Project, including tree clearing and WOTUS crossings, that have already occurred (Attachment G; Figure 4). This alternative is a minor variation on the proposed Project. This alternative would not satisfy the overall project purpose because it would not allow Mountain Valley to supply gas to its two intermediate delivery points to Roanoke Gas. Nor is this alternative less environmentally damaging. Its land requirements and resource impacts are not significantly different than the proposed Project in most respects. In balancing the factors evaluated, FERC found both advantages and disadvantages to the alternative compared with Hybrid Alternative 1A proposed Project and was not compelled to shift the impacts from the current set of landowners to a new set of landowners. Most relevant to the 404(b)(1) Guidelines, this alternative crosses 10 more wetlands for a distance of approximately 2,300 feet and crosses 12 more perennial waterbodies. Further, impacts have already occurred along the corresponding segment of proposed Project where approximately 93 percent of the ROW has been cleared and approximately 87 percent of the pipeline has been installed.

Tetra Tech Page 24 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

Route Alternative Key Rationale for Determining that Alternative is Not the LEDPA This alternative is minor variation on the proposed Project that increases the total length by almost 15 miles, thereby increasing the area of overall project disturbance by about 259 acres, affecting 7 more wetlands, crossing 20 more perennial streams, and crossing two more major waterbodies. It also would cross 28.7 more miles of steep slopes and 22 more miles of side slopes compared to the proposed Project. Even if this route is practicable, it is not less environmentally damaging than the proposed Project. Further, Hybrid Alternative 1B impacts have already occurred along the corresponding segment of proposed Project where approximately 93 percent of the ROW has been cleared and approximately 87 percent of the pipeline has been installed and backfilled. The environmental impacts that would result from the implementation of this alternative would be in addition to the prior environmental impacts of the Project, including tree clearing and WOTUS crossings, that have already occurred (Attachment G; Figure 4). This alternative evaluates whether the Project could be collocated with the previously proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline. In many areas, such as in Lewis and Upshur counties, West Virginia and Augusta and Nelson counties, Virginia, there is insufficient space along the narrow ridgelines to accommodate two parallel 42-inch-diameter parallel pipelines. Based on the constructability issues, this alternative was previously deemed not technically practicable. Since the Atlantic Coast Pipeline project has been terminated, however, Mountain Valley assumes this alternative may be practicable to construct. Even so, this alternative would not satisfy the project purpose because it would not allow Mountain Valley to supply gas to any of its intermediate delivery points. Nor is this alternative less environmentally damaging. The FERC FEIS found it to have several environmental Northern/ACP advantages due to the prospect of consolidating the Project’s impacts with Collocation Alternative the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, but those advantages are no longer available. This alternative crosses substantially more wetlands and streams, as well increases the length of the Project within karst terrain by 25 percent. Additionally, this alternative would represent an increase in the length of the route within NFS lands by five times. Evaluating this alternative without the benefits provided by collocation, it is clear that it would have greater environmental impacts. Further, impacts have already occurred along the corresponding segment of proposed Project where approximately 92 percent of the ROW has been cleared and approximately 87 percent of the pipeline has been installed and backfilled. The environmental impacts that would result from the implementation of this alternative would be in addition to the prior environmental impacts of the Project, including tree clearing and WOTUS crossings, that have already occurred (Attachment G; Figure 4). MINOR ROUTE VARIATIONS

Tetra Tech Page 25 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

Route Alternative Key Rationale for Determining that Alternative is Not the LEDPA This alternative evaluates whether the Project could be collocated with a portion of the previously proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline. Based on the constructability challenges resulting from installing two parallel pipelines in steep terrain, this alternative previously was identified as not technically practicable. Assuming this alternative is practicable due to the withdrawal of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline project, that fact also eliminates the potential environmental advantages identified for this alternative. Viewed on its own, Supply Header this route alternative is not less environmentally damaging because it Collocation Alternative crosses a greater number of streams and wetlands. In addition, impacts have already occurred along nearly the entire corresponding segment of the proposed Project where over 99 percent of the ROW has been cleared and over 99 percent of the pipeline has been installed and backfilled. The environmental impacts that would result from the implementation of this alternative would be in addition to the prior environmental impacts of the Project, including tree clearing and WOTUS crossings, that have already occurred (Attachment G; Figure 4). This minor alternative impacts one fewer perennial stream than the proposed Project. However, that minor environmental benefit is more than offset by the fact that the Burnsville Lake WMA Variation would traverse 1.8 miles through the Burnsville Lake WMA (compared to less than 0.1 mile for the proposed Project), which was established by the West Virginia Department of Natural Resources to conserve high-quality habitats for wildlife species. This Burnsville Lake Wildlife alternative therefore is not less environmentally damaging than the proposed Management Area Project. Further, impacts have already occurred along the entire (WMA) Variation corresponding segment of the proposed Project where the ROW has been cleared and 100 percent of the pipeline has been installed and backfilled. The environmental impacts that would result from the implementation of this alternative would be in addition to the prior environmental impacts of the proposed Project, including tree clearing and WOTUS crossings, that have already occurred (Attachment G; Figure 4). This alternative is not less environmentally damaging. It would cross more wetland area but one fewer perennial stream. However, it would cross the Elk River WMA for a distance of 3.2 miles. This wildlife management area is completely avoided by the proposed Project. Further, impacts have already occurred along the corresponding segment of proposed Project where over Elk River WMA 99 percent of the ROW has been cleared and approximately 76 percent of Variation the pipeline has been installed and backfilled. The environmental impacts that would result from the implementation of this alternative would be in addition to the prior environmental impacts of the Project, including tree clearing and WOTUS crossings, that have already occurred (Attachment G; Figure 4).

Tetra Tech Page 26 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

Route Alternative Key Rationale for Determining that Alternative is Not the LEDPA This alternative is not less environmentally damaging. It would have greater impacts on NFS lands compared to the proposed Project (6.2 vs. 3.4 miles), old-growth forest within the NFS lands (13.0 vs. 4.9 acres), USFS- designated trail crossings (3 vs. 0 crossings), and USFS-designated Wilderness Area (1.1 vs. 0 miles). Although this alternative crosses one fewer perennial stream than the proposed Project, it also impacts approximately 10 times the wetland acreage. In addition, impacts have Variation 110 already occurred along the corresponding segment of proposed Project where approximately 80 percent of the ROW has been cleared and approximately 48 percent of the pipeline has been installed and backfilled. The environmental impacts that would result from the implementation of this alternative would be in addition to the prior environmental impacts of the Project, including tree clearing and WOTUS crossings, that have already occurred (Attachment G; Figure 4). This alternative is not less environmentally damaging. It would have greater impacts on NFS lands crossed compared to the proposed Project (6.2 vs. 3.5 miles), old-growth forest within the NFS lands (12.1 vs. 4.9 acres), and USFS-designated trail crossings (3 vs. 0 crossings). Although this alternative crosses one fewer perennial stream than the proposed Project, it also impacts approximately 10 times greater wetland acreage. In addition, Variation 110R impacts have already occurred along the corresponding segment of proposed Project where approximately 80 percent of the ROW has been cleared and approximately 48 percent of the pipeline has been installed and backfilled. The environmental impacts that would result from the implementation of this alternative would be in addition to the prior environmental impacts of the Project, including tree clearing and WOTUS crossings, that have already occurred (Attachment G; Figure 4). This alternative is not less environmentally damaging. It would have greater impacts to NFS lands crossed compared to the proposed Project (5.3 vs. 3.5 miles), old-growth forest within the NFS lands (12.2 vs. 4.9 acres), and USFS-designated trail crossings (3 vs. 0 crossings). This alternative also impacts substantially greater wetland acreage and 5 more perennial streams. In addition, impacts have already occurred along the corresponding Variation 110J segment of proposed Project where approximately 80 percent of the ROW has been cleared and approximately 48 percent of the pipeline has been installed and backfilled. The environmental impacts that would result from the implementation of this alternative would be in addition to the prior environmental impacts of the Project, including tree clearing and WOTUS crossings, that have already occurred (Attachment G; Figure 4). This alternative is not less environmentally damaging. It would be about 9 miles longer than the comparable portion of the proposed Project. In addition to additional upland impacts from the longer route, this alternative impacts wetlands, which are avoided by the corresponding segment of the proposed CGV Peters Mountain Project. This alternative has the same relative impact on streams as the Variation proposed Project. In addition, impacts have already occurred along the corresponding segment of proposed Project where approximately 3 percent of the ROW has been cleared and approximately 2 percent of the pipeline has been installed and backfilled.

Tetra Tech Page 27 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

Route Alternative Key Rationale for Determining that Alternative is Not the LEDPA This alternative is not less environmentally damaging. In addition to greater upland impacts compared to the proposed Project (e.g., 4.9 acres vs. 0 acres old-growth forest), it would impact many more perennial streams (18 vs. 1 stream) and more wetland area (97 vs. 0 square feet). In addition, impacts have already occurred along the corresponding segment of the SR 635-ANST proposed Project where approximately 31 percent of the ROW has been Variation cleared and approximately 19 percent of the pipeline has been installed and backfilled. The environmental impacts that would result from the implementation of this alternative would be in addition to the prior environmental impacts of the Project, including tree clearing and WOTUS crossings, that have already occurred (Attachment G; Figure 4). This alternative is not less environmentally damaging. In addition to greater upland impacts compared to the proposed Project (e.g., 2.6 vs. 1.7 miles in AEP-ANST Variation NFS lands), it would impact many more perennial streams (17 vs. 1 stream). Neither alternative impacts wetlands in this stretch. No impacts have occurred along the corresponding segment of proposed Project. This very small alternative is not less environmentally damaging. Neither the route variation nor the proposed Project in this area impact wetlands, although this variation impacts one fewer perennial stream. This alternative was determined to be more environmentally damaging than the proposed New River Project in this area because the proposed Project follows an existing Conservancy Variation powerline corridor, which allows it to avoid additional greenfield impacts to forests and agricultural lands that would result from the alternative. Further, this alternative would be about 0.4 mile longer and impact 7.1 more acres than the proposed Project. Of the 7.1 additional acres the alternative would impact, 6 acres are forested. The proposed Project through this section represents a route modification that was adopted by Mountain Valley to avoid potential impacts to Canoe Cave, which was identified as a hibernaculum for the threatened northern long-eared bat. The Canoe Cave Variation represented a second alternative route to avoid the cave, which is not less environmentally damaging. Neither route affects any streams or wetlands, and the proposed Project avoids Canoe Cave Variation impacts to interior forest (7.6 vs. 0 acres). In addition, impacts have already occurred along the corresponding segment of proposed Project where 100 percent of the ROW has been cleared. The environmental impacts that would result from the implementation of this alternative would be in addition to the prior environmental impacts of the Project, including tree clearing and WOTUS crossings, that have already occurred (Attachment G; Figure 4). This alternative is neither practicable nor less environmentally damaging. This alternative would require constructing on a steeper slope than anywhere else on the proposed Project, which threatens worker safety and prevents equipment from traversing the ROW. Although this alternative would cross one fewer intermittent stream, it would cause significantly greater impacts to local residents because Brush Mountain Road would have to be closed for Brush Mt. Alternative 1 up to four weeks to complete construction in this area. Neither alternative impacts wetlands. In addition, impacts have already occurred along the corresponding segment of proposed Project where 100 percent of the ROW has been cleared. The environmental impacts that would result from the implementation of this alternative would be in addition to the prior environmental impacts of the Project, including tree clearing and WOTUS crossings, that have already occurred (Attachment G; Figure 4).

Tetra Tech Page 28 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

Route Alternative Key Rationale for Determining that Alternative is Not the LEDPA This alternative is not less environmentally damaging. Although this alternative would cross one fewer intermittent stream, it would cause significantly greater impacts to local residents because Brush Mountain Road would have to be closed for up to four weeks to complete construction in this area. Additionally, this alternative would require the pipeline to be installed in close proximity to a neighborhood (Preston Forest Subdivision), which Mountain Valley sought to avoid due to objections from homeowners. Brush Mt. Alternative 2 Neither alternative impacts wetlands. In addition, impacts have already occurred along the corresponding segment of the proposed Project where 100 percent of the ROW has been cleared and approximately 2 percent of the pipeline has been installed and backfilled. The environmental impacts that would result from the implementation of this alternative would be in addition to the prior environmental impacts of the Project, including tree clearing and WOTUS crossings, that have already occurred (Attachment G; Figure 4). This alternative is neither practicable nor less environmentally damaging. This alternative was part of the originally proposed Project. However, field surveys indicated that the route crossed a large sinkhole plain, which would present geological hazards to the pipeline. The alternative is therefore impracticable. It is also not less environmentally damaging. The alternative crosses four fewer perennial streams, but it also crosses a wetland that is avoided by the proposed Project. Furthermore, the proposed Project avoids October 2015 Route or reduces impacts to several sensitive sites, including the North Fork Over the Mount Tabor Historic District, Slussers Chapel Conservation Site, Old Mill Conservation Sinkhole Plain Sites, and conservation easement areas administered by the Virginia Variation Outdoors Foundation and The Nature Conservancy. In addition, impacts have already occurred along the corresponding segment of proposed Project where 100 percent of the ROW has been cleared and approximately 94 percent of the pipeline has been installed and backfilled. The environmental impacts that would result from the implementation of this alternative would be in addition to the prior environmental impacts of the Project, including tree clearing and WOTUS crossings, that have already occurred (Attachment G; Figure 4). This alternative is not less environmentally damaging. Although this alternative would cross one fewer intermittent stream (and have the same area of wetland impact) than the proposed Project,38 it would impact a substantially greater area of NFS land (2.54 vs 0.04 miles) and interior forests (39.4 vs. 13.6 acres). Construction of this alternative also would Slussers Chapel impact USFS operations by requiring temporary closure of Forest Road 188. Conservation Site In addition, impacts have already occurred along the corresponding segment Variation of proposed Project where 100 percent of the ROW has been cleared and approximately 60 percent of the pipeline has been installed and backfilled. The environmental impacts that would result from the implementation of this alternative would be in addition to the prior environmental impacts of the Project, including tree clearing and WOTUS crossings, that have already occurred (Attachment G; Figure 4).

38 In FERC FEIS § 3.5.1.11, table 3.5.1-11a, the alternative labeled “Variation 250” is the proposed Project route. The alternative in the table labeled “Proposed Route” was abandoned because it had a greater

Tetra Tech Page 29 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

Route Alternative Key Rationale for Determining that Alternative is Not the LEDPA This alternative is not less environmentally damaging. Although it avoids one small wetland (44 square feet), this impact is more than offset by greater impacts on NFS lands (2.3 vs 0.04 miles) and interior forests (44.6 vs 13.6 acres). In addition, impacts have already occurred along the corresponding segment of proposed Project where 100 percent of the ROW has been Modified Variation 250 cleared and approximately 69 percent of the pipeline has been installed and backfilled. The environmental impacts that would result from the implementation of this alternative would be in addition to the prior environmental impacts of the Project, including tree clearing and WOTUS crossings, that have already occurred (Attachment G; Figure 4). This alternative is not less environmentally damaging. Although this alternative would cross two fewer streams than the proposed Project (neither route impacts wetlands), the route had been adjusted in this location to avoid potential impacts to the Spring Hollow Reservoir—a public drinking water supply—and to avoid crossing through a public park (Roanoke Camp) owned Poor Mountain by Roanoke County. Further, impacts have already occurred along the Variation corresponding segment of proposed Project where approximately 22 percent of the ROW has been cleared and approximately 1 percent of the pipeline has been installed and backfilled. The environmental impacts that would result from the implementation of this alternative would be in addition to the many environmental impacts of the Project, including tree clearing and WOTUS crossings, that have already occurred (Attachment G; Figure 4). This alternative is not practicable due to constructability issues. This route traverses approximately 10,600 feet of extreme side-slope terrain and severe rock outcroppings, with slopes up to 70 to 90 percent grade. Further, impacts have already occurred along the corresponding segment of proposed Project where approximately 16 percent of the ROW has been cleared and Alternative 682 approximately 1 percent of the pipeline has been installed and backfilled. The environmental impacts that would result from the implementation of this alternative would be in addition to the prior environmental impacts of the Project, including tree clearing and WOTUS crossings, that have already occurred (Attachment G; Figure 4). This alternative is not less environmentally damaging. Neither route impacts streams or wetlands in this segment, and the alternative has a greater visual impact on the BRP. Further, the pipeline has already been installed underneath the BRP along the proposed Project. Likewise, impacts have October 2015 Blue already occurred along the corresponding segment of proposed Project Ridge Parkway (BRP) where approximately 89 percent of the ROW has been cleared and Variation approximately 86 percent of the pipeline has been installed and backfilled. The environmental impacts that would result from the implementation of this alternative would be in addition to the prior environmental impacts of the Project, including tree clearing and WOTUS crossings, that have already occurred (Attachment G; Figure 4).

impact on the Slussers Chapel Conservation Site. The former route also had six more stream impacts (and the same wetland impacts).

Tetra Tech Page 30 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

Route Alternative Key Rationale for Determining that Alternative is Not the LEDPA This alternative is not less environmentally damaging. Neither route impacts streams or wetlands in this segment, and the alternative has a greater visual impact on the BRP. Further, the pipeline has already been installed underneath the BRP along the proposed Project. Likewise, impacts have already occurred along the corresponding segment of the proposed Project Blue Ridge Parkway where approximately 89 percent of the ROW has been cleared and Alternative 1 approximately 86 percent of the pipeline has been installed and backfilled. The environmental impacts that would result from the implementation of this alternative would be in addition to the many environmental impacts of the Project, including tree clearing and WOTUS crossings, that have already occurred (Attachment G; Figure 4). This alternative is not less environmentally damaging. Neither route impacts streams or wetlands in this segment, and the alternative has a greater visual impact on the BRP. Further, the pipeline has already been installed underneath the BRP along the proposed Project. Likewise, impacts have already occurred along the corresponding segment of the proposed Project Blue Ridge Parkway where approximately 89 percent of the ROW has been cleared and Alternative 2 approximately 89 percent of the pipeline has been installed and backfilled. The environmental impacts that would result from the implementation of this alternative would be in addition to the prior environmental impacts of the Project, including tree clearing and WOTUS crossings, that have already occurred (Attachment G; Figure 4). This alternative is not less environmentally damaging. Although the alternative impacts one fewer perennial stream, this is offset by the fact that the proposed Project avoids all wetland impacts in this segment. Furthermore, the alternative includes two crossings of the Blackwater River in close proximity to a drinking water supply intake. The proposed Project October 2015 was developed to avoid those crossings. Further, impacts have already Blackwater River occurred along the entire corresponding segment of the proposed Project Variation where the ROW has been cleared and 100 percent of the pipeline has been installed and backfilled. The environmental impacts that would result from the implementation of this alternative would be in addition to the prior environmental impacts of the Project, including tree clearing and WOTUS crossings, that have already occurred (Attachment G; Figure 4).

Tetra Tech Page 31 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

Route Alternative Key Rationale for Determining that Alternative is Not the LEDPA This alternative is not less environmentally damaging. Although the alternative impacts four fewer small wetlands and two streams, those impacts are outweighed by other significant environmental effects. First, the alternative would require construction parallel to a stream for a “large segment of the route variation,”39 which likely would cause greater instream impact than a perpendicular crossing. Second, three archeological sites were identified in the alternative route, compared to zero for the proposed route. Variation 35 Third, the alternative has one open-water (pond) impact that is avoided by the proposed Project route. Further, impacts have already occurred along the entire corresponding segment of proposed Project route where the 100 percent of the ROW has been cleared and 100 percent of the pipeline has been installed and backfilled. The environmental impacts that would result from the implementation of this alternative would be in addition to the prior environmental impacts of the Project, including tree clearing and WOTUS crossings, that have already occurred (Attachment G; Figure 4).

39 FEIS § 3.5.1.15.

Tetra Tech Page 32 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FACTORS The beneficial and adverse environmental effects of the Project are fully described in various documents, including the 2017 FERC FEIS, 2020 BiOp, and the permitting records previously compiled by the respective USACE districts for the Nationwide Permit 12 verification actions. The changes to the Project proposed in this application are minimal, consisting primarily of modifying some of the proposed stream and wetland crossing from open cut to trenchless methods to further avoid and minimize direct aquatic impacts. The majority of aquatic impacts associated with the Project from crossings, ATWS, access roads, and upland construction in this application are identical to those previously considered by FERC, USACE, WV DEP, and VA DEQ. Furthermore, the concept of trenchless crossings has previously been evaluated, as Mountain Valley proposed to use trenchless crossing methods for a handful of crossings in both Virginia and West Virginia in the original Project configuration, several subsequent revisions approved by FERC, and the PCNs submitted to the Huntington and Pittsburgh Districts in 2020. To date, Mountain Valley has completed 73 trenchless crossings on the Project successfully and without incident. Sixty-seven (67) resources were crossed with a conventional bore; four were crossed with an HDD; and two were crossed with Direct Pipe). To avoid duplicating efforts for elements of the Project that have not changed, Mountain Valley incorporates by reference the previous reviews of the Project’s environmental effects (namely, FEIS § 4.0). This section supplements and updates the relevant information from previous environmental reviews as necessary to ensure the USACE, WV DEP, and VA DEQ have the information they need to complete their reviews. Furthermore, this section addresses the technical evaluation factors in the 404(b)(1) Guidelines (40 C.F.R. Part 230, Subparts C, D, E, F, and H) and the Public-Interest Review factors (33 C.F.R. § 320.4(a)). Proposed Aquatic Impacts 4.1.1 Jurisdictional Impacts

Tables 2, 3, and 4 identify the location and size of anticipated individual and cumulative wetland and stream impacts. Figure 4 shows the location and extent of wetland and stream impacts identified at the Project crossings included in this permit application. For wetlands and streams crossed by the pipeline, a 10-foot depth of fill was used for temporary fill volume calculations. The 10-foot depth of fill includes the 42-inch-diameter pipe, padding, and backfill. For anticipated temporary palustrine emergent (PEM) wetland impacts and conversion impacts to palustrine forested (PFO) and palustrine scrub-shrub (PSS) wetlands not crossed by the pipeline, a 3-foot depth of fill was used for temporary fill volume calculations to account for the placement of timber mats in these wetlands during construction activity.. In Table 3, PFO and PSS wetland conversion with temporary fill impacts are identified separately from PEM wetlands with temporary fill impacts and from all wetlands with permanent fill impacts. For anticipated permanent fill impacts to wetlands along permanent access roads, a 3-foot depth of fill was used for permanent fill volume calculations. For anticipated permanent impacts to streams along permanent access roads, depth of fill for permanent fill volume calculations was equal to the culvert diameter plus 0.5 feet. Plan and profile views for each proposed jurisdictional impact are found in Attachment H. 4.1.2 Section 10 Waters

As shown in Table 1 and Table 15, the Project crosses five waterbodies that have been determined to be, or are assumed to be, traditionally navigable waters under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 U.S.C. § 403). Plan and profile views for each Section 10 crossing are found in Attachment H. Temporary impacts to each Section 10 traditionally navigable waters crossed by the Project would be avoided by proposed bore crossings, with the exception of the Blackwater River (S-F11; Table 1).

Tetra Tech Page 33 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

Elk River (S-E68) (Webster County, West Virginia) Mountain Valley previously proposed to cross the Elk River using the open-cut method. Mountain Valley proposes to cross this river using a guided conventional bore method, thereby avoiding all instream impacts. The pipeline will be installed at a minimum depth of six feet below the streambed to avoid any impact to the navigability of the river. Mountain Valley submitted a request to FERC in October 2020 to modify the crossing method for this river. Gauley River (S-J29) (Nicholas County, West Virginia) Mountain Valley previously proposed to cross the Gauley River using the open-cut method. On May 18, 2020, FERC authorized Mountain Valley to cross the Gauley River using the microtunnel method (FERC Accession No. 20200518-3008), which is consistent with the crossing method identified in the 2020 BiOp. With this application, Mountain Valley seeks permit authorization from the USACE to cross this river via the microtunnel method, thereby avoiding all instream impacts. The pipeline will be installed at a minimum depth of 12 feet below the streambed to avoid any impact to the navigability of the river. Greenbrier River (S-I8) (Summers County, West Virginia) Mountain Valley previously proposed to cross the Greenbrier River using the open-cut method. Mountain Valley proposes to cross this river using the Direct Pipe method, thereby avoiding all instream impacts. The pipeline will be installed at a minimum depth of 13 feet below the streambed to avoid any impact to the navigability of the river. Mountain Valley submitted a request to the FERC in October 2020 to modify the crossing method for this river. Roanoke River (S-NN16) (Montgomery County, Virginia) Mountain Valley originally proposed to cross the Roanoke River using the open-cut method. On October 9, 2020, FERC authorized Mountain Valley to cross the Roanoke River using the microtunnel method (1734 FERC ¶ 61,027), which is consistent with the crossing method identified in the 2020 BiOp. With this application, Mountain Valley seeks permit authorization from the USACE (and VMRC) to cross this river via the microtunnel method, thereby avoiding all instream impacts. The pipeline will be installed at a minimum depth of six feet below the streambed to avoid any impact to the navigability of the river. Blackwater River (S-F11) (Franklin County, Virginia) At the Blackwater River, Mountain Valley will minimize impacts by reducing the LOD width, avoiding placement of workspaces in sensitive habitats, revegetation, and backfilling and grading, and use of the previously approved dry-ditch open-cut crossing method (Section 5.1.1.1.2), which is consistent with the crossing method identified in the 2020 BiOp. The pipeline will be installed at a minimum depth of six feet below the streambed. Impacts to the Blackwater River will be temporary during construction, and the stream bed and banks will be restored as close as practicable to pre-construction contours. As a result, Mountain Valley does not anticipate that Project impacts to the Blackwater River (S-F11) will result in any permanent alteration of the river. 4.1.3 Wetland Delineation and Stream Identification

Wetland delineation and stream identification surveys were performed for Project areas at the crossings included in this permit application. Wetlands were delineated using the procedures identified in the USACE 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region (USACE, 2012) for making preliminary jurisdictional wetland determinations. Physical and biological characteristics of streams identified in the field were evaluated to determine flow regime (USACE NWPs Section F – Definitions, 2017), USACE Water Type (USACE, 2007), and Cowardin classification (Cowardin et al., 1979). Physical characteristics evaluated included but were not limited to channel morphology, substrate size/type, and base flow conditions. Biological characteristics evaluated included but were not limited to the presence of fish, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and vegetation rooted within the ordinary high-water mark. Figure 4 shows the location and extent of wetlands and streams identified within the Project LOD at the crossings included in this permit application. Preliminary Jurisdictional Determinations issued by the

Tetra Tech Page 34 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

USACE, data forms, and photographs for wetlands and streams identified within the Project LOD at the crossings included in this permit application are provided in Attachment I. 4.1.4 Water Withdrawals

Mountain Valley anticipates withdrawing water from some streams in the West Virginia portion of Project area, including the Elk, Gauley, and Greenbrier rivers. The withdrawals will be used for borings, hydroseeding, dust suppression, and hydrostatic pressure testing. A permanent intake structure is not proposed for any water withdrawals. For water withdrawals in West Virginia, Mountain Valley will coordinate with the West Virginia DEP Division of Water and Waste (DWWM) and West Virginia Department of Natural Resources (WV DNR) to ensure water withdrawals comply with the DWWM guidance tool and WV DNR time-of-year restrictions (TOYR) or other instream restrictions. Also note that Mountain Valley has committed to not using water withdrawn from the Gauley River during the boring of the Gauley River, which is reflected in the 2020 BiOp. In Virginia, no surface-water withdrawals are proposed for Project use; Mountain Valley will obtain all water for borings, hydroseeding, dust suppression, and hydrostatic pressure testing from municipal water sources. Sensitive Stream Resources 4.2.1 National Wild and Scenic Rivers

No stream crossings included in this permit application are National Wild and Scenic Rivers or rivers officially designated by Congress as a “study river” under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 4.2.2 WV Natural Streams Preservation Act

The segment of the Greenbrier River to be crossed by the Project in the USACE Huntington District is designated as a “protected stream” by the West Virginia Natural Streams Preservation Act (NSPA). The NSPA protects specified waters from impoundments, diversions, and flooding. Mountain Valley is proposing to cross the Greenbrier River using Direct Pipe drilling as shown on the boring plan and profile provided in Attachment H. Using this crossing method, no temporary or permanent instream impacts are anticipated and the provisions of the NSPA should not apply. 4.2.3 Tier 3 Protection

No Tier 3 Protected Waters are crossed by the Project in Virginia or West Virginia. 4.2.4 Trout Waters

In West Virginia, Category B-2 Trout Waters were identified in the Project area, and unavoidable temporary fills in these resources will occur during construction (Table 2). Mountain Valley will implement the erosion and erosion control devices (ECDs) identified in the approved ESCP to limit offsite soil migration and sedimentation. Mountain Valley has coordinated with the WV DNR, and stream waivers required for Project activities in 2021 will be submitted to WV DNR if the construction schedule warrants instream activities during the restriction period identified by WV DNR40. In Virginia, DEQ Class V (Stockable trout waters) and Class VI (Natural trout waters) were identified in the Project area, and unavoidable temporary fills in these resources will occur during construction (Table 2). Mountain Valley will implement the ECDs identified in the DEQ-approved ESCP to limit offsite soil migration and sedimentation. Mountain Valley has coordinated with the VA Department of Wildlife Resources

40 See Public Notice No. LRH-2016-00006-WV [MOD] issued on January 24, 2020, available at: https://www.lrh.usace.army.mil/Portals/38/docs/regulatory/nationwide/WV_NWP_2017_LRH_PN_WV- WQCmod.pdf, for recommended TOYRs (last visited 2/18/2021).

Tetra Tech Page 35 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

(VDWR) and will adhere to VDWR recommended TOYRs41 for crossings of designated trout streams. However, Mountain Valley will request waivers from the relevant resource agencies if the construction schedule warrants instream activities during the restriction period. 4.2.5 Warm Water Fishery

Warm Water Fishery waters were identified in the West Virginia portion of the Project area. Mountain Valley will implement the ECDs identified in the approved ESCPs to limit offsite soil migration and sedimentation. Unavoidable temporary fills in these resources will occur during construction (Table 2). Mountain Valley has coordinated with the WV DNR, and stream waivers required for Project activities in 2021 will be submitted to WV DNR if the construction schedule warrants instream activities during the restriction period42. 4.2.6 Anadromous Fish Use Areas

The Project does not cross any Anadromous Fish Use Areas. 4.2.7 Aquatic Life Movements

Project activities will not substantially disrupt the necessary life cycle movements of aquatic life indigenous to the waterbodies in the Project area. Permanent and temporary crossings of waterbodies will be suitably culverted, bridged, or otherwise designed and constructed to be countersunk as appropriate, and to maintain low flows to sustain the movement of aquatic species. During the open-cut stream installation process, stream-flow connectivity will be maintained between the upstream and downstream segments of the crossing through flumes and/or water pumps. The crossings will also be installed as a continuous process, thereby reducing the overall time to complete the installation. Culverts were sized using either (1) the Rational Formula for a 24-hr 10-year storm and Manning’s Equation, or (2) according to the Culvert Sizing Chart from the 2006 WV DEP’s Erosion and Sediment Control Best Management Practice (BMP) Manual (2006, updated 2016). In Virginia, culverts will conform to the standard in Norfolk District 2017 NWP Regional Condition 8 to countersink all pipes and culverts below the bed of the stream. Culvert sizing shall be in accordance with the Project’s DEQ approved Annual Standards and Specifications which incorporate Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook (VESCH), Third Edition, 1992, Standard and Specification 3.24. As such, culverted crossings will be sized and installed in a manner to allow the passage of aquatic life and freely pass bankfull flows. 4.2.8 Spawning Areas

Activities in spawning areas during spawning seasons will be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. Mountain Valley has continued to coordinate with USFWS, WV DNR, and VDWR regarding sensitive stream resources and recommended TOYRs for stream crossings. 4.2.9 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation

The Project does not cross any Submerged Aquatic Vegetation areas.

41 See VDWR Time of Year Restrictions and Other Guidance, available at: https://dwr.virginia.gov/wp-content/uploads/media/Time-of-Year-Restrictions.pdf, for recommended TOYRs (last visited 2/18/2021).

42 See Public Notice No. LRH-2016-00006-WV [MOD] issued on January 24, 2020 for recommended TOYRs.

Tetra Tech Page 36 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

4.2.10 Freshwater Mussels

Mussel surveys were conducted for the Project in coordination with USFWS, WV DNR, and VDWR. No federally listed species were encountered during any mussel survey or salvage efforts along the Project route in West Virginia or Virginia. In West Virginia and Virginia, non-listed freshwater mussels were identified in streams along the Project route and, in Virginia, state-listed freshwater mussels were identified along the Project route (Table 2). Mountain Valley has continued to coordinate with USFWS, WV DNR, and VDWR and will adhere to recommended TOYRs and mussel relocations, as required, for crossings of streams with freshwater mussels. Refer to FEIS §§ 2.4.2.10 and 4.6.2.7 for additional information. 4.2.11 Designated Critical Resource Waters

No Designated Critical Resource Waters, including the Chesapeake Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, occur in the Project area. 404(b)(1) Guidelines Technical Evaluation Factors The following summarizes information relevant to the 404(b)(1) Guidelines’ Technical Evaluation Factors (40 C.F.R. Part 230, Subparts C, D, E, F, and H). 4.3.1 Substrate (§ 230.20)

Prior to installing a crossing, the top one foot of a streambed substrate or wetland soil (where hydrologic conditions allow) will be segregated and stockpiled separately from subsoils. Following installation of the pipe in a stream, the substrate will be replaced last to restore the streambed’s armoring layer, and the surface will be returned as close as practicable to preconstruction contours. Following installation of the pipe in a wetland, the wetland topsoil will be restored, de-compacted, and returned as close as practicable to preconstruction contours. Refer to Sections 5.2.8 and 5.2.9 for additional details. 4.3.2 Suspended Particles/Turbidity (§ 230.21)

Mountain Valley will use the dry-ditch open-cut method to install the pipeline in streams included in this application, except for the Section 10 Rivers previously discussed. This method involves the use of cofferdams, flumes, pumps, or other measures to dewater the construction site and divert flow around the site for the duration of the crossing. Erosion and sediment control measures are implemented during this activity in accordance with the FERC Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures (Wetland and Waterbody Procedures; FERC, 2013b) and ESCPs approved by the WV DEP and VA DEQ. These measures reduce the potential for suspended particle and turbidity impacts during construction and immediately after flow is restored to the site. Refer to Sections 5.2.1 and the Construction Details (Attachment J) for additional details. FERC’s evaluation of the minor temporary sediment and turbidity impacts of this crossing method can be found at FEIS §§ 4.3.2.1 and 4.13.2.1 (refer specifically to pages 4-120 and 4-604). The installation of culverts will cause a similarly minimal and short-term increase in suspended particle and turbidity in streams with flowing water. 4.3.3 Water (§ 230.22)

Due to the dry-ditch open-cut construction practices discussed in Section 4.3.2, impacts to water quality will include minimal, short-term increases in sediment loads and turbidity level. The discharges would not be expected to materially affect water odor, taste, biochemical oxygen demand, dissolved oxygen, or nutrient loads.

Tetra Tech Page 37 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

4.3.4 Current Patterns and Water Circulation (§ 230.23)

Water current patterns and circulation will be temporarily affected only during the period of active construction within a waterbody for an open-cut. As noted above, water flow will be maintained by using diversions, flumes, and/or pumps to divert flow around the work site. To minimize the duration of such disturbances, stream crossings are completed on consecutive days until the crossing is complete and the stream is restored. Following pipe installation, the stream is restored as close as practical to its preconstruction contours to avoid any changes to current patterns or water circulation. As discussed in Section 4.2.7, culverts will be installed to maintain water flows and circulation patterns. 4.3.5 Normal Water Fluctuations (§ 230.24)

As discussed above, the Project’s stream impacts are primarily temporary before being restored as close as practicable to preconstruction contours. Additionally, Mountain Valley installs permanent trench breakers adjacent to all waterbody crossings so that the disturbed trench soil does not create a preferential pathway for subsurface flow that could alter stream hydrology. These measures should prevent any long-term changes to the normal water fluctuations of impacted streams. As discussed in Section 4.2.7, culverts will be installed to maintain water flows and circulation patterns and therefore should have no effect on normal water fluctuations. 4.3.6 Salinity Gradients (§ 230.25)

Because the Project will not materially affect stream flows, there is no foreseeable possibility of downstream changes to salinity gradients. 4.3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species § (230.30)

Refer to Section 1.8.4 and the 2020 BiOp for additional information. 4.3.8 Fish, Crustaceans, Mollusks, and Other Aquatic Organisms in Food Web (§ 230.31)

Literature reviewed by the USFWS reflect that impacts on fish and benthic invertebrates resulting from dry- ditch open-cut crossings were temporary and limited to several hundred meters downstream. (Biological Opinion 102). As discussed above, the Project employs mitigation measures to minimize the sediment and turbidity impacts from stream crossings. Mountain Valley completes fish and mussel relocations and adheres to TOYRs when required by relevant federal or state authorities. Refer to FEIS §§ 4.6.2.7 and 2.4.2.10 for additional information on fish and mussel relocation measures and FEIS § 4.6.1.1, Table 4.6.1- 2 for TOYRs. 4.3.9 Other Wildlife (§ 230.32)

Mountain Valley is not aware of any adverse effects on other wildlife associated with aquatic ecosystems, including migratory bird breeding areas, resulting from the discharge of dredged or fill material during stream and wetland crossings. 4.3.10 Sanctuaries and Refuges (§ 230.40)

The Project does not affect any estuarine or marine sanctuaries or designated wildlife refuges. To the extent this factor applies to the Jefferson National Forest, the Project crosses a 3.5-mile section. The USFS determined that the Project’s effects on aquatic species in the Jefferson National Forest would “be minor, short-term and mostly limited to construction activities associated with construction” and impacts to terrestrial species would be “minor.” Refer to the USFS SEIS § 3.5.4.2 for additional information.

Tetra Tech Page 38 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

4.3.11 Wetlands (§ 230.41)

The destruction and loss of wetlands has been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable in accordance with the 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Notwithstanding the size of the Project, it has been carefully designed to cause minimal permanent loss of wetlands; only approximately 7% of wetland crossings would result in any permanent wetland loss, and no permanent wetland impact is greater than 0.06-acre. 4.3.12 Mud Flats (§ 230.42)

The Project does not affect any mud flats. 4.3.13 Vegetated Shallows (§ 230.43)

Mountain Valley is not aware of any impacts to vegetated shallows. 4.3.14 Riffle and Pool Complexes (§ 230.45)

As part of the stream restoration process, Mountain Valley will replace the stream substrate and restore the streambed as close as practicable to preexisting contours. 4.3.15 Municipal and Private Water Supplies (§ 230.50)

The Project crossing of the Greenbrier River is located within 0.3 mile of Rich Creek Spring in Monroe County, West Virginia. Rich Creek Spring is a privately owned spring that contributes water to Rich Creek, in which the Red Sulphur Public Service District (PSD) has a surface water intake that is located approximately 7.75 miles from Rich Creek Spring. Mountain Valley has worked with the PSD since 2016 to address concerns about its water sources and funded an independent, third-party consultant selected by the PSD to develop a contingency plan to protect the PSD water supplies and mitigate potential sediment impacts, if such occur. Mountain Valley proposes to cross the Greenbrier with the Direct Pipe crossing method. As described in Section 3.3.1.5, this Direct Pipe bore will result in a crossing with low potential for inadvertent return (IR), steerability through varying geology, minimal potential for collapse during the bore process, continuous drilling operation during installation, and the minimization of environmental impacts to the maximum amount practicable. In Virginia, one public water supply has a surface water intake located within three miles downstream of a pipeline crossing: the Roanoke River intake for the Spring Hollow Reservoir (Roanoke County, Virginia). The Western Virginia Water Authority operates a surface water intake on the Roanoke River approximately 1.2 miles downstream of the crossing of the Roanoke River. Mountain Valley proposes to cross the Roanoke River with the microtunnel method. This bore crossing method limits the potential for an IR and minimizes environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable. Mountain Valley will continue to coordinate with the PSDs until the project is completed and stabilized. Mountain Valley’s Water Resources Identification and Testing Plan (revised February 2017) requires Mountain Valley to implement a plan to test the water quality of private wells in the vicinity of the Project and to mitigate any adverse effects. Since Mountain Valley commenced construction in the spring of 2018, there have been no documented adverse impacts to private water supplies in the vicinity of the Project. 4.3.16 Recreational and Commercial Fisheries (§ 230.51)

Other than making small stream segments temporarily unavailable during the period of active instream construction, Mountain Valley does not anticipate any material impacts on commercial and recreational fishing. (FEIS 4-223). Mountain Valley adheres to applicable TOYRs in trout waters in West Virginia and Virginia. If necessary, Mountain Valley will request TOYR waivers from the appropriate agency. See section 4.2.4 for additional information on TOYR waivers.

Tetra Tech Page 39 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

4.3.17 Water-Related Recreation (§ 230.52)

Other than making small stream segments temporarily unavailable during active instream construction, Mountain Valley is not aware of any material impacts on water-related recreational activities. 4.3.18 Aesthetics (§ 230.53)

With the exception of minor permanent impacts associated with culvert repair and replacement, the permanent conversion of PFO and PSS wetland to PEM wetland habitat within the pipeline ROW, and the permanent fill of three small wetlands within the pipeline ROW, all aquatic impacts will be restored as close as practicable to preconstruction conditions. After the period of active construction and restoration, Mountain Valley does not foresee any effects on aesthetics associated with restored aquatic ecosystems. Refer to FEIS § 4.3.18 and 4.4.3 for additional information. 4.3.19 Parks, National and Historical Monuments, National Seashores, Wilderness Areas, Research Sites and Similar Preserves (§ 230.54)

The Project does not cross any National or Historical Monuments, Wilderness Areas, National Seashores, or research sites. The Project crosses two resources administered by the National Park Service—the Appalachian National Scenic Trail and the Blue Ridge Parkway. Mountain Valley has already bored under the BRP and will bore under the Appalachian Trail to avoid and minimize impacts. The project also crosses two sections of the Jefferson National Forest. Mountain Valley has only been authorized to boring the streams in this section of the project. 4.3.20 General Evaluation of Dredged or Fill Material (§§ 230.60, 230.61)

Mountain Valley is not aware of factors listed in 40 C.F.R. § 230.60(b) that would indicate that any potential dredge or fill material handled by Mountain Valley is a carrier of contaminants. If suspected contaminants are encountered, Mountain Valley would initiate the procedures outlined in the “Unanticipated Discovery of Contamination Plan” (as required by FERC) and coordinate with the appropriate state and federal agencies. 4.3.21 Actions concerning the location of the discharge (§ 230.70)

All discharges of fill material will be for the purpose of returning wetland soils and stream subsoil and substrates removed during construction to their original location and contours. 4.3.22 Actions concerning the material to be discharged (§ 230.71)

All discharges of fill material will be for the purpose of returning wetland soils and stream subsoil and substrates removed during construction to their original location and contours. 4.3.23 Actions controlling the material after discharge (§ 230.72)

As discussed in Section 4.3.1, Mountain Valley will use segregated stream substrates and upper 12 inches of the wetland to restore stream and wetland crossings. The purpose of this practice is to reduce erosion of the streambed after flow is restored and to restore hydric soils and wetland seed beds. Mountain Valley does not expect excessive erosion or soil loss from restored wetlands. 4.3.24 Actions affecting the method of dispersion (§ 230.73)

The Project will not be dispersing any dredged material.

Tetra Tech Page 40 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

4.3.25 Actions related to technology (§ 230.74)

Mountain Valley employs experienced construction crews and appropriate industry-standard construction equipment to complete stream and wetland crossings as required by the FERC’s Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures, VA DEQ Annual Standards and Specifications, and WV DEP Water Pollution Control Act Permit for Construction authorization Industry-standard construction practices include but are limited to using stream diversions to create dry working areas, operating from equipment mats, using low-ground pressure equipment, refueling at least 100-feet from streams and wetlands, training Mountain Valley workers on environmental protection requirements, and designing and installing erosion control devices to protect the adjacent resource. As discussed in Section 5.1.1, Mountain Valley conducted a site-specific evaluation of available crossing method technologies to identify the method that would minimize the impact to the extent appropriate and practicable for each crossing. Permanent and temporary crossings of waterbodies will be suitably culverted, bridged, or otherwise designed and constructed to be countersunk as appropriate and to maintain low flows to sustain the movement of aquatic species. As such, culverted crossings will be sized and installed in a manner to allow the passage of aquatic life and freely pass bankfull flows. 4.3.26 Actions affecting plant and animal populations (§ 230.74)

The Project minimizes impacts to aquatic habitat by restoring all temporary impacts as close as practicable to preconstruction conditions. The 2020 BiOp includes mitigation measures to minimize harm to threatened and endangered species. Mountain Valley adheres to all applicable TOYRs imposed by federal or state resource agencies for the protection of aquatic and terrestrial species. 4.3.27 Actions affecting human use (§ 230.76)

The Project’s impact on human use of streams and wetlands will be minimal and solely limited to the period of active instream and wetland construction. As noted in Section 4.3.13, dredged material will not be discharged in proximity to any public water supply intakes. 4.3.28 Other actions (§ 230.77)

The Project does not include any of the activities addressed in this evaluation factor. Public-Interest Review Factors Pursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 320.4(a), the USACE must conduct a public-interest review that considers the “probable impacts . . . of the proposed activity and its intended use on the public interest.” This review must balance the “benefits which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal . . . against its reasonably foreseeable detriments.” This section provides a summary of information relevant to each of the 21 public-interest review factors listed in § 320.4(a) and, where appropriate, the additional policies described in § 320.4(b) through (r). 4.4.1 Conservation (§ 320.4(a))

The Project will have a neutral (mitigated) effect on conservation. Although the Project is large in scope, the vast majority of the pipeline and related facilities will be buried. The land surface will be restored and returned as close as practicable to preconstruction uses. The Project impacts therefore are predominantly temporary in nature. The most significant long-term Project-related effect on conservation stems from the maintenance of the permanent ROW. In areas that were forested prior to construction, maintenance of the ROW will cause a loss to the environmental service benefits of forest cover and forest cores, as well as the aesthetic impacts of the same. To mitigate impacts to forests, Mountain Valley entered into a voluntary mitigation agreement

Tetra Tech Page 41 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

with the Commonwealth of Virginia that included a $20 million contribution divided between the Virginia Outdoors Foundation and U.S. Endowment for Forestry and Communities. Those funds must be used for forest preservation and enhancement “within a reasonable proximity to, and within the same terrestrial ecoregion as, the location of forest impacts.” In addition, Mountain Valley is coordinating with the WV DNR to identify the appropriate mitigation to offset impacts to interior forests. 4.4.2 Economics (§ 320.4(a))

The project will have a significant beneficial effect on the local and regional economy. According to Mountain Valley’s Project need assessment, the Project would alleviate some of the constraints on Appalachian Basin natural gas production by adding infrastructure to transport lower-priced natural gas to industrial users and power generators in the Mid-Atlantic and Southeastern United States, as well as to LDCs. Per Section 5.1.9 of the FERC FEIS (FERC, 2017), the Project would have short-term positive economic impacts on the affected counties due to hiring and wages and expenditures for commodities, including money spent at restaurants and hotels by workers. The long-term socioeconomic effect of the Project is likely to be beneficial due to the increase in tax revenues. Based on the analysis presented in Section 4.9 of the FERC FEIS (FERC, 2017), the Project would not have a significant adverse effect on the socioeconomic conditions of the Project area. As such, Mountain Valley anticipates that the Project crossings included in this permit application will have a significant positive effect on economics. 4.4.3 Aesthetics (§ 320.4(a))

The Project will have a neutral (mitigated) effect on aesthetics. As discussed in Section 4.1.1, Mountain Valley will have a minimal and temporary detrimental effect on aesthetics in most areas of the Project during construction activities. After Project restoration, these effects will be eliminated in most areas as the ROW is restored as close as practicable to preconstruction conditions. 4.4.4 General Environmental Concerns (§ 320.4(a))

The Project will have a neutral (mitigated) effect on general environmental concerns. The FEIS provides a comprehensive evaluation of all relevant environmental concerns associated with the Project. FERC concluded: “Construction and operation of the MVP . . . would result in limited adverse environmental impacts, with the exception of impacts on forested land. . . . As part of our review, we developed specific mitigation measures that we determined would appropriately and reasonably reduce the environmental impacts resulting from construction and operation of the projects.”43 4.4.5 Wetlands (§ 320.4(a) & (b))

The Project will have a neutral (mitigated) effect on wetlands. The destruction and loss of wetlands has been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable in accordance with the 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Notwithstanding the size of the Project, it has been carefully designed to cause minimal permanent loss of wetlands. Proposed impacts are summarized in Section 4.1.1. Compensatory mitigation will be provided for the permanent and conversion impacts as stated in Section 5.3 (Mitigation). Furthermore, in Section 4.3.3.5 of the FEIS, FERC concluded that impacts of the Project on wetlands would not be significant.

43 FERC FEIS § 5.1.

Tetra Tech Page 42 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

4.4.6 Historic, Cultural, Scenic, and Recreational Values (§ 320.4(a) & (e))

The Project will have a neutral (mitigated) effect on historic, cultural, and recreational values. FERC developed a Programmatic Agreement in consultation with the USACE, among others, to resolve adverse effects at affected historic and cultural properties in accordance with 36 C.F.R. § 800.14(b)(3). Based on the Project adherence to the tenets and conditions of the Programmatic Agreement between FERC; WV Department of Culture, Arts, and History, VA Department of Historic Resources; and other federal permitting agencies, Mountain Valley anticipates that the Project crossings included in this permit application will have an insignificant (mitigated) effect on historic and cultural values. In Section 4.8.3 of the FEIS (FERC, 2017), FERC concluded that impacts of the Project on scenic and recreational values would be adequately minimized with the adherence to the measures committed to by Mountain Valley, FERC’s recommendations, and other agency permitting conditions. Based on the evaluation by FERC, Mountain Valley anticipates that the Project crossings included in this permit application will have an insignificant effect on scenic and recreational values. The Project does not cross any federally designated Wild and Scenic Rivers, National Rivers, National Wilderness Areas, National Seashores, National Recreation Areas, National Lakeshores, National Monuments, or estuarine and marine sanctuaries. The Project crosses two resources administered by the National Park Service—the Appalachian National Scenic Trail and the Blue Ridge Parkway. Mountain Valley has bored under the BRP or will bore under the Appalachian Trail to avoid and minimize impacts and will implement various other mitigation measures developed in consultation with the relevant agencies and stakeholders. Additional information on recreational and special interest areas crossed by or in the vicinity of the Project can be found in FEIS § 4.8.1.6. 4.4.7 Fish and Wildlife Values (§ 320.4(a) & (c))

The Project will have a neutral (mitigated) effect on fish and wildlife values. Mountain Valley initiated consultation with USFWS, WV DNR, VDWR, and the VA Department of Conservation and Recreation in October 2014 regarding records of known federally listed, state-listed, or rare species within the Project area. In coordination with these agencies, qualified biologists conducted surveys for potential rare, threatened, and endangered species within the Project area starting in 2015 and continuing through 2020. On September 4, 2020, the USFWS provided FERC with a non-jeopardy biological opinion (BiOp) based on USFWS’s review of the Project and its effects on five federally listed species within the Project area. The 2020 BiOp determined that the Project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Virginia spiraea (Spiraea virginiana), Roanoke logperch (Percina rex), candy darter (Etheostoma osburni), Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), or northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis). Numerous monitoring and mitigation measures are included in the 2020 BiOp and other relevant agency documents to protect sensitive species. In Section 4.5.3 of the FEIS, FERC concluded that impacts of the Project on wildlife would not be significant. In Section 4.6.2.8 of the FEIS, FERC concluded that impacts of the Project on fisheries and aquatic resources would not be significant. Based on the evaluations of USFWS and FERC, Mountain Valley anticipates that the Project crossings included in this permit application will have an insignificant effect on fish and wildlife, including migratory bird breeding areas. 4.4.8 Floodplain Hazards, Values, and Management (§ 320.4(a) & (l))

The Project will have no effect on floodplain hazards, values, and management. As shown on the Section 10 River Crossing Plans (Attachment H) and the approved ESCPs, the Project crossings included in this permit application will not result in the permanent alteration of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-delineated 100-year floodplains. In addition, Mountain Valley has received

Tetra Tech Page 43 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

approvals from county floodplain managers for work in applicable areas. As such, Mountain Valley anticipates that the Project crossings included in this permit application will have no material effect on FEMA-delineated 100-year floodplains. 4.4.9 Land Use (§ 320.4(a))

The Project will have a minor detrimental effect on land use. As discussed above, the vast majority of the pipeline and related facilities will be buried. The land surface will be restored and returned as close as practicable to preconstruction uses. Landowners subject to the ROW will be restricted from planting trees or building structures on the ROW but otherwise may resume any preconstruction activities on the land. Refer to FEIS § 4.8.2.1 for additional information. 4.4.10 Navigation (§ 320.4(a) & (o))

The Project will have no material effect on navigation. Mountain Valley is proposing that the Section 10 waters crossings of the Elk River, Gauley River, Greenbrier River, and Roanoke River will be completed using microtunneling or Direct Pipe drilling (Table 1).44 Mountain Valley is proposing that the Section 10 waters crossing of the Blackwater River will be completed using a dry-ditch open cut crossing completed using a dam and pump method. Neither temporary nor permanent instream impacts to these Section 10 Rivers are anticipated. 4.4.11 Shore Erosion and Accretion (§ 320.4(a))

The Project will have no material effect on shore erosion and accretion. 4.4.12 Water Supply and Conservation (§ 320.4(a) & (m))

The Project will have a negligible effect on water supply and conservation. The Project crossings included in this permit application will not involve the permanent alteration of streambeds or the placement of any permanent structure or within a WOTUS that will impede or alter stream flow. The pipe will be below grade and will not impede or alter stream flow. Upon completion of stream crossing activities, cleanup and restoration activities will commence as soon as practicable to replace grade cuts as close as practicable to preconstruction contours, restore streambank ground cover, minimize erosion, and stabilize stream banks for their natural reversion toward their previous state. In the Water Resources Identification and Testing Plan (revised February 2017) filed with the FERC45, Mountain Valley identified and evaluated public water supplies with an intake located within three miles downstream of the proposed alignment waterbody crossing, and/or where the Project is located within 0.5 mile of a Zone of Critical Concern defined by the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Services for regulating aboveground storage tanks. The Project crossing of the Greenbrier River is located within 0.3 mile of Rich Creek Spring in Monroe County, West Virginia. Rich Creek Spring is a privately owned spring that contributes water to Rich Creek, in which the Red Sulphur PSD has a surface water intake that is located approximately 7.75 miles from Rich Creek Spring. Mountain Valley has worked with the PSD since 2016 to address concerns about their water sources and funded an independent, third-party consultant selected by the PSD to develop a

44 The pipeline was successfully installed under the Pigg River with a horizontal directional drill.

45 Accession number 20170209-5249

Tetra Tech Page 44 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

contingency plan to protect the PSD water supplies and mitigate potential sediment impacts, if such occurs. Mountain Valley proposes to cross the Greenbrier with the Direct Pipe crossing method. As described in Section 3.3.1.5, this Direct Pipe bore will result in a crossing with low potential for IR steerability through varying geology, minimal potential for collapse during the bore process, continuous drilling operation during installation, and the minimization of environmental impacts to the maximum amount practicable. In Virginia, one public water supply has a surface water intake located within three miles downstream of a pipeline crossing: the Roanoke River intake for the Spring Hollow Reservoir (Roanoke County, Virginia). The Western Virginia Water Authority operates a surface water intake on the Roanoke River approximately 1.2 miles downstream of the crossing of the Roanoke River. Mountain Valley proposes to cross the Roanoke River with the microtunnel method. This bore crossing method limits the potential for an IR and minimizes environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable. The Water Resources Identification and Testing Plan (revised February 2017) also required Mountain Valley to implement a plan to test the water quality of private wells in the vicinity of the Project and to mitigate any adverse effects. Since Project construction commenced in spring 2018, there have been no documented adverse impacts to private water supplies. The Project uses relatively modest quantities of water for dust suppression, hydrostatic testing, boring, and other construction activities. Project water use is not expected to have any appreciable effect on local water supplies. There will be no surface water withdrawals in Virginia. In West Virginia water withdrawals will be conducted in compliance with conditions of the WV DEP Division of Water and Waste Management’s Water Withdrawal Guidance tool. Mountain Valley will refrain from withdrawing water during low flows and during drought conditions by adhering to the restrictions identified in the WV DEP Division of Water and Waste Management’s Water Withdrawal Guidance tool. 4.4.13 Water Quality (§ 320.4(a) & (d))

The Project will have a minor and temporary adverse effect on water quality. Upland Construction Stormwater. Potential short-term adverse water quality impacts from upland construction activities (including bore pits associated with trenchless crossings) will be minimized by compliance with the ESCPs issued and/or approved by the WV DEP and VA DEQ. Refer to Section 5.2.4 for additional detail. Mountain Valley has engaged in a comprehensive modeling effort, using the best available science, to produce a conservative estimate of the total sediment loads from Project construction. Mountain Valley’s Hydrologic Analysis (Geosyntec 2020) concluded that Project construction will result in minor marginal and localized increases in instream sediment loads and turbidity levels. The sediment and turbidity increases begin to trend down as soon as the ROW enters the restoration phase, nearing preconstruction levels within one year of the completion of construction. Because the ROW areas cannot be fully restored until construction is complete in those locations, and construction cannot be completed until the stream and wetland crossings are re-authorized, expeditious approval of this application weighs heavily in the public interest. Post-Construction Stormwater. The Project must implement post-construction stormwater management measures in accordance with requirements from the FERC (Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan). Compliance with these requirements and applicable state requirements ensures that post-construction stormwater runoff from the Project area will not cause downslope or downstream erosion or other adverse water quality impacts. In-Stream Construction. Potential water quality impacts associated with instream construction will be minimized through the use of dry-ditch open-cut crossing techniques in conjunction with erosion and sediment control measures required by FERC, FERC, WV DEP, and VA DEQ. Refer to Section 5.2.1 for additional detail. FERC evaluated dry-ditch open-cut crossing methods in the FEIS, stating: A study conducted by the [U.S. Geological Survey] (Moyer and Hyer, 2009) investigating the effects of dry open-cut waterbody crossings on downstream sediment loading found that short-term increases in turbidity downstream of construction did occur, but the magnitude of the increase was small and considered to be minimal compared to increased

Tetra Tech Page 45 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

turbidity associated with natural runoff events. Other literature (e.g., Reid et. al., 2004) assessing the magnitude and timing of suspended sediment produced from open-cut dry crossing methods indicates the duration of increased sedimentation would be mostly short- term (i.e., less than 1-4 days) and remain near the crossing location (i.e., an approximate downstream distance of a few hundred feet). (FEIS 4-120). Hydrostatic Test Water Discharges. In accordance with FERC and state discharge permit requirements, hydrostatic test water would be discharged through sediment filters in vegetated upland areas. 4.4.14 Energy Needs, Energy Conservation and Development (§ 320.4(a) & (n))

The Project will have a major beneficial effect on energy needs and development.46 As described in the FERC FEIS, the Project will provide for transportation of abundant Appalachian Basin natural gas supplies to Transco Station 165, where this natural gas can serve the growing demand for natural gas use by LDCs, industrial users, and power-generation facilities along the Eastern seaboard. The Project will also provide gas to four intermediate delivery points: the WB Interconnect in Braxton County, West Virginia; Greene Interconnect in Monroe County, West Virginia; Roanoke Gas Lafayette Tap in Montgomery County, Virginia; the Roanoke Gas Franklin Tap in Franklin County, Virginia. 4.4.15 Safety (§ 320.4(a))

The Project will have no material effect on safety. Pipeline maintenance and operation is a highly regulated activity. The Project will comply with all applicable PHMSA requirements to ensure the safe operation of the pipeline. Refer to FEIS § 4.12 for additional information. 4.4.16 Food and Fiber Production (§ 320.4(a))

The Project will have a negligible effect on food and fiber production. The Project crosses a number of parcels in active agricultural use. The landowners’ use of those parcels may be affected temporarily during Project construction. After the completion of construction, these areas may return to their preconstruction agricultural uses. Because the temporary impacts on agricultural uses have been prolonged by delays in Project completion, consideration of this factor weighs in favor of expeditious approval of this application. 4.4.17 Mineral Needs (§ 320.4(a))

The Project will have no effect on mineral needs. 4.4.18 Consideration of Property Ownership (§ 320.4(a) & (g))

The Project will have a neutral (mitigated) effect on property ownership. Natural gas companies must obtain easements from landowners along the route of their pipelines to construct and operate authorized facilities. Easements can be temporary, which grant the company the use of the land during construction (e.g., extra workspaces, temporary access roads, yards), or permanent, which grant the company the right to operate and maintain the facilities once constructed. The majority of landowners along the ROW were willing sellers. A number of easements had to be procured through

46 The USACE’s regulations state: “Energy conservation and development are major national objectives. District engineers will give high priority to the processing of permit actions involving energy projects.” 33 C.F.R. § 320.4(n).

Tetra Tech Page 46 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

condemnation proceedings. In either case, the landowner was compensated for the fair market value of the easement. 4.4.19 Needs and Welfare of the People (§ 320.4(a))

The Project will have a beneficial effect on the needs and welfare of the people. FERC developed a “Certificate Policy Statement” that established criteria for determining whether there is a need for a proposed project and whether the proposed project would serve the public interest. The Project’s public interest is detailed in the overall project need in Section 2.3 above. As FERC recognized in paragraph 61 of the Project’s Certificate, Congress articulated that the transportation and sales of natural gas in interstate commerce for ultimate distribution to the public is in the public interest. In issuing the Certificate, FERC concluded that the Project is in the public interest: We find that Mountain Valley has sufficiently demonstrated that there is market demand for its project. We also find that end users will generally benefit from the projects because they will develop gas infrastructure that will serve to ensure future domestic energy supplies and enhance the pipeline grid by connecting sources of natural gas to markets in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and Southeast regions. (161 FERC ¶ 61,043, P 41). 4.4.20 Effects on Limits of the Territorial Sea (§ 320.4(f))

The Project is not located in any coastal waters or territorial seas. As such, Mountain Valley anticipates that the Project crossings included in this permit application will have no effect on the limits of the territorial sea. 4.4.21 Activities Affecting Coastal Zones (§ 320.4(h))

The Project is not located within any coastal zones. As such, Mountain Valley anticipates that the Project crossings included in this permit application will have no effect on coastal zones. 4.4.22 Activities in Marine Sanctuaries (§ 320.4(h))

The Project is not located within or in the vicinity of any marine sanctuaries. As such, Mountain Valley anticipates that the Project crossings included in this permit application will have no effect on marine sanctuaries. 4.4.23 Other Federal, State, or Local Requirements (§ 320.4(j))

Except as noted in Table 9, Mountain Valley had obtained all required federal, state, and local permits or authorizations necessary for construction. 4.4.24 Safety of Impoundment Structures (§ 320.4(k))

The Project does not involve the construction or maintenance of any permanent impoundment structures. Instream diversions will be temporary in nature and can be removed if severe weather is imminent. As such, the Project crossings included in this permit application will not imperil the safety of impoundment structures. 4.4.25 Environmental Benefits (§ 320.4(p))

Completing the crossings included in this permit application will allow Mountain Valley to finally restore and permanently stabilize the Project area. Having a stabilized and well-vegetated ROW controls and slows overland sheet flow, reduces erosion and sedimentation, and provides the best environmental protection of sensitive aquatic resources in the Project area.

Tetra Tech Page 47 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

Although there are temporary environmental impacts to streams and wetlands from construction of the Project, those impacts are either insignificant or negligible.47 The environmental benefit of finishing this Project, which is substantially complete, outweighs any other alternative means of transporting the proposed volumes of natural gas from production areas in the Appalachian Basin to markets in the Mid- Atlantic, Appalachia, and southeast United States. If the Project is not authorized or not constructed, this may result in the expansion of existing natural gas transportation systems or the construction of new infrastructure; either of which may result in greater environmental impacts in comparison to this Project. 4.4.26 Mitigation (§ 320.4(r))

The Project’s impacts have been avoided and minimized to the extent practicable. Compensation has been provided for unavoidable permanent impacts. Please refer to Section 5.0 for a detailed discussion of mitigation.

47 In its FEIS, FERC made the following finding, “We determined that construction and operation of the MVP and the EEP would result in limited adverse environmental impacts, with the exception of impacts on forested land.” FEIS § 5.1.

Tetra Tech Page 48 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

MITIGATION Mountain Valley has avoided impacts to jurisdictional features to greatest extent practicable, minimized the resulting impacts that were unavoidable, and provided compensation for the resulting impacts that were not de minimis, given the Project’s purpose and need. Complete avoidance of WOTUS is not possible due to the linear nature of the Project; location of the beginning, terminal, and intermediate interconnection points; and the necessity to construct access roads and ATWS where necessary. The information in this section is provided in accordance with the application requirements identified in 33 C.F.R. § 325.1(d)(7)48 and to document Mountain Valley’s compliance with the 404(b)(1) Guidelines and the USACE and EPA’s mitigation sequence guidance.49 Avoidance 5.1.1 Avoidance and Minimization by Selection of Pipeline Crossing Method

There are several commonly accepted methods available for installing the pipeline across stream and wetland resources. Any specific crossing method may not be suitable for every crossing situation. The process of selecting an appropriate crossing method must account for various site-specific circumstances, such as the size of a stream, steepness of the approach slopes, available workspace, time required to complete the crossing under the various methods, local geology, and proximity to residences, roads, or sensitive environmental resources. For each pipeline crossing of a stream or wetland included in this application,50 Mountain Valley evaluated potential crossing methods using these factors. Through this analysis, Mountain Valley carefully evaluated available onsite alternatives consistent with the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines and avoided or minimized stream and wetland impacts to the extent practicable.51 More specifically, this section is provided to document that “appropriate and practicable steps have been taken which will minimize potential adverse impacts of the discharge on the aquatic ecosystem” in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(d) and 40 C.F.R. Part 230, Subpart H.52

48 With respect to aquatic impacts in Virginia, this section also documents compliance with the applicable mitigation provisions of the Virginia Water Protection (VWP) permit regulation, including 9VAC25-210- 80.B.1.g and -116. The avoidance, minimization, and compensation requirements of the 404(b)(1) Guidelines and VWP permit regulation are consistent in most material respects. To the extent there are any minor differences, Mountain Valley has complied with both regulations.

49 USACE & EPA, Memorandum of Agreement regarding Mitigation under CWA Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (Feb. 6, 1990).

50 For practical purposes, this crossing method analysis does not include pipeline crossings that have already been installed (Table 10) or crossings using a trenchless method to comply with other legal/regulatory/permit requirements Table 16).

51 Mountain Valley previously evaluated site-specific crossing methods prior to submitting its requests for NWP 12 verifications to the respective Districts in 2017. However, only the evaluation for crossings in Virginia was submitted to comply with an applicable Norfolk District Regional Condition. Since those analyses were first prepared, construction practices have continued to evolve, various costs have changed, and Mountain Valley has gained valuable experience with crossings in the terrain crossed by the Project. For this application Mountain Valley has prepared a new evaluation of each proposed pipeline crossing based on updated information. 52 The on-site alternative for each stream crossing selected through this analysis also would constitute the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative. So to the extent applicable, this section also demonstrates compliance with 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(a).

Tetra Tech Page 49 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

5.1.1.1 Pipeline Crossing Methods

Mountain Valley evaluated a total of eight alternative stream and wetland pipeline crossing methods that are accepted by industry standards for pipelines of this size. The crossing methods can be generally categorized as either (1) open-cut methods—meaning that a trench is excavated in the stream or wetland to install the pipe—or (2) trenchless methods—meaning the pipe is installed with specialized equipment that bores or tunnels under or bridges over the resource. Open-Cut Crossing Methods  Wet-Ditch Open-Cut  Dry-Ditch Open-Cut Trenchless Crossing Methods  Bridging  Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD)  Conventional Bore  Guided Conventional Board  Microtunneling  Direct Pipe Each of these crossing methods is described further below.

5.1.1.1.1 Wet-Ditch Open-Cut The most rapid and economical method for constructing a pipeline crossing of a stream is through a wet- ditch open-cut procedure. This technique involves excavating a trench across the flowing river during times of seasonal normal or below-normal stream flow, lowering a pre-fabricated section of pipe into the trench, and backfilling to cover the pipe and restore the stream bed. While faster and cheaper, this methodology increases the potential for detrimental impacts to the aquatic environment. This is particularly true in larger rivers where flow rates are higher (even in low-flow conditions) and, due to the length of the crossing, where the process takes longer. During construction the stream is flowing through the work site, which exposes the unconsolidated soil material below the stream bed and creates an obvious increase in turbidity. In addition, because the instream trench remains exposed to the erosive force of flowing water continuously during a wet open-cut crossing, downstream turbidity increases remain more or less constant for the duration of the crossing construction. Another environmental concern associated with wet open-cut crossings is the potential introduction of contaminants into the flowing stream. Because there is no active containment and equipment may be operating within a flowing stream, any ruptures in hydraulic lines, accidental spills, or other releases have a greater potential to affect downstream resources. This is of particular importance in larger streams/rivers that have higher flow rates and where work is being performed further from the streambank. Although FERC’s Wetland and Water Construction and Mitigation Procedures allow the wet-ditch open-cut method to be used to cross certain small waterbodies, as a reasonable and prudent minimization measure, Mountain Valley does not propose to use the wet-ditch method for any crossing included in this application. It has been excluded from further consideration in this analysis.

5.1.1.1.2 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut Dry-ditch open-cut crossings combine traditional trench construction techniques with ESCP best management practices (BMPs) (e.g., silt fence, compost filter socks, turbidity curtains, pumped water filter bags) and water management techniques/diversion structure (cofferdam, flume pipe, and dam and pump) to install pipeline across waterways (Appendix K). This method involves isolating the work area from the

Tetra Tech Page 50 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

stream so construction can be performed in a controlled, “dry” condition. However, Mountain Valley does not anticipate using the flume crossing method on streams with possible proposed or listed threatened or endangered species or proposed or designated critical habitat – instead Mountain Valley will utilize the dam and pump method at these locations. During construction, the section (or sections of pipe) to be installed in the waterway will be prepared and readied for installation. After the flow is diverted around the crossing area, the work area will be dewatered by pumping standing water into an energy-dissipating dewatering structure on the bank (including filter bags, where necessary) to minimize erosion and sedimentation, as required by the ESCP. The trench will then be prepared for receiving the pipe. The streambed material is segregated and stockpiled to prevent mixing with other materials and to be used during restoration. In wetlands, the top 12 inches of topsoil will be removed from the ground surface, segregated, as appropriate, from subsoil and replaced in the proper order during backfilling and final grading. Where topsoil is less than 12 inches deep, the actual depth of the topsoil will be removed and segregated. Segregated topsoil will be placed in the trench following subsoil backfilling. Topsoil segregation may not be practical in saturated wetlands with standing water. The pipe will be placed in the trench to a length of at least 10 feet beyond the high bank of the stream and will be installed to provide a minimum of three feet of cover from the waterbody bottom to the top of the pipeline. In areas of consolidated rock, Mountain Valley will excavate rock using hydraulic hammers (to the extent feasible) or blasting (only when necessary) to maintain the minimum depth of cover at three feet at waterbody crossings.53 Stream impacts within the pipeline LOD using the dry-ditch open-cut method would be temporary and occur during pipeline construction activities only. 54 With the use of diversion structures, the risk of increased levels of sediment and turbidity is largely reduced and limited to the work associated with installing and removing the cofferdam or other diversion structure, which is the only time work within the flowing stream is necessary. Once installed, the presence of a diversion structure within a stream does not materially cause ongoing sediment or turbidity increases downstream of the crossing—meaning there is little difference in potential water quality impacts regardless of the temporary diversion’s duration. While the diversion structure is in place, the excavation, installation, backfilling, and streambed restoration is isolated from the flowing river and performed under dry conditions. Temporary stream crossings would not result in a long- term impact to water quality, physical habitat, or aquatic species within the Project area due to the short duration of stream crossing construction activities and the implementation of the ESCP BMPs.55 Wetland impacts within the pipeline LOD using the dry-ditch open-cut method would mostly be temporary impacts to PEM wetlands that would occur during pipeline construction activities only. However, the dry- ditch open-cut crossing method would result in some permanent conversion of PFO and PSS wetlands to PEM wetlands within the permanent pipeline easement.

5.1.1.1.3 Bridging Bridging a natural gas pipeline across resources has limited utility in special situations, such as crossing deep gorges or geologic faults, due to unique safety and maintenance concerns. Because aerial crossings are visible and easy to access, they are vulnerable to threats of terrorism and vandalism. Aboveground pipelines also are vulnerable to inadvertent damage from storm events, natural disasters, and accidents.

53 In addition to observing the general minimum depth-of-cover requirements, Mountain Valley will implement any scour mitigation requirements specified in the Vertical Scour and Lateral Channel Erosion Analyses report on file with FERC. See FERC FEIS § 4.3.2.2 for further information.

54 See Reid, S.M., S. Metikosh and J.M. Evans. 2008. Overview of the river and stream crossings study. Pages 711-721 in Elsevier, ed. Proceedings of the symposium at the 8th international symposium of environment concerns in rights-of-way management; Saratoga Springs, NY. 55 See FERC FEIS § 4.3.2.1. See also Reid (2008).

Tetra Tech Page 51 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

Exposure to the elements also presents additional maintenance requirements and increased likelihood of damage from corrosion. For these reasons, bridging is typically considered only when all other crossing methods are ruled out as infeasible. Mountain Valley has not identified any crossings for which other traditional crossing methods are infeasible or for which aerial crossing methods appear necessary. Accordingly, Mountain Valley does not propose to use bridging for any crossing included in this application. This option is not carried forward in the analysis for any of the crossings evaluated.

5.1.1.1.4 Horizontal Directional Drilling HDD is a method that allows for trenchless construction across an area by pre-drilling a pilot (or guide) hole below the depth of a conventional pipeline and then pulling the pipeline through the pre-drilled borehole. The HDD method has been in use since the 1970s to install pipelines across rivers and at shore approaches to eliminate pipeline exposure from erosion and scour. Pipelines up to 60 inches in diameter have been successfully installed using this method. The length of pipeline that can be installed by HDD depends upon soil conditions and pipe diameters and is limited by available technology and equipment design capacity limits. A steerable drill assembly is used to drill the pilot hole using a combination of tracking wires and bit sensors to maintain the drill path determined during the design phase. Once the pilot hole is completed, it is enlarged using reaming tools to provide access for the pipe. The reaming tools are attached to the drill string at the exit point of the pilot hole and then rotated and drawn back to the drilling rig, thus progressively enlarging the pilot hole with each pass. During this process, drilling fluid is continuously pumped under high pressures into the hole to remove cuttings and maintain the integrity of the hole. Drilling fluid typically consists of bentonite clay, drilling additives, and water. Once the hole has been sufficiently enlarged, a prefabricated segment of pipe is attached behind the reaming tool on the exit side of the crossing and pulled back through the drill hole to the drill rig, completing the crossing. Although the HDD method is a proven technology for pipe installation, the potential exists for an HDD installation to fail. Reasons for failure include encountering soil conditions not conducive to boring, caving of the borehole, losing the drill string in the borehole, loss of drilling fluid return or IR to surface, and pullback refusal. Specific geology—such as karst, fractures, or fissures—and the presence of subsurface preferential groundwater flow paths can increase the potential for an IR to occur. Proximity to public drinking water sources, private wells, and mining activities (both active and abandoned) also should be considered during the HDD feasibility analysis. Many of these potential failures, such as cave-ins, pullback refusal, and unstable rock may be avoided or mitigated by making appropriate adjustments to the operation of the HDD equipment or HDD location. However, impacts on aquatic resources, water supplies, and sensitive species in the event of a loss of drilling mud and/or IR are possible. In addition to the potential for an IR, the minimum bend radius of the pipe must also be considered in design. An HDD with an entry angle of 12°, exit angle of 6°, and a bend radius of 2,500 feet would require a minimum length of at least 1,287 feet between the points that the pipe entered and exited the ground if the terrain was flat. Where there is no reasonably flat terrain at the entry and exit points on either side of a river crossing, then HDD becomes impracticable because either the entry and exit points have to be located on severe terrain or the length of the bore becomes extraordinarily long to reach suitable terrain. Changes in site elevation from entry to exit may cause the minimum required length to change. . A bend radius of 2,500 feet is an aggressive radius for 42-inch pipe but would be necessary to traverse crossings within the Mountain Valley proposed alignment. Use of a 2,500-foot radius will increase the risk associated with successfully completing the crossings by HDD. Additionally, the bend radius will affect the catenary, or the curve formed where the pipe is hanging at the pullback point. Topography, bend radius, and entry/exit angles are all factors that determine the catenary height from the ground and whether HDD is a practicable crossing method.

Tetra Tech Page 52 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

Although Mountain Valley has successfully used the HDD method to complete one crossing on the Project to date (Pigg River),56 recent advancements in crossing technology have made other similar crossing methods more advantageous. In particular, there have been substantial advancements in the microtunnel and Direct Pipe methods since 2017. Microtunneling and Direct Pipe are similar to HDD but offer significant comparative advantages. Like HDD, each of these methods allow steerable trenchless crossings to be installed over long distances. However, microtunneling and Direct Pipe have two significant advantages over HDD: (1) fewer logistical limitations on where they can be used and (2) negligible risk of an IR. Furthermore, the microtunneling and Direct Pipe methods generally cost less than HDD. Therefore, Mountain Valley does not propose to use HDD for any crossing included in this application and has excluded HDD from further consideration in this analysis.

5.1.1.1.5 Conventional Bore Conventional bore is a technique commonly used in pipeline construction to avoid impacting a sensitive resource, road crossing, or railroad crossing. Mountain Valley has successfully completed conventional bore crossings under 67 resources on the Project to date. When using a conventional bore, the pipe is installed beneath the waterbody or wetland, thereby avoiding open trenching across waterbodies and wetlands and avoiding the aquatic impacts associated with working directly within waterbodies and wetlands. Conventional bores allow for uninterrupted existing streamflow and undisturbed wetland vegetation, thereby minimizing impacts to aquatic resources, preserving wetland and wildlife habitat, and minimizing areas of permanent wetland conversion. The conventional bore method, or auger bore, requires excavation of launching and receiving pits located in workspace in uplands on each side of the feature being crossed. The bore-pit excavations are sloped or shored to comply with all local, state, and federal safety regulations. Prior to construction, wetlands, and waterbodies adjacent to each work site are protected using the erosion and sediment control devices and BMPs appropriate to the specific site. Bore pits produce spoil piles from the excavated material to create the pit, which are monitored and managed until the bore is complete and the bore pits are backfilled. The volume of spoil generated during boring operations is generally comparable to that generated during open- cut crossings—although the pits may be deeper, a trench is longer. The cuttings from the bore may also be stockpiled on site and are used to backfill the bore pits. Any spoil remaining is spread evenly over the ROW or hauled away. Bore-pit dewatering may be required and, if so, is accomplished in accordance with the Project’s applicable ESCP and FERC requirements. Bore-pit dewatering may be required 24 hours per day. The specific need for, and amount of, dewatering required for any given waterbody or wetland crossing can vary over short periods of time due to recent precipitation and other factors. It cannot be determined until each individual trench or bore-pit excavation begins. Mountain Valley does not expect to require 24-hour work for the excavation or boring activities for the conventional bores, except for conventional bores associated with railroad crossings, which are required to be bored continuously as recognized in the FEIS. Conventional boring’s major advantage over some other boring technologies is that the drill pipe is installed as the boring is advanced and the line pipe is installed immediately behind the bore pipe once the boring is completed, leaving no unsupported hole that could potentially collapse. Because the borehole is continuously supported by pipe throughout the process, the risk of bore collapse is minimal. Conventional boring typically requires the least amount of areal footprint (workspace) of the mechanical trenchless technologies because drilling fluid tanks and mud-mixing systems are not required. Cuttings (spoil) generated by boring operations may be stockpiled temporarily at the site but would ultimately be reused as backfill in the pipeline ROW or transported offsite to an appropriate disposal site. Unlike the Direct Pipe, microtunneling, and guided conventional bore methods that use drilling fluids under pressure

56 FERC directed Mountain Valley to cross the Pigg River by the HDD method. FERC FEIS § 4.3.

Tetra Tech Page 53 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

as a slurry to convey cuttings to the surface, a conventional bore conveys cuttings to the surface mechanically using a screw auger. Because a conventional bore does not convey cuttings using a high- pressure drilling fluid slurry, this method avoids the potential for an IR during the crossing. However, in some situations, particularly in longer bores or in bores through mixed ground or clay, small quantities of water, bentonite, or polymer-based lubricant may be applied to the cutting head and exterior of the casing to reduce friction and increase the likelihood of success of the crossing. Any lubricants used will be non- petrochemical based, non-hazardous, and NSF-60-compliant. Mountain Valley has included conventional bore in its site-specific analysis of appropriate crossing methods.

5.1.1.1.6 Guided Conventional Bore For longer bores, it may be advantageous to utilize an additional preparatory step to ensure the boring auger stays on path. This minor variation is referred to as “guided conventional bore.” In these situations, a small diameter “guided pilot” is installed first. The drill string is then attached to the front of the conventional auger during the final hole opening phase. The pilot hole can be installed by a small diameter self-propelled, hydraulic steerable drill unit using a tri-cone cutting head. The tri-cone head is anywhere from 6 to 12 inches and is steered using a bottom-hole assembly. Water typically can be used to carry back cuttings and cool the head; however, in longer bores a bentonite slurry may be utilized. In extremely hard rock, an air hammer can be used to establish the pilot. An air hammer uses air to remove cuttings and does not require a bentonite slurry. When drilling mud or water is needed as the medium to carry back drill cuttings, the down-hole pressure is monitored at the rig during the pilot boring process to mitigate the risk of an IR; the surface is also monitored for IRs. After the pilot hole is successfully across the span, the drill string remains in place and the conventional auger bore machine completes the bore to the required diameter attaching to the drill stem to keep the conventional auger bore in line. Because the drill string stays in place, the risk of borehole collapse is minimal. The stems are removed on the exit side as the auger advances from the launch side. No fluids are utilized during the conventional auger bore phase. Once the boring operation begins, the operation typically continues non-stop until completed in order to avoid any potential collapse of the bore or freeze up of the pipe within the bore. Therefore, the two guided conventional bore crossings may require 24-hour operation, which is consistent with how bore operations were evaluated in the FEIS.57 To reduce potential impacts from 24-hour operation, Mountain Valley commits to completing as much work as possible during daylight hours. This would include preparation of the workspace and excavation of bore pits and moving heavy equipment to the crossing locations. Maximizing work during daylight hours will increase worker safety and limit noise and associated construction impacts on nearby residences. Except for the additional preparatory step, the guided conventional bore method is materially similar to the conventional bore method. Mountain Valley has included guided conventional bore in its site-specific analysis of appropriate crossing methods.

5.1.1.1.7 Microtunneling Microtunneling is an enhanced drilling technique that allows for trenchless construction below features including roads, railways, rivers, waterbodies, environmentally sensitive areas, landfalls, and shore approaches. As in a conventional bore, microtunneling typically requires two pits to be excavated, one on each side of the feature to be bored. These pits are typically closer to the feature being crossed than they would be for an HDD because HDDs are limited by pipe bend radius and workspace logistics in areas with steep terrain. Unlike a conventional bore, which typically uses a non-steerable auger to establish the bore hole, microtunneling utilizes a microtunneling boring machine (MTBM), which uses remote-operated hydraulic cylinders to steer the machine along the proposed bore path. The primary advantage of

57 See FERC FEIS §§ 2.5 & 4.5.2.3.

Tetra Tech Page 54 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

microtunneling over conventional boring is that the steerability of the MTBM enables drilling over longer distances and mitigates the risk of the bore deviating from the planned profile. The MTBM is typically the full diameter of the finished bore hole, and the product pipe is inserted behind the MTBM as it completes the bore and thereby protects and supports the integrity of the borehole from collapse. In comparison to HDD, microtunneling only requires one drilling pass compared to multiple drilling passes with a product pipe pullback on an HDD. The MTBM drilling head uses a drilling mud slurry for lubrication and conveyance of cuttings. While employing this method, the annular pressure (i.e., the pressure between the product pipe and the bore hole wall) is drastically reduced in comparison to the HDD method. This is because the MTBM uses fluid only at the cutting head and the annular space outside the product pipe, while cuttings are conveyed through an isolated slurry pipe that is fully contained within the product pipe. Therefore, the annular pressure in a microtunneling operation consists of only the hydrostatic pressure of drilling fluids. By comparison, HDDs fill the entire bore hole with drilling fluid and circulate a much larger volume of drilling fluid at higher pressure to both lubricate the hole and remove cuttings. Microtunneling’s use of a much smaller volume of drilling fluid at a drastically reduced pressure greatly minimizes the risk of an IR. An HDD, in comparison, may have downhole pressures up to ten times the downhole pressure in a microtunnel bore. By controlling the thrusting force, rate-of-penetration, and tunneling pressures the risk for IR is drastically reduced in a microtunneling operation compared to the traditional HDD methodology. Although unmanned, the microtunneling method, due to its advanced control and guidance system, is capable of installing pipelines to accurate line and grade tolerances and therefore may be preferable in situations where trenchless installation is needed over longer distances ranging from 200 to 1,500 feet in length. A wide range of soil types are suitable for installation by microtunneling, including boulders and rock. Boulders and cobbles up to one-third the diameter of the installed pipe can be accommodated by the MTBM. Like conventional bore, utilizing the microtunneling method requires measures to dewater the bore pits; and similar to guided conventional bore, this method may require 24-hour operation. This method also avoids direct impacts to streams and wetlands. Mountain Valley has included microtunneling in its site-specific analysis of appropriate crossing methods.

5.1.1.1.8 Direct Pipe Direct Pipe drilling is a proprietary trenchless installation method that combines the advantages of traditional HDD and microtunneling technology, while eliminating the undesirable IR risks associated with HDD. Direct Pipe drilling uses an MTBM drilling head and benefits from the same advantages as microtunneling including low IR potential, steerability, installation of pipe with a single drilling pass, and mitigated risk of bore hole collapse. The difference and primary advantage of Direct Pipe over microtunneling is the use of a proprietary jacking frame that allows a prefabricated pipeline to be installed using one pass, similar to a product pipe pullback in an HDD. Direct Pipe also allows longer crossings than microtunneling—up to 4,900 in length. While microtunneling is limited to installing one joint at a time, Direct Pipe has the benefit of installing a continuous segment of pipe and not stopping drilling to complete the welding, testing, and coating of each joint of pipe. Additionally, when topography allows, Direct Pipe drilling can take advantage of a radius in the drilling profile to reduce the depth of bore pits. There are two relative disadvantages compared to microtunneling. First, Direct Pipe requires a greater straight section length than microtunneling to reach the desired depth without exceeding the bend radius limitations of the pipe. Second, because the jacking operation requires additional workspace to facilitate staging of pre-welded pullback sections, Direct Pipe feasibility is often restricted by available workspace and terrain. Like conventional bore and microtunneling, the Direct Pipe method generally requires measures to dewater the bore pits; and similar to guided conventional bore, this method may require 24-hour operation. This method also avoid impacts to streams and wetlands. Mountain Valley has included Direct Pipe in its site- specific analysis of appropriate crossing methods.

Tetra Tech Page 55 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

5.1.1.2 Pipeline Crossing Constraints

To determine the preferred crossing method for each crossing, Project engineers must consider a number of factors. Mountain Valley considered the following technical, logistical, and cost criteria in its evaluation of the appropriation and practicable crossing methods proposed in this application: 1. Crossing Length 2. Bore-Pit Depth 3. Stream Depth 4. Steep Slopes Adjacent to Stream/Wetland Crossings 5. Karst Geology 6. Cost 7. Potential for Bore Failure 8. Unique Site-Specific Circumstances To analyze each crossing, these criteria were applied to the relevant stream and wetland characteristics to determine the proposed method for each crossing. Some of the constraints are more rigid—for example, the manufacturers specifications dictate maximum crossing lengths for trenchless crossings. With other criteria, such as bore-pit depth and steep slopes, the technical and logistical difficulties, as well as costs, may increase proportionally. To determine the appropriate and practicable crossing method, Mountain Valley’s Project engineers must consider each relevant factor in light of site-specific conditions. The result is a site-specific assessment of practicable alternatives for each proposed stream and wetland crossing included in this permit application. This section discusses seven crossing constraints that generally are common considerations for every pipeline crossing. However, there are a host of other potential circumstances that could affect which crossing method or methods are available, appropriate, and practicable at any given location. Those site- specific criteria are addressed in this section as well.

5.1.1.2.1 Crossing Length There generally are no technical or logistical constraints on crossings length for the dry-ditch open-cut crossing method. However, there are technical constraints on crossing length for conventional bore, guided conventional bore, microtunnel, and Direct Pipe bore methods. Based on generally accepted standard industry engineering practices and professional pipeline engineering experience, the maximum crossing length for a conventional bore and guided conventional bore is generally considered to be 600 feet. The maximum crossing length for Direct Pipe (4,900 feet) and microtunnel (1,500 feet) is determined by the manufacturers’ specifications.

5.1.1.2.2 Bore-Pit Depth There are technical, logistical, and safety constraints on the maximum depth of bore pits. Deeper bore pits present substantially greater challenges and logistical difficulties for trenchless crossings.58 Those challenges can be compounded or otherwise affected by other site conditions. Based on generally accepted standard industry construction practices and professional pipeline construction experience (and subject to other site-specific conditions), the logistical challenges, site geometric constraints and costs associated with successfully completing a trenchless crossing materially and substantially increase with depth. Bore pit depths less than 20 feet are usually possible unless other site constraints are significant, between 20- and 40-feet logistical challenges are greatly increased and compounded by other site constraints, and

58 The dry-ditch open-cut crossing method does not require the use of bore pits.

Tetra Tech Page 56 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

depths over 60 feet can be conducted only with extraordinary measures and costs in sites with close to optimal conditions. The pipeline generally utilizes a 125-foot-wide construction ROW, narrowing to 75 feet within 50 ft of aquatic resource crossings, to preserve the maximum amount of riparian vegetation, which leaves a limited amount of space for bore pits, pipeline trench, work areas, spoil piles, travel lanes, and staging areas. Because the cost of trenchless crossing methods is directly proportional to their length, the bore pits in which they are constructed from are typically placed close, while allowing room for ESC measures, to the aquatic resource. The material excavated from a bore pit must be stockpiled within the limited space available in ROW, in close proximity to the pit. As the volume of material in spoil pile increases, the area available for construction crews to operate decreases. Bore pits greater than 20 feet in depth typically require additional space than often available in the 75 ft to provide space for bore pits, pipeline trench, work areas, spoil piles, travel lanes, and staging areas while also maintaining a safe working environment. Safety for construction personnel is a paramount concern. To minimize the risk of pit collapse and allow equipment to reach the bottom of the bore pit, pit walls may need to be set back and/or shored. The setback width for bore pits exceeding 40 feet deep is even more constrained by the available workspace in the ROW. Shoring pits can increase safety for workers operating in and around bore pits, but it increases the and logistical challenges and may substantially increase the crossing duration. This is a particular concern because the width of the ROW at crossings is narrowed for stream protection requirements on this project as discussed above. Deeper pits result in increasingly large spoil piles. Unless site conditions provide sufficient and suitable additional temporary workspace, there may not be sufficient space onsite to manage the spoil piles from deeper pits without multiple movements of said material away from the bore pit areas which become more costly and logistically challenging if other site condition constraints such as steep slopes and rock (which has a much higher swell factor than soil and thus requires more stockpile volume) are present. Such compounding factors will greatly increase the duration of the crossing. Bore pit depth also is limited by the reach of excavators. Excavators used on the project typically can excavate to a depth of 20 feet below their current elevation. To go deeper, an interim ramp and bench must be excavated, which dramatically increases the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile in the constrained ROW. In that case, the excavator operates from the bench (20 feet below ground) to dig down another 20 feet. Thus, an excavator working on an interim bench can reach a depth of approximately 40 feet below grade. Barring extraordinary construction methods that will greatly increase the duration of the crossing, excavating beyond 40’ depth by constructing benches and ramps for excavator access is generally not feasible within most workspaces available at the crossings. For each crossing, Mountain Valley determined the depth of the two bore pits that would be necessary to complete the crossing. That determination accounted for the depth below the stream or wetland, the steepness of the two slopes, and the difference in elevation between the launch and bore pit. Mountain Valley also evaluated the volume of material to be excavated against the available working area to determine the approximate available workspace. As discussed in the following section, the compounding effect of limited workspace for material storage and site access hindered by steep slopes requiring winching was evaluated with respect to its impact to the overall construction time and potential safety concerns. Trenchless crossing methods are generally considered technically and logistically achievable for any crossing that would require bore pits less than 20 feet in depth unless other significant site logistical challenges exist. Technical and logistical challenges increase for the bore pit depths range from 20 to 40 feet. Only rarely are trenchless crossing considered when the bore pits exceed 40 feet.

5.1.1.2.3 Steep Slopes Adjacent to Stream/Wetland Crossings There are compounding technical, logistical, and safety limitations for the use of conventional bore, guided conventional bore, microtunnel, and Direct Pipe bore methods on steep slopes. Mountain Valley evaluated each crossing to determine if steep slopes on one or both approaches to the stream or wetland make trenchless crossing methods impracticable. That evaluation primarily accounted for two criteria: slope steepness and slope length. Slopes with grades 30% or greater require winching of equipment to work safely on the slope. Winching can be utilized on shorter slopes to conduct many pipeline

Tetra Tech Page 57 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

construction activities. As slope lengths increase, additional pieces of heavy machinery must be winched together and anchored to the top of the slope, in daisy-chain fashion down the hillside. Based on generally accepted standard industry construction practices and professional pipeline construction experience, operating the equipment necessary to excavate a bore pit on slopes that require winching presents additional complicating factors. In particular, operating excavation equipment on the edge of bore pit while winched to multiple pieces of equipment presents a heightened safety risk to equipment operators and other crew members. Similarly, moving and storing spoil piles on steep slopes presents an additional layer of logistical challenges, as well as compounding safety and environmental risks. An evaluation of stockpile size needed for spoil storage is provided in Table 12. If there was not sufficient workspace adjacent to the crossing to store excavated materials, Mountain Valley evaluated the logistics of hauling materials to a suitable location for staging. Daisy-chained winch tractors hauling excavation materials across steep slopes for long distances requires multiple times the quantity of equipment to do the work on level ground. For example, due to limitations in winch cable length, hauling a load of spoil across a steep slope more than 400’ in length would require four pieces of heavy equipment – one to hold the load and three to winch in daisy-chained fashion. The site logistics of winching multiple pieces of equipment on a 75-feet to 125-feet right of way often makes such an operation impracticable. This much equipment on a steep slope increases worker safety risk, while hauling excavation materials across a steep slope creates an environmental risk of losing material down the slope and potentially off right of way. Therefore, Mountain Valley considered excavating bore pits on steep slopes greater than 30% to generally be possible but to cause additional safety and environmental risk. However, the compounding effect of unavailable storage space for bore pit excavation materials, steep slopes, and long winch hills over 400 feet generally make a bored crossing impracticable.

5.1.1.2.4 Stream Depth Stream depth may be a limiting factor on the use of the open-cut method. The technical, logistical, and safety challenges for the open-cut crossing method increase with stream depth. Based on generally accepted standard industry construction practices, professional pipeline construction experience, and, most significantly, the limited workspace available for Project crossings, it is not practicable in most cases to use the dry-ditch open-cut crossing method for streams deeper than 36 inches. A dry-ditch, open-cut crossing can be accomplished using dam and pump, flume pipe diversion, or cofferdam methods to dewater the stream for pipeline installation. With any of these methods, a dam structure is needed to keep the stream from flowing through the workspace. The LOD for stream crossings is reduced from the normal 125-foot width to 75 feet, and there must be sufficient room for the dam, pump, and construction activities. The dam must be at least as tall as the depth of the stream plus a minimum amount of freeboard to ensure safe working conditions. For deeper streams, such as those greater than 36 inches, the most common and commercially available type of dam utilized is a bladder dam. Based on manufacturers specifications, a four-foot-tall dam can support a maximum water depth of 36 inches. The footprint and manufacturer recommended clearance for a dam this size is 22 feet. In a non-cofferdam installation, the dam on the back side can usually be lower and constructed with sandbags and is estimated to occupy a 9-foot-wide footprint. After allowing for space for a pump and discharge structure, a 34-foot workspace remains within the within the reduced 75-foot-wide LOD to install the pipe. Assuming the pipe is installed a minimum of five feet deep, type C soil conditions, and installation with equipment from an adjacent bridge, this workspace is just sufficient to excavate a trench and lower in pipe. For water depths greater than 36 inches, a larger dam would be necessary, which increases the footprint and manufacturer recommended clearance—further intruding into the limited workspace available. Consequently, in most circumstances, the open-cut crossing method is not a practicable alternative for crossings with stream depths greater than three feet deep. Stream depth is not a relevant consideration for trenchless crossing methods.

Tetra Tech Page 58 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

5.1.1.2.5 Karst Geology Karst geologies are areas of limestone rock that have a potential for the presence of solution fractures in the rock that may be connected to both the surface and to groundwater sources. Completing trenchless crossings in karst terrain may entail risks and challenges that have overlapping technical, logistical, and environmental aspects. Boring in karst geology introduces the potential to impact the flow of groundwater through karst. This issue is more easily remedied in an open-cut crossing than in a bore. However, this risk of boring through karst can be mitigated through subsurface imaging. Therefore, preference is given to open-cut crossings through karst geology to the extent an open-cut crossing is practicable. The solution fractures in the bedrock of karst area present a potential pathway for drilling fluids to be diverted from the bore hole resulting in a loss of return of introduced fluids. Using pressurized liquids and drilling muds in geology with known or high potential for unknown fractures increases the potential movement of drilling mud to adjacent strata and/or IRs to the surface. This is first and foremost an environmental concern, but it is a constructability risk and constraint as well. The action to respond to and remediate an IR entails significant time and expense and has the potential to significantly delay pipeline construction. Due to the potential for the loss of drilling fluid circulation in karst areas and the resulting environmental impacts, as well as other potential hazards (e.g., unknown voids), trenchless crossing methods present greater logistical and technical challenges. Although care must be taken for any crossing conducted in karst terrain, the logistical or technical constraints for the use of dry-ditch open-cut crossings in karst areas are greatly reduced due to the fact that (1) no drilling fluids are used and (2) any potential karst voids would be observable during the trenching process so that immediate mitigation measures can be implemented during an open-cut procedure.59

5.1.1.2.6 Cost Stream and wetland crossings are costly elements of a pipeline construction project. Regardless of the method utilized, crossings are significantly costlier on a per-foot basis than construction in typical uplands due to, among other things, the need to procure and transport specialized equipment and personnel to the site, implementation of increased erosion and sediment and related environmental measures, constraints associated with working within a narrower LOD, and necessary post-construction restoration activities. There is no fixed threshold at which the cost of a specific crossing method exceeds a level that is “appropriate and practicable.”.60 Corps guidance states, “If an alleged alternative is unreasonably expensive to the applicant, the alternative is not ‘practicable.’” 45 Fed. Reg. 85336, 85343 (Dec. 24, 1980). The Corps has further clarified an acceptable approach to determining if a cost is unreasonably expensive: The determination of what constitutes an unreasonable expense should generally consider whether the projected cost is substantially greater than the costs normally associated with the particular type of project. . . . To the extent the Corps obtains information on the costs associated with the project, such information may be considered when making a determination of what constitutes an unreasonable expense. . . . It is important to emphasize, however, that it is not a particular applicant’s financial standing that is the primary consideration for determining practicability, but rather characteristics of

59 Construction activities in karst terrain are monitored by Mountain Valley’s Karst Specialist Team. Other Measures employed by Mountain Valley for construction in karst terrain are outlined in its Karst Mitigation Plan and relevant ESCPs.

60 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(d).

Tetra Tech Page 59 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

the project and what constitutes a reasonable expense for these projects that are most relevant to practicability determinations.61 Measures implemented to avoid and minimize project impacts also should be “appropriate” considering the reduction in impact that would be achieved.62 Each stream and wetland impact evaluated in this analysis is a very short-duration temporary impact that will be restored immediately upon completing the crossing. Incurring an unreasonable cost to avoid a short-duration temporary impact to an individual crossing is not appropriate and practicable. The Huntington District has provided further guidance on evaluating costs, explaining that avoidance and minimization alternatives that have a “clearly exorbitant” cost may be rejected “without the need to establish a cost threshold.”63 Consistent with the 404(b)(1) Guidelines and the guidance noted above, Mountain Valley has incorporated cost into its evaluation of alternative crossing methods. As is detailed below, Mountain Valley has prepared detailed, site-specific cost estimates for each pipeline crossing. The cost of individual stream crossings can be extremely variable based on site-specific factors. Individual crossing alternative cost estimates for this analysis ranged from $20,000 to $12.8 million. For individual crossings, the difference in cost between methods in some cases exceeds an order of magnitude. These crossing-by-crossing estimates provides a reasonable basis for comparing the relative costs of alternative crossing methods for a given resource to determine if a trenchless crossing is an “appropriate and practicable” minimization measure to avoid a particular temporary impact or, conversely, whether the cost is “clearly exorbitant.” To compare alternative stream crossing methods, Mountain Valley developed (1) an open-cut cost estimate and (2) a trenchless crossing method cost estimate for every stream and wetland crossing in this application.64 The estimates were prepared by Mountain Valley’s construction and engineering staff. For each of the crossing methods evaluated in this analysis, Mountain Valley calculated average cost parameters based on several factors. To estimate open-cut costs, staff used actual Project costs and bids. These costs vary somewhat based on the crossing width, with longer stream crossings typically incurring greater time and materials costs per linear foot than shorter crossings. Because flowing water does not need to be managed, the cost per linear foot of open cutting non-inundated wetlands and riparian buffer areas is significantly less than streams. Average costs per linear foot of installed pipeline were developed for four stream crossing scenarios (based on the size of the stream) and one scenario for wetlands and riparian buffer areas. The estimated open-cut cost for each stream and wetland in the analysis was calculated as the product of the crossing length and the applicable cost per linear foot. Estimating the costs for trenchless crossings is somewhat more complex. First, the cost of excavating the entry and receiving bore pits was estimated based on actual Project costs from 2019. For the reasons reflected in Section 5.1.1.2.2, the cost per foot (depth) of excavating a bore pit increases substantially for larger pits. The relevant cost per foot was then multiplied by the depth of each bore pit, as determined through the site-specific engineering analysis, to develop an estimated bore-pit cost for each crossing. Second, staff drew from actual construction costs on the Project to date and bids of prospective contractors to develop an estimated cost per linear foot for each of the trenchless crossing methods evaluated (i.e.,

61 USACE & EPA, Memorandum: Appropriate Level of Analysis Required for Evaluating Compliance with the CWA Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines Alternatives Requirements (Aug. 23, 1993).

62 45 Fed. Reg. at 85,344 (citing 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(d)).

63 USACE Buffalo, Pittsburgh, and Huntington Districts, Checklist for Preparing an Alternatives Analysis Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (May 13, 2020).

64 Mountain Valley’s Project engineers selected the preferred trenchless method for each crossing based on their professional judgment and the site-specific conditions.

Tetra Tech Page 60 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

conventional bore, guided conventional bore, microtunneling, and Direct Pipe). The relevant cost per linear foot was then multiplied by the length of the crossing (bore pit to bore pit). The two costs (bore pit and crossing length) were then summed to generate an estimated trenchless crossing cost for the resource. Table 13 provides a detailed breakdown of the per-foot costs for the dry-ditch open-cut crossing method. Table 14 provides a detailed view of the fixed and per-foot costs for the trenchless crossing methods.

5.1.1.2.6 Potential for Bore Failure As a practical matter, Mountain Valley’s engineers do not generally propose trenchless crossings in areas with known geotechnical conditions that present an unacceptable risk to the success of the crossing. Although Mountain Valley has not experienced any bore failures on the Project to date (out of 73 trenchless crossings), there is a risk that any given trenchless crossing will be unsuccessful due to unforeseen subsurface conditions. If insurmountable issues are encountered during the trenchless crossing process, Mountain Valley will implement a contingency plan. Examples of issues that could precipitate implementation of the plan include the following.  Excessive torqueing that includes multiple “twisting off” events or failure of the gear box.  Poor cutting returns.  Mechanical failures of drill string or bit assembly. If a bit assembly or drill string fails, it will be pulled out and repaired. If the damaged bit cannot be withdrawn from the bore repair, the bore attempt will be considered unsuccessful.  Deviation from planned bore path. If the deviation from the bore path is significant enough that the field engineer determines it cannot be corrected or made up in the remaining bore length, the bore attempt will be considered unsuccessful. These deviations could be vertical, whereby the pipe would deflect upward and not maintain sufficient clearance beneath the feature being crossed or deflect downward and not resurface along the planned bore path. These deviations could also be horizontally left or right, whereby the pipe could travel outside the permitted permanent easement or end up misaligned with the receiving bore pit. The amount of acceptable deviation is dependent upon the angle of deflection and the remaining distance to be drilled.  Unanticipated geological or hydrological conditions in which ground or surface water affects construction or the geologic materials become unstable or collapse. If the bore is determined to be unsuccessful based on encountering one or more issues identified above, Mountain Valley intends to first shift the bore entry ten feet to either side of the original bore entry and attempt another bore. Should the failed bore involve stuck pipe, following an attempt at standard recovery techniques, the pipe from the failed bore will be abandoned in place and backfilled with grout. In the event of a bore failure, Mountain Valley would seek any necessary approvals to revise the proposed crossing method—typically to the open-cut method.

5.1.1.2.7 Unique or Site-Specific Circumstances The factors discussed in this section are useful to evaluate alternative crossing methods based on factual circumstances—such as slope steepness, stream depth, and cost—that are common to every crossing on the Project. However, those factors do not account for every unique or site-specific circumstance that could materially affect the practicability of a given crossing method. In addition to considering the common factors, Mountain Valley’s engineering and construction staff conducted a detailed evaluation of every crossing on the Project to determine if there are any unique or site-specific circumstances that must be accounted for when evaluating alternative crossing methods for a given crossing. The unique or site-specific circumstances incorporated in the analysis are documented in the crossing method determinations (Table 15). In addition to the engineering and construction factors, numerous environmental, safety, and landowner circumstances were considered at each and every crossing. The environmental factors included but were not limited to potential presences of threatened or endangered species, trout fisheries, duration of crossing, and stream channel stabilization. Some of the

Tetra Tech Page 61 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

main safety topics were focused on worker safety and consider the depth of the bore pit, available workspace, and access through the area. Landowner inconvenience was also evaluated at the crossings and considered such issues as construction duration, private property access, proximity to the crossing, and proximity to homes and business. 5.1.1.3 Comparison of Environmental Effects

An important step in evaluating alternative crossing methods is to consider the relative environmental impacts. As is detailed in various place in this application, crossing a stream or wetland with the open-cut method is a temporary impact of short duration. Wetland impacts are restored as close as practicable to preconstruction contours immediately after construction is completed, and 12 inches of topsoil (when available) are replaced to allow the seedbank to regenerate the existing vegetation. The same knowledge of wetland science that allows wetlands to be created and restored for the purpose of creating mitigation banks can be applied to restoring wetlands impacted by construction. Thus, the diminished function of these wetlands can be quickly and reliably restored. Stream crossings create temporary disturbances for the duration of construction. After construction, the bed and banks are restored as close as practicable to preconstruction contours and stream substrate is replaced so that the stream can rapidly return to its preconstruction function. Instream construction causes additional sediment and turbidity to be released into the water column, primarily when the crossing is first commenced (before dewatering) and when the crossing is complete, and flow is restored through the site. However, the magnitude of sediment and turbidity is “minimal compared to increased turbidity associated with natural runoff events;” it is short in duration, typically lasting between one and four days; and the area of effect is small, generally being confined to no more than a few hundred feet downstream.65 Notwithstanding the short-term, low-magnitude impacts associated with individual crossings, there are environmental considerations that may favor avoidance of the open-cut method for a particular crossing. First, the 404(b)(1) Guidelines presume that any discharge to an aquatic resource is an environmentally damaging activity. Second, as documented, for example, in the 2020 BiOp, some aquatic species are particularly sensitive to increases in turbidity and sedimentation associated with open cut crossings. Trenchless crossing methods generally have similarly minimal environmental effects. Most importantly for the purposes of the 404(b)(1) Guidelines, the selection of trenchless crossings typically results in the minimization of aquatic impacts at the crossing site, as well as the minimization of impacts to riparian vegetation. However, due to site logistics trenchless crossings sometimes necessitate that timber mats or other structure are placed in aquatic resources (temporary fill) for the duration of the crossing to support the construction equipment crossing.66 Furthermore, trenchless crossings typically take longer to complete than open-cut crossings which in turn prolongs the state of construction/temporary stabilization and may also result in increased air emissions and noise compared to open cut crossings. In addition to the environmental effects generally associated with the open-cut method and trenchless methods, there are site-specific circumstances at a number of crossing locations that bear on the determination of which method is less environmentally damaging and/or whether avoidance of an aquatic impact through a trenchless method is an “appropriate and practicable” minimization measure. Any general or site-specific environmental effects that affected the determination of a crossing method for any stream or wetland included in this application are documented in Table 15.

65 FERC FEIS § 4.3.2.1.

66 Temporary impacts associated with timber mats utilized for trenchless crossings are included in Tables 2 and 3.

Tetra Tech Page 62 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

5.1.1.4 Determination of Proposed Crossing Methods

The results of Mountain Valley’s evaluation of onsite crossing method alternatives to avoid and minimize aquatic impacts from pipeline crossings to the extent practicable are summarized in Table 1567. The table includes a list of designated “Crossing Numbers,” with the first letter (i.e., A through I) indicating the construction spread and the number indicating the order in which that crossing occurs along the ROW beginning at the terminus in Mobley, West Virginia. Where appropriate, Mountain Valley has combined streams and/or wetlands that are in very close proximity—such as streams and their adjacent riparian wetlands—into a single “crossing.” This was done because, as a practical matter, the crossing of closely grouped features would be conducted as a single undertaking. For each crossing, Mountain Valley’s engineering and construction staff identified the proposed trenchless crossing method (i.e., conventional bore, guided conventional bore, microtunnel, or Direct Pipe) based on the site conditions. The selected trenchless crossing method and the open-cut crossing method were then assessed based on the factors discussed above. The rationale for the proposed crossing method is summarized in the last column of the table. 5.1.2 Avoidance Through Alignment Selection

The final proposed pipeline route and access roads are the result of an iterative process involving numerous environmental considerations and consultation with landowners and federal, state, and local agencies. Between when the route was initially proposed in December 2014 and when it was approved by FERC in October 2017, there were hundreds of route revisions to avoid or minimize impacts to specific resources. As result of this process, FERC concluded that the pipeline route was designed to avoid stream and wetland impacts to the maximum extent practicable.68 5.1.3 Avoidance Through ROW Configuration

The pipeline generally requires a 125-foot-wide construction ROW, which includes a 50-foot-wide permanent ROW. Where wetlands and streams cannot be avoided through the alignment selection, Mountain Valley has, wherever practicable, avoided impacts by reducing the width of the ROW to 75 feet for a distance of 50 feet on either side of the crossing. This practice allows an additional 50 linear feet of undisturbed vegetative buffer to be maintained between land-disturbing activities and aquatic resources as compared to typical pipeline construction practices, which do not employ a reduced ROW in such areas as they increase construction costs due to increased inefficiencies from dealing with this limited access area. Mountain Valley estimates that the construction ROW reduction to 75 feet at WOTUS crossings has reduced potential stream impacts by over 19,000 linear feet and wetland impacts by over four acres when compared to a 125-foot-wide construction ROW at WOTUS crossings. 5.1.4 Site-Specific Onsite Avoidance Measures

For the sake of being comprehensive, Mountain Valley notes that there are various stream and wetland resources within its construction ROW that will not be impacted by Project construction. Those resources generally fall into one of two categories. First, where practicable, Mountain Valley has avoided impacts to

67 Table 15 was prepared to summarize the relevant logistical, technical, and environmental information and provide a plain explanation of each crossing method determination. However, for practical purposes, Table 15 cannot and does not reflect all information that is relevant to the analysis. Additional crossing- specific environmental resource information supporting the determinations can be found in Tables 2 (Stream Impacts) and 3 (Wetland Impacts). Plan and profile views for each proposed crossing are in Attachment H.

68 FERC FEIS 4-149, 4-159.

Tetra Tech Page 63 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

resources that partially overlap the Project area by narrowing or carving out small sections of the ROW. To ensure those resources are not inadvertently impacted, Mountain Valley identifies the resource with signage and uses erosion and sediment controls (e.g., silt fence) to protect the resource from stormwater runoff and clearly mark the boundary of the work area for construction crews. Second, where practicable, streams within the ROW that may be impacted by construction equipment are avoided by bridging the resource from streambank to streambank and employing appropriate signage and erosion and sediment controls. The Detail Map (Figure 4) includes tags identifying WOTUS within the Project area that will not be impacted. 5.1.5 Avoidance Actions Dictated by Other Authorities

In several cases, federal or state authorities acting within their respective jurisdictions have directed Mountain Valley to avoid instream impacts to specific resources. The streams and wetlands identified in Table 16 are within the Mountain Valley’s ROW but will not be impacted by Project construction due to regulatory actions by other agencies. Minimization While significant effort was made to avoid wetland and stream impacts through routing decisions and construction practices, temporary and permanent impacts to WOTUS are unavoidable due to the constraints of siting and constructing a 304-mile linear project. Mountain Valley has and will employ various measures summarized in this section to ensure those impacts are minimized to the extent appropriate and practicable. 5.2.1 Instream Pipeline Construction Practices

To minimize temporary stream impacts, dry-crossing techniques will be used to conduct open-cut stream crossings in a relatively dry working condition. Wet-cut techniques can have high sediment release as well as potential to interrupt streamflow during construction activities. Accordingly, wet-cut techniques are not proposed for any stream crossings. Dry-crossing techniques will be utilized over wet-cut because they limit the release of sediment to downstream areas while maintaining stream flow and minimize stream impacts. All instream pipeline installation activities will be completed in accordance with the FERC Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures, environmental conditions in the FEIS (incorporated into the FERC Certificate), and applicable state requirements, whichever is more protective. Additional measures to minimize the impacts associated with open-cut stream crossings are discussed in Section 5.1.1.1.2 (Dry-Ditch Open-Cut). 5.2.2 Wetland Pipeline Construction Practices

To minimize temporary wetland impacts, all pipeline installation activities within wetlands will be completed in accordance with the FERC Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures (Wetland and Waterbody Procedures; FERC, 2013b), environmental conditions in the FEIS, and applicable state requirements, whichever is more protective. Additional measures to minimize the impacts associated with wetland crossings are discussed in Section 5.1.1.1.2 (Dry-Ditch Open-Cut). 5.2.3 Duration of Pipeline Construction Activities in Waters

To minimize impacts to waterbody and wetland crossings, they will be treated separately from upland construction activities except during clearing activities, and efforts will be made to cross these areas during periods of low flow. Once grubbing and grading starts at a waterbody or wetland crossing, work will proceed as quickly as practicable until the crossing is completed, and the work area restored. This practice ensures that the duration of temporary impacts to streams and wetlands from pipeline installation work is minimized. 5.2.4 Construction Practices Adjacent to Aquatic Resources

Mountain Valley will implement the construction practices summarized in this section in all upland areas, including areas adjacent to aquatic resources, to ensure that those resources are not adversely impacted

Tetra Tech Page 64 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

by erosion and sedimentation. All Project construction activities will adhere to the FERC Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan (Upland Plan; FERC, 2013a) and state-specific requirements for pipeline construction. In West Virginia, the Project’s stormwater discharges are regulated by a Water Pollution Control Act Permit for Construction authorization and site-specific ESCPs approved by the WV DEP. In Virginia, Project construction must comply with Annual Standards and Specifications, site-specific ESCPs, and site-specific post-construction stormwater management plans approved by the VA DEQ. The approved ESCPs will be provided upon request. Construction Details are provided in Attachment J. 5.2.5 Stream Crossing Geometry

Mountain Valley will minimize the impacts of instream construction by installing the pipeline as close to perpendicular to stream courses as practicable. Furthermore, where site conditions require that the ROW cross a stream at a relatively shallow angle, field adjustments to the placement of pipeline within the approved ROW will be made to increase the crossing angles for these streams to the maximum extent practicable in light of the site conditions, thereby reducing or eliminating low-angle crossings. 5.2.6 Time-of-Year Restrictions

Mountain Valley will comply with all applicable TOYRs on instream construction activities imposed by any federal or state agency within its respective jurisdiction. TOYRs are imposed on the Project by FERC (FEIS 4-124), USFWS (2020 BiOp), WV DEP (Water Quality Standards), VA DEQ (Annual Standards and Specifications), and the Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC Subaqueous Land Permit). Applicable TOYRs are identified in Table 2 and FERC FEIS § 4.6.1.1, Table 4.6.1-2.69 If necessary, Mountain Valley will coordinate with the State or Federal agency to acquire the appropriate TOYR waivers. 5.2.7 Wetland and Stream Crossings in ATWS

Where practicable, ATWS were located and designed to avoid stream and wetland impacts. Many streams in ATWS that need to be crossed during construction will be spanned entirely by temporary stream crossing structures. However, some temporary impacts to wetlands in ATWS are unavoidable. In those situations, timber mats will be utilized during construction to cross wetlands in ATWS, resulting in minimized temporary impacts to PEM wetlands. 5.2.8 Restoration of Temporary Wetland Impacts

Mountain Valley will restore all temporarily impacted wetlands as close as practicable to their preconstruction contours with wetlands topsoil replaced when temporarily removed or de-compacted when crossed with mats for access. Restoration and monitoring of wetland crossings will be conducted to ensure successful wetland revegetation in accordance with the Wetland and Waterbody Procedures and approved ESCPs.70 Wetland soils (hydric soils) are susceptible to compaction with operation of construction equipment over wet soils, thereby reducing the porosity and moisture-holding capacity of the soils and interfering with the hydrology of the wetland. To facilitate successful wetland revegetation, Mountain Valley will segregate the topsoil up to one foot in depth in wetlands. Any excavated material stockpiled in vegetated wetland areas will be placed on a matted straw layer, for use as a semi-permeable surface. Segregated topsoil will be

69 The state and federal agencies referenced above generally have authority to waive TOYRs within their jurisdiction upon sufficient justification. Mountain Valley may request written approval for waivers from the relevant agencies for specific stream crossings.

70 For construction in Virginia, the Project’s Annual Standards and Specifications detail additional stream and wetland restoration measures mandated by the VA DEQ.

Tetra Tech Page 65 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

placed in the trench following subsoil backfilling. In order to minimize compaction, Mountain Valley will limit construction traffic to only that required to accomplish the task. Low-ground-pressure equipment will be used, or temporary equipment mats will be installed to allow passage of equipment with minimal disturbance of the surface soils and vegetation. Compacted areas will be tilled as necessary to meet decompaction standards. Original surface hydrology will be reestablished in wetlands by (1) installing a low-permeability trench breaker at the wetlands/upland boundary to prevent the pipe bedding material from acting as a drain and (2) backfilling the pipe trench and grading the surface with equipment operating from equipment mats or low-ground-pressure tracked vehicles working in the spoil pile, depending upon the ambient water level, degree of soil saturation, and the bearing capacity of the soils. All excess excavated material will be removed from the wetland within 30 days. Roots and stumps will have been removed only in the areas of the pipe trench, allowing existing vegetation to recover more rapidly in the remainder of the ROW once the equipment mats and spoil piles have been removed. Wetlands along the proposed pipeline are expected to exhibit varying degrees of saturation and water elevation, requiring a variety of plant species to be re-established. In unsaturated wetlands, most vegetation will be replaced by seeding when necessary. To maximize the growth of the wetland plants suited for these specific impact areas from the seeds and rhizomes typically present and dormant in stockpiled wetlands soils, saturated wetlands will typically be allowed to re-vegetate naturally. Wetland revegetation will be considered successful when the cover of herbaceous species is at least 70 percent of the cover of the vegetation in adjacent wetland areas that were not disturbed by construction. Revegetation efforts will continue until wetland revegetation is successful, with supplemental seedings with native wetland seed mixes added as necessary to achieve success. In certain areas of the ROW, temporary wetland impacts have been prolonged due to unexpected regulatory and legal actions that caused Mountain Valley to cease all activities in wetlands. In such circumstances, and in addition to any other restoration measures, Mountain Valley will utilize an appropriate wetland seed mix to ensure proper restoration of vegetation. As required by the Wetland and Waterbody Procedures (FERC, 2013b), wetland vegetation will be monitored on at least an annual basis until it has been successfully revegetated. Additionally, the WV DEP and VA DEQ each impose independent wetland vegetation success criteria and monitoring requirements— for a minimum of three years in West Virginia (FEIS 4-219) and two full growing seasons in Virginia (Annual Standards and Specifications 38). Examples of completed Project stream and wetland restorations can be found in Attachment L. 5.2.9 Restoration of Temporary Stream Impacts (Pipeline)

Mountain Valley will restore all temporarily impacted streams as close as practicable to their preconstruction bed and bank contours in accordance with the Wetland and Waterbody Procedures (FERC, 2013b) and approved ESCPs. To facilitate successful restoration of streams, the top one foot of the streambed substrate (armoring layer) will be segregated and stockpiled separately from subsoils. Following pipe installation, normal backfill cover requirements will be met. Only materials native to the waterbody will be used. Compaction percentage of backfill will be equal to or above that of the adjacent undisturbed areas. Trench breakers of clay, earthen fill, sand, or concrete filled sacks may also be used to keep backfill from sloughing in toward the center of the stream and to prevent the pipeline bedding material from acting as a French drain. Stream banks will be restored as close as practicable to preconstruction contours; restored stream bed substrate patterns, profiles, dimensions, and embeddedness will be similar to preconstruction conditions using native material excavated at stream crossings; and foreign objects will be removed from the stream. Excavated material not required for backfill will be removed and disposed of at an upland site. Cleanup and restoration will commence as soon as practicable following the completion of backfilling and testing. Cleanup and restoration activities include restoring grade cuts as close as practicable to pre- construction contours and seeding, fertilizing, and mulching to restore ground cover, minimize erosion, and

Tetra Tech Page 66 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

stabilize stream banks for their natural reversion to their previous state. Completed stream crossings using the flume or dam-and-pump methods will be stabilized before returning flow to the channel. Where the flume technique is used, stream banks will be stabilized before removing the flume pipes and returning flow to the stream channel. Stream banks and bed will be restored as described above for surface water and groundwater flow and mulch, jute thatching, or bonded fiber blankets will be installed on the stream banks. Seeding of disturbed stream approaches will be completed in accordance with the FERC’s Wetland and Waterbody Procedures after final grading, weather and soil conditions permitting. Seed mixes for riparian and wetland area restoration are provided in the approved ESCPs. Permanent slope breakers (waterbars) will be installed adjacent to stream banks to minimize the potential for erosion. Erosion and sediment control barriers, such as silt fence and/or compost filter sock, will be maintained across the ROW until permanent vegetation is established. Temporary equipment bridges will be removed following construction.

In addition to the state and federal requirements listed above, Mountain Valley has committed to handplanting within the portions of the Jefferson National Forest in Virginia, select forested wetlands and perennial streams in West Virginia and Virginia, select forested wetlands, Loggerhead Shrike foraging and nesting habitats in Virginia, and other specific upland areas in Virginia. Restoration would begin following the pipeline installation and continue until the vegetation is successfully established. 5.2.10 Long Term ROW Maintenance in Wetlands

Maintenance of a ROW is critically important to the safe operation of a natural gas transmission pipeline. Proper management of vegetation through periodic clearing in the permanent ROW is required by FERC and PHMSA regulations to facilitate the inspection, maintenance, and repair of the pipeline. 18 C.F.R. § 380.15(f); 49 C.F.R. § 192.705(a). Woody vegetation cannot be allowed to grow in close proximity to the pipeline because roots may damage the coating and adversely affect pipeline integrity. The industry standard for maintaining a ROW generally is 25 feet on both sides of a natural gas pipeline (i.e., a 50-foot corridor). See PIPA Recommended Practice BL12. FERC has determined that maintenance of a 50-foot corridor is appropriate for this project in upland areas. FEIS 2-25. To minimize permanent impacts to PFO and PSS wetlands, however, Mountain Valley will not conduct vegetation mowing or clearing for the full width of the ROW in these resources. In order to facilitate periodic inspections, a corridor centered over the pipeline and up to 10 feet wide may be cleared at a frequency necessary to maintain the 10-foot corridor in an herbaceous state. In addition, trees within 15 feet of the pipeline with roots that could compromise the integrity of the pipeline coating may be selectively cut and removed from the permanent ROW. Compensation Unavoidable losses will be compensated in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 230.93 to ensure that the Project does not result in a net loss of streams or wetlands. Anticipated unavoidable permanent impacts will result from stream culverting along permanent access roads, constructing aboveground facilities, converting PFO and PSS wetlands to PEM wetlands along the pipeline ROW, and filling of wetlands for permanent access roads. Tables 2, 3, 17, and 18 identify the location and size of anticipated permanent wetland and stream impacts associated with the Project. No single proposed permanent palustrine forested or scrub-shrub wetland conversion to palustrine emergent wetland exceeds 0.38 acre, no single proposed permanent wetland loss exceeds 0.06 acre, and no single proposed permanent stream loss exceeds 125 linear feet. (Tables 17 and 18). Mountain Valley proposes to minimize the individual and cumulative effects of the Project by implementing compensatory mitigation for all proposed permanent impacts, including stream losses less than 300 feet, wetland losses less than 1/10 acre, and any permanent conversions of PFO or PSS wetlands to PEM wetlands. As described below, Mountain Valley proposes to mitigate all proposed permanent stream and wetland impacts (loss or conversion) through previously purchased mitigation bank credits (Attachment M).

Tetra Tech Page 67 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

For permanent wetland and stream impacts in the USACE Huntington and Pittsburgh Districts, WV Stream and Wetland Valuation Metric (SWVM) forms have been prepared to determine the required wetland and stream compensatory mitigation and are provided in Attachment M. SWVM scores for individual streams and wetlands are presented in Tables 17 and Table 18. All permanent PSS and PFO impacts in the USACE Norfolk District are anticipated to be conversion impacts. In accordance with USACE Norfolk District and Virginia DEQ guidance, a one-to-one ratio is used for all proposed wetland mitigation credits in the USACE Norfolk District. For permanent stream impacts in the USACE Norfolk District, credit requirements were determined using the Unified Stream Methodology (USM) assessment tool, as presented in Table 18. USM forms for individual streams are provided in Attachment M.

Tetra Tech Page 68 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT An extensive public notification and outreach process has been undertaken for the Project in accordance with the FERC and state agency review processes. This process provided notification to all landowners potentially affected by the Project, as well as the general public. On October 27, 2014, Mountain Valley filed a request to enter into the Commission’s pre-filing environmental process for the Project. The FERC granted Mountain Valley’s request on October 31, 2014 and established pre-filing Docket No. PF15-3-000. As part of the pre-filing process, Mountain Valley initially hosted 14 public open house meetings at various locations in West Virginia and Virginia between December 2014 and January 2015. The purpose of the open house meetings was to inform the public about the Project and for company representatives to answer questions about the location of planned facilities. About 800 people attended those 14 open house meetings (FERC, 2017). On February 18, 2015, Mountain Valley filed several revisions to its planned pipeline routing. Accordingly, Mountain Valley held two additional open house meetings in April 2015 to inform the public and answer questions regarding these newly developed routes; about 200 people attended (FERC, 2017). On April 17, 2015, the FERC issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Planned Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping Meetings (NOI). The NOI was published in the Federal Register and sent to the parties on FERC’s environmental mailing list, which included federal and state resource agencies; elected officials; environmental groups and non-governmental organizations (NGO); Native American and Indian tribes; potentially affected landowners; local libraries and newspapers; and other stakeholders who had indicated an interest in the Project. FERC issued its FEIS for the Project on June 23, 2017. Notice of the FEIS was published in the Federal Register on June 29, 2017. FERC also sent copies of the FEIS all relevant parties, including potentially affected landowners. In Virginia, VA DEQ has also engaged in a public notification process in accordance with its review of the Project under Clean Water Act § 401. Public notices were posted to DEQ’s website and published in newspapers of general circulation along the Project route. DEQ hosted public hearings and meetings on the following dates: August 8, 2017 (Radford, VA); August 8, 2017 (Chatham, VA); August 10, 2017 (Newport, VA); August 10, 2017 (Roanoke, VA). Newspapers with general circulation in the area of the Project route in Virginia include: The Chatham Star Tribune, The Danville Register and Bee, The Franklin News-Post, The Newcastle Record, and The Roanoke Times. Newspapers with general circulation in the area of the Project route in West Virginia include: The Beckley Register-Herald, Braxton Citizen’s News, Clarksburg Exponent-Telegram, Doddridge Independent, Fayette Tribune, Hinton News, Monroe Watchman, Mountain Messenger, Nicholas Chronicle, The State Journal, The Weston Democrat, Webster Echo, West Virginia Daily News/Greenbrier Valley Ranger, and Wetzel Chronicle. In addition to previous public outreach and notification efforts, there will be additional opportunity for public involvement during the public notification process as part of this USACE IP application.

Tetra Tech Page 69 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

Figures

Figure 1 Project Overview Map

Figure 2 Pipeline Activities Progress Map

Figure 3 USGS Project Location Map

Figure 4 Detail Map

Figure 5 USACE Norfolk District Wetland and Waterbodies Overview Map

Tetra Tech Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

Tables

Table 1 Section 10 River Crossings Table 2 Stream Impacts Table 3 Wetland Impacts Table 4 Stream Impact Summary Table 5 Wetland Impact Summary Table 6 Counties and Towns Crossed by the Project Table 7 Watersheds Crossed by the Project Table 8 List of Affected Landowners Table 9 State and Federal Permit Status Table 10 Completed Project Crossings Table 11 Completed Station and Interconnect Crossings Table 12 Stockpile Data Table 13 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut Crossing Method Cost Table 14 Bore Crossing Method Cost Table 15 Crossing Method Determination Summary Table 16 Streams and Wetlands Avoided at the Direction of Other Federal or State Authorities Table 17 Wetland Mitigation Table 18 Stream Mitigation

Tetra Tech Table 1. Section 10 River Crossings Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Stream Temporary Cowardin Stream Temporary Stream Temporary Stream Designations & Feature Name NHD Stream Name USACE District Water Type County HUC 8 Watershed Name Latitude2 Longitude2 Discharge (cubic Crossing Method Figure Class1 Linear Feet Impact (ft) Impact (acres) T&E Species yards)

Guided Conventional Category B-2 Trout Waters, S-E68 Elk River Huntington TNW R2 Webster 05050007 Elk 38.615066 -80.506112 - - - 4-218 Bore Tier 2

Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2, S-J29 Gauley River Huntington TNW R2 Nicholas 05050005 Gauley 38.274348 -80.691350 - - - Microtunnel 4-312 Candy Darter

Non-listed mussels, Natural S-I8 Greenbrier River Huntington TNW R2 Summers 05050003 Greenbrier 37.680137 -80.731490 - - - Direct Pipe Streams Preservation Act, 4-464 Warmwater Fishery

Roanoke logperch, Orangefin madtom, Non- S-NN16 Roanoke River Norfolk TNW R2 Montgomery 03010101 Upper Roanoke 37.233402 -80.197942 - - - Microtunnel 4-631 listed mussels, Natural Trout, Stockable Trout

Roanoke logperch, Orangefin madtom, Non- S-NN16-Braid Roanoke River Norfolk TNW R2 Montgomery 03010101 Upper Roanoke 37.233631 -80.197743 - - - Microtunnel 4-631 listed mussels, Natural Trout, Stockable Trout

S-F11 Blackwater River Norfolk TNW R2 Franklin 03010101 Upper Roanoke 37.052843 -79.825711 91 0.1553 2,506 Open Cut Non-listed mussels 4-712

Notes: 1 - Field classification based on Cowardin et al. 1979. 2 - in decimal degrees

Page 1 of 1 Table 2. Stream Impacts Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Temporary Permanent Temporary Permanent Temporary Fill Permanent Fill Stream ID NHD Stream Name1 County USACE District Latitude2 Longitude2 Flow Regime Water Type3 Stream Designation4 HUC 8 Impact Type Impact Impact Impact Area Impact Area Figure (cubic yard)6 (cubic yard)7 (linear ft) (linear ft) (acres)5 (acres)5 S-J62 Right Fork Big Elk Creek Harrison Pittsburgh 39.445033 -80.482635 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05020002 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0037 - 18 - 4-35

S-B75/F49 UNT to Goose Run Harrison Pittsburgh 39.436571 -80.475198 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05020002 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0028 - 13 4-36

S-B74 Goose Run Harrison Pittsburgh 39.436245 -80.474976 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05020002 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0018 - 9 - 4-36

S-B79 UNT to Big Elk Creek Harrison Pittsburgh 39.423571 -80.476278 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05020002 Temporary Access Road 11 - 0.0004 - 2 - 4-39

S-B79 UNT to Big Elk Creek Harrison Pittsburgh 39.423499 -80.476392 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05020002 Permanent Access Road - 60 - 0.0021 - 7 4-39

S-B79 UNT to Big Elk Creek Harrison Pittsburgh 39.423434 -80.476486 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05020002 Temporary Access Road 24 - 0.0008 - 4 - 4-39

S-J54 UNT to Little Tenmile Creek Harrison Pittsburgh 39.400324 -80.479967 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 1 05020002 Permanent Access Road - 26 - 0.0048 - 23 4-43

S-J51 Little Tenmile Creek Harrison Pittsburgh 39.398116 -80.477174 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 1 05020002 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0138 - 67 - 4-43

S-A10a Little Rockcamp Run Harrison Pittsburgh 39.370005 -80.484974 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 1 05020002 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0055 - 27 4-49

S-B2a UNT to Rockcamp Run Harrison Pittsburgh 39.359262 -80.493290 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05020002 Pipeline ROW 115 - 0.0211 - 341 - 4-51

S-B3a Rockcamp Run Harrison Pittsburgh 39.358871 -80.493707 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 1 05020002 Pipeline ROW 97 - 0.0445 - 719 - 4-51

S-A128 Rockcamp Run Harrison Pittsburgh 39.355569 -80.4901 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 1 05020002 Permanent Access Road - 29 - 0.032 - 155 4-51

S-RR22 UNT to Grass Run Harrison Pittsburgh 39.342166 -80.512422 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 1 05020002 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0055 - 27 4-55

S-A11a Grass Run Harrison Pittsburgh 39.335511 -80.522421 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 1 05020002 Pipeline ROW 113 - 0.0311 - 502 - 4-56

S-A11a-Braid-1 Grass Run Harrison Pittsburgh 39.335500 -80.522502 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 1 05020002 Pipeline ROW 11 - 0.0015 - 7 - 4-56

S-A11a-Braid-2 Grass Run Harrison Pittsburgh 39.335410 -80.522360 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 1 05020002 Pipeline ROW 77 - 0.0088 - 143 - 4-56

S-OP8 UNT to Indian Run Harrison Pittsburgh 39.320959 -80.526445 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05020002 Temporary Access Road - 41 - 0.0047 - 23 4-59

S-OP9 UNT to Indian Run Harrison Pittsburgh 39.320682 -80.526449 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05020002 Temporary Access Road - 36 - 0.0025 - 12 4-59

S-B6a Indian Run Harrison Pittsburgh 39.317309 -80.527175 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 1 05020002 Temporary Access Road 30 - 0.0207 - 100 - 4-59

S-B6a Indian Run Harrison Pittsburgh 39.317023 -80.526157 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 1 05020002 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0138 - 67 - 4-59

S-B7a UNT to Indian Run Harrison Pittsburgh 39.316755 -80.526222 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05020002 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0018 - 9 - 4-59

S-UU3 Salem Fork Harrison Pittsburgh 39.289870 -80.517903 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 1 05020002 Pipeline ROW 76 - 0.1047 - 1,689 - 4-66

S-UU5 Halls Run Harrison Pittsburgh 39.253041 -80.540508 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05020002 Pipeline ROW 79 - 0.0073 - 117 - 4-74

S-K73 Coburn Fork Harrison Pittsburgh 39.243691 -80.553966 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 1 05020002 Pipeline ROW 110 - 0.0126 - 204 - 4-77

S-K74 UNT to Coburn Fork Harrison Pittsburgh 39.243647 -80.553903 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05020002 Pipeline ROW 36 - 0.0021 - 10 - 4-77

S-K75 UNT to Coburn Fork Harrison Pittsburgh 39.243509 -80.554028 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05020002 Pipeline ROW 96 - 0.0066 - 107 - 4-77

S-K80 UNT to Turtletree Fork Harrison Pittsburgh 39.225747 -80.550164 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05020002 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0014 - 7 4-80

S-CV9 UNT to Turtletree Fork Harrison Pittsburgh 39.22369 -80.548273 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05020002 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0009 - 4 4-81

S-K81 Turtletree Fork Harrison Pittsburgh 39.223263 -80.547928 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 1 05020002 Timber Mat Crossing 30 - 0.0028 - 13 4-81

S-CV10 UNT to Turtletree Fork Harrison Pittsburgh 39.221719 -80.546951 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05020002 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0014 - 7 4-81

S-A106 UNT to Kincheloe Creek Harrison Pittsburgh 39.168435 -80.577625 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05020002 Timber Mat Crossing 168 - 0.001 - 47 - 4-92

S-A105 UNT to Kincheloe Creek Harrison Pittsburgh 39.168266 -80.577815 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05020002 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0018 - 9 - 4-92

S-K94 Kincheloe Creek Lewis Pittsburgh 39.167831 -80.578867 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 1 05020002 Temporary Access Road 18 - 0.0083 - 40 - 4-92

S-K82 UNT to Kincheloe Creek Harrison Pittsburgh 39.167753 -80.578181 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05020002 Pipeline ROW 110 - 0.0101 - 49 - 4-92

S-K94 Kincheloe Creek Lewis Pittsburgh 39.167575 -80.578144 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 1 05020002 Pipeline ROW 79 - 0.0363 - 585 - 4-92

S-I67 Smoke Camp Run Lewis Pittsburgh 39.137145 -80.577026 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05020002 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0040 - 20 - 4-99

S-J43 Right Fork Freemans Creek Lewis Pittsburgh 39.120579 -80.581328 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 1 05020002 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0126 - 61 - 4-102

S-J44 UNT to Right Fork Freemans Creek Lewis Pittsburgh 39.114730 -80.586203 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05020002 Pipeline ROW 79 - 0.0073 - 117 - 4-103

S-K46 UNT to Left Fork Freemans Creek Lewis Pittsburgh 39.080252 -80.581430 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05020002 Pipeline ROW 93 - 0.0043 - 21 - 4-109

S-B67 Left Fork Freemans Creek Lewis Pittsburgh 39.079556 -80.581346 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 1 05020002 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0061 - 29 - 4-110

S-B69 UNT to Left Fork Freemans Creek Lewis Pittsburgh 39.077790 -80.582932 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05020002 Temporary Access Road 86 - 0.0030 - 14 - 4-110

S-H184 UNT to Left Fork Freemans Creek Lewis Pittsburgh 39.069684 -80.580583 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05020002 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0051 - 24 - 4-111

S-H184a UNT to Left Fork Freemans Creek Lewis Pittsburgh 39.069645 -80.580591 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05020002 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0051 - 24 - 4-111

S-H180 UNT to Left Fork Freemans Creek Lewis Pittsburgh 39.068217 -80.581025 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05020002 Pipeline ROW 68 - 0.0203 - 327 - 4-111

S-ST18 UNT to Mobley Run Wetzel Huntington 39.561766 -80.540136 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 1 05030201 Permanent Access Road 21 - 0.0049 - 23 - 4-2

S-WX3 UNT to Mobley Run Wetzel Huntington 39.560611 -80.545823 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 1 05030201 ATWS 21 - 0.0024 - 12 - 4-1

S-A1a North Fork Fishing Creek Wetzel Huntington 39.553946 -80.545046 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 1 05030201 Pipeline ROW 80 - 0.0641 - 1,034 - 4-3

S-A3a UNT to North Fork Fishing Creek Wetzel Huntington 39.551814 -80.545633 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030201 Pipeline ROW 80 - 0.0166 - 267 - 4-4

S-J66 UNT to North Fork Fishing Creek Wetzel Huntington 39.546030 -80.544314 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030201 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0014 7 4-5

S-A5a UNT to Fallen Timber Run Wetzel Huntington 39.534241 -80.540995 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030201 Timber Mat Crossing 30 - 0.0028 - 13 - 4-8

S-A6a Fallen Timber Run Wetzel Huntington 39.534023 -80.540889 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 1 05030201 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0092 - 44 - 4-9

S-A125 Price Run Wetzel Huntington 39.503477 -80.532902 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 1 05030201 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0161 - 78 - 4-19

S-A124 UNT to Price Run Wetzel Huntington 39.503288 -80.532680 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030201 Pipeline ROW 100 - 0.0276 - 445 - 4-19

S-A118 UNT to Price Run Wetzel Huntington 39.502399 -80.523520 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030201 Pipeline ROW 79 - 0.0109 - 176 - 4-20

S-A120 Stout Run Wetzel Huntington 39.489914 -80.522135 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 1 05030201 Temporary Access Road 8 - 0.0011 - 5 - 4-23

S-A120 Stout Run Wetzel Huntington 39.489890 -80.522083 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 1 05030201 Permanent Access Road - 26 - 0.0036 - 15 4-23

S-A120 Stout Run Wetzel Huntington 39.489866 -80.522029 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 1 05030201 Temporary Access Road 9 - 0.0012 - 6 - 4-23

S-A120 Stout Run Wetzel Huntington 39.489712 -80.520728 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 1 05030201 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0028 - 13 - 4-23

S-A119 UNT to Stout Run Wetzel Huntington 39.489589 -80.520532 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030201 Timber Mat Crossing 134 - 0.0154 - 74 - 4-23

1 of 13 Table 2. Stream Impacts Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Temporary Permanent Temporary Permanent Temporary Fill Permanent Fill Stream ID NHD Stream Name1 County USACE District Latitude2 Longitude2 Flow Regime Water Type3 Stream Designation4 HUC 8 Impact Type Impact Impact Impact Area Impact Area Figure (cubic yard)6 (cubic yard)7 (linear ft) (linear ft) (acres)5 (acres)5

S-QR34 UNT to Stout Run Wetzel Huntington 39.489140 -80.520658 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030201 Permanent Access Road - 125 - 0.0072 - 24 4-23

S-QR34 UNT to Stout Run Wetzel Huntington 39.489062 -80.520519 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030201 Temporary Access Road 8 - 0.0004 - 2 - 4-23

S-J60 Sams Run Wetzel Huntington 39.474354 -80.511825 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030201 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0064 - 31 - 4-26

S-J56 Manion Run Wetzel Huntington 39.464315 -80.502077 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030201 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0046 - 22 - 4-28

S-J56 Manion Run Wetzel Huntington 39.464105 -80.502318 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030201 Temporary Access Road 23 - 0.0054 - 26 - 4-28

S-J56 Manion Run Wetzel Huntington 39.463899 -80.502594 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030201 Permanent Access Road - 41 - 0.0095 - 46 4-28

S-J59 UNT to Manion Run Wetzel Huntington 39.462705 -80.504726 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030201 Permanent Access Road - 7 - 0.0005 - 2 4-28

S-J59 UNT to Manion Run Wetzel Huntington 39.462684 -80.504736 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030201 Temporary Access Road 10 - 0.0007 - 3 - 4-28

S-J58 UNT to Manion Run Wetzel Huntington 39.462546 -80.505386 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030201 Permanent Access Road 26 - 0.0030 - 14 - 4-28

S-K77 Traugh Fork Doddridge Huntington 39.229029 -80.552534 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030201 Pipeline ROW 37 - 0.0034 - 54 - 4-80

S-K77 Traugh Fork Doddridge Huntington 39.228942 -80.552437 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030201 Pipeline ROW 93 - 0.0085 - 137 - 4-80

S-K67 UNT to Big Issac Creek Doddridge Huntington 39.210269 -80.553179 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030201 Pipeline ROW 77 - 0.0177 - 285 - 4-84

S-K65 UNT to Big Issac Creek Doddridge Huntington 39.209813 -80.552450 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030201 Pipeline ROW 90 - 0.0165 - 267 - 4-84

S-K54 UNT to Big Issac Creek Doddridge Huntington 39.207673 -80.552957 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030201 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0032 - 16 - 4-84

S-K58 UNT to Big Issac Creek Doddridge Huntington 39.205595 -80.553224 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030201 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0011 - 6 - 4-84

S-K59 UNT to Big Issac Creek Doddridge Huntington 39.204704 -80.553272 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030201 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0011 - 6 - 4-84

S-K60 UNT to Big Issac Creek Doddridge Huntington 39.203779 -80.553410 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030201 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0018 - 9 - 4-84

S-A110/K62 UNT to Laural Run Doddridge Huntington 39.201316 -80.553306 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030201 Permanent Access Road - 25 - 0.0040 - 13 4-85

S-A110/K62 UNT to Laural Run Doddridge Huntington 39.201286 -80.553425 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030201 Pipeline ROW 59 - 0.0095 - 154 - 4-85

S-A111 Laural Run Doddridge Huntington 39.200749 -80.553190 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 1 05030201 Pipeline ROW 77 - 0.0247 - 399 - 4-85

S-J46 Fink Creek Lewis Huntington 39.094778 -80.584826 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 1 05030203 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0076 - 37 - 4-106

S-J47b UNT to Fink Creek Lewis Huntington 39.094003 -80.585481 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0015 - 7 - 4-106

S-I64 Leading Creek Lewis Huntington 39.052748 -80.582213 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0020 - 10 - 4-114

S-KK3a UNT to Laurel Run Lewis Huntington 39.019605 -80.597895 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0010 - 5 - 4-119

S-KK5 UNT to Laurel Run Lewis Huntington 39.017783 -80.596853 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0015 - 7 - 4-119

S-KK5 UNT to Laurel Run Lewis Huntington 39.017738 -80.597017 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0015 - 7 - 4-119

S-KK5 UNT to Laurel Run Lewis Huntington 39.017718 -80.597027 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0015 - 7 - 4-119

S-KK6 UNT Laurel Run Lewis Huntington 39.017621 -80.596939 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0015 - 7 - 4-119

S-KK7 Laurel Run Lewis Huntington 39.017519 -80.597010 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0030 - 15 - 4-119

S-K45 UNT to Cove Lick Lewis Huntington 39.002598 -80.595591 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 ATWS 50 - 0.0011 - 6 - 4-121

S-K43 Cove Lick Lewis Huntington 39.002111 -80.595843 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Permanent Access Road - 27 - 0.0043 - 21 4-121

S-K43 Cove Lick Lewis Huntington 39.002045 -80.596098 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0035 - 17 - 4-121

S-K38 UNT to Rock Run Lewis Huntington 38.992357 -80.592929 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0015 - 7 - 4-123

S-I63 Sand Fork Lewis Huntington 38.969369 -80.593138 Perennial RPW Non-listed mussels, Warmwater Fishery, Tier 1 05030203 Pipeline ROW 60 - 0.0275 - 444 - 4-128

S-I63 Sand Fork Lewis Huntington 38.969290 -80.593203 Perennial RPW Non-listed mussels, Warmwater Fishery, Tier 1 05030203 Permanent Access Road - 26 - 0.0119 - 58 4-128

S-I63 Sand Fork Lewis Huntington 38.969239 -80.593244 Perennial RPW Non-listed mussels, Warmwater Fishery, Tier 1 05030203 Temporary Access Road 8 - 0.0037 - 18 - 4-128

S-H160 Indian Fork Lewis Huntington 38.933179 -80.584562 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 1 05030203 Timber Mat Crossing 23 - 0.0106 - 59 - 4-135

S-L76 Indian Fork Lewis Huntington 38.929761 -80.575251 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 1 05030203 Permanent Access Road 33 - 0.0115 - 56 - 4-137

S-H153 UNT to Sugar Camp Run Lewis Huntington 38.922846 -80.579227 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Pipeline ROW 76 - 0.0262 - 423 - 4-136

S-H145 UNT to Indian Fork Lewis Huntington 38.918986 -80.573838 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Pipeline ROW 91 - 0.0313 - 505 - 4-140

S-H165 UNT to Indian Fork Lewis Huntington 38.918602 -80.573256 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Pipeline ROW 144 - 0.0198 - 320 - 4-140

S-CV3 Threelick Run Lewis Huntington 38.913415 -80.571854 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 1 05030203 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0030 - 15 - 4-142

S-CD16 UNT to Second Big Run Lewis Huntington 38.904135 -80.563719 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Timber Mat Crossing 173 - 0.0318 - 154 - 4-144

S-VV13 Second Big Run Lewis Huntington 38.903930 -80.563537 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Timber Mat Crossing 80 - 0.0275 - 133 - 4-144

S-VV11 UNT to Second Big Run Lewis Huntington 38.903610 -80.563186 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Pipeline ROW 7 - 0.0007 - 3 - 4-144

S-VV12 UNT to Second Big Run Lewis Huntington 38.903575 -80.563308 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Pipeline ROW 77 - 0.0211 - 341 - 4-144

S-VV13d Second Big Run Lewis Huntington 38.902549 -80.564778 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Temporary Access Road 61 - 0.0210 - 102 - 4-144

S-VV20 UNT to Second Big Run Lewis Huntington 38.900233 -80.563491 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Temporary Access Road 40 - 0.0028 - 13 - 4-145

S-VV19 UNT to Second Big Run Lewis Huntington 38.899505 -80.563925 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Temporary Access Road 62 - 0.0043 - 21 - 4-146

S-VV13b Second Big Run Lewis Huntington 38.898431 -80.568250 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Temporary Access Road 42 - 0.0143 - 69 - 4-146

S-VV18 UNT to Second Big Run Lewis Huntington 38.897028 -80.567634 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Temporary Access Road 41 - 0.0075 - 36 - 4-146

S-VV16 UNT to Second Big Run Lewis Huntington 38.896271 -80.566551 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Temporary Access Road 293 - 0.0202 - 98 - 4-146

S-VV16 UNT to Second Big Run Lewis Huntington 38.895455 -80.566432 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Temporary Access Road 211 - 0.0145 - 70 - 4-146

S-UV11 Oil Creek Lewis Huntington 38.893014 -80.556192 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Pipeline ROW 51 - 0.0351 - 567 - 4-148

S-UV11 Oil Creek Lewis Huntington 38.893014 -80.556192 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Permanent Access Road - 25 - - 0 - 4-148

S-VV22 UNT to Oil Creek Lewis Huntington 38.890411 -80.550986 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Temporary Access Road 43 - 0.0029 - 12 - 4-148

S-VV21 UNT to Oil Creek Lewis Huntington 38.890221 -80.553817 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Temporary Access Road 18 - 0.0012 - 5 - 4-148

S-L61 Crooked Run Lewis Huntington 38.880040 -80.563579 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Permanent Access Road - 30 - 0.0069 - 33 4-151

S-L61 Crooked Run Lewis Huntington 38.879034 -80.564307 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Permanent Access Road - 28 - 0.0064 - 31 4-151

2 of 13 Table 2. Stream Impacts Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Temporary Permanent Temporary Permanent Temporary Fill Permanent Fill Stream ID NHD Stream Name1 County USACE District Latitude2 Longitude2 Flow Regime Water Type3 Stream Designation4 HUC 8 Impact Type Impact Impact Impact Area Impact Area Figure (cubic yard)6 (cubic yard)7 (linear ft) (linear ft) (acres)5 (acres)5

S-VV9 UNT to Clover Fork Lewis Huntington 38.863254 -80.525763 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0051 - 24 - 4-158

S-L51 Barbecue Run Braxton Huntington 38.839355 -80.519693 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0101 - 49 - 4-161

S-J37 UNT to Barbecue Run Braxton Huntington 38.839133 -80.519716 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0015 - 7 - 4-162

S-L57 UNT to Barbecue Run Braxton Huntington 38.828310 -80.525753 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Temporary Access Road - 26 - 0.0024 - 12 4-165

S-L57 UNT to Barbecue Run Braxton Huntington 38.828300 -80.525691 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Temporary Access Road/ATWS 25 - 0.0023 - 11 - 4-165

S-L60 Left Fork Knawl Creek Braxton Huntington 38.824034 -80.524988 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Pipeline ROW 75 - 0.0517 - 833 - 4-165

S-LL1 Knawl Creek Braxton Huntington 38.823595 -80.525342 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Pipeline ROW 88 - 0.0607 - 980 - 4-165

S-IJ27 Little Knawl Creek Braxton Huntington 38.809593 -80.541252 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Permanent Access Road - 34 - 0.0156 - 76 4-168

S-IJ32 UNT to Little Knawl Creek Braxton Huntington 38.809568 -80.537319 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Permanent Access Road - 26 - 0.0030 - 14 4-168

S-IJ27 Little Knawl Creek Braxton Huntington 38.808878 -80.543272 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Permanent Access Road - 50 - 0.0230 - 111 4-168

S-QR30 UNT to Little Knawl Creek Braxton Huntington 38.807940 -80.535715 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Pipeline ROW 79 - 0.0274 - 442 - 4-168

S-JJ1 UNT to Keith Run Braxton Huntington 38.786930 -80.530028 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0071 - 34 - 4-172

S-I60 UNT to Falls Run Braxton Huntington 38.781068 -80.524577 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0020 - 10 - 4-174

S-J70 Falls Run Braxton Huntington 38.778955 -80.525862 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Pipeline ROW 77 - 0.0530 - 854 - 4-174

S-K34 Hemp Patch Run Braxton Huntington 38.766123 -80.520308 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0025 - 12 - 4-178

S-K33 UNT to Hemp Patch Run Braxton Huntington 38.765714 -80.520032 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0010 - 5 - 4-178

S-H123 UNT to Elliott Run Braxton Huntington 38.761197 -80.514887 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Pipeline ROW 82 - 0.0113 - 183 - 4-178

S-H123 UNT to Elliott Run Braxton Huntington 38.760426 -80.513624 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Pipeline ROW 82 - 0.0113 - 182 - 4-178

S-H127 UNT to Elliott Run Braxton Huntington 38.755029 -80.513692 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0020 - 10 - 4-180

S-H132 Little Kanawha River Braxton Huntington 38.751499 -80.514919 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Timber Mat Crossing 120 - 0.0606 - 293 - 4-180

S-H129 UNT to Little Kanawha River Braxton Huntington 38.749321 -80.514337 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0010 - 5 - 4-183

S-H131 UNT to Little Kanawha River Braxton Huntington 38.749215 -80.514370 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0010 - 5 - 4-183

S-H117 Stonecoal Run Braxton Huntington 38.731020 -80.506280 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Pipeline ROW 82 - 0.0283 - 456 - 4-188

S-L46 UNT to Laurel Run Braxton Huntington 38.721880 -80.499258 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Pipeline ROW 78 - 0.0267 - 431 - 4-190

S-L44 UNT to Laurel Run Braxton Huntington 38.716945 -80.494589 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05030203 Pipeline ROW 81 - 0.0185 - 298 - 4-193

S-I57 Mudlick Run Braxton Huntington 38.697413 -80.489560 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050007 Pipeline ROW 77 - 0.0528 - 852 - 4-196

S-A96/A103 UNT to Left Fork Holly River Webster Huntington 38.688706 -80.478590 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050007 Pipeline ROW 83 - 0.0114 - 185 - 4-198

S-A97 UNT to Left Fork Holly River Webster Huntington 38.688329 -80.478406 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050007 Pipeline ROW 125 - 0.0229 - 370 - 4-198

S-A99 UNT to Left Fork Holly River Webster Huntington 38.688120 -80.478371 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050007 Pipeline ROW 34 - 0.0039 - 19 - 4-198 Pipeline ROW/Temporary Access S-A98 UNT to Left Fork Holly River Webster Huntington 38.687906 -80.478024 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050007 392 - 0.0629 - 1015 - 4-198 Road S-A100 Left Fork Holly River Webster Huntington 38.676643 -80.477940 Perennial RPW Category B-2 Trout Waters, Tier 2 05050007 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0404 - 196 - 4-200

S-E78/E82/R1 UNT to Left Fork Holly River Webster Huntington 38.676223 -80.477663 Perennial RPW Category B-2 Trout Waters, Tier 2 05050007 Pipeline ROW 102 - 0.0094 - 151 - 4-200

S-E76 UNT to Left Fork Holly River Webster Huntington 38.674988 -80.477360 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050007 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0015 - 7 - 4-200

S-KK2 UNT to Left Fork Holly River Webster Huntington 38.672226 -80.476315 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050007 Pipeline ROW 75 - 0.0052 - 84 - 4-200

S-KK3b UNT to Left Fork Holly River Webster Huntington 38.672110 -80.476515 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050007 Pipeline ROW 100 - 0.0069 - 111 - 4-201

S-KK4b UNT to Left Fork Holly River Webster Huntington 38.671976 -80.476825 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050007 Pipeline ROW 88 - 0.0061 - 98 - 4-201

S-E74 UNT to Left Fork Holly River Webster Huntington 38.671971 -80.476990 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050007 Pipeline ROW 68 - 0.0062 - 30 - 4-200

S-F40 Oldlick Creek Webster Huntington 38.667943 -80.479023 Perennial RPW Category B-2 Trout Waters, Tier 2 05050007 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0126 - 61 - 4-201

S-S1 UNT to Oldlick Creek Webster Huntington 38.667020 -80.478624 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050007 Pipeline ROW 21 - 0.0010 - 5 - 4-201

S-S4 UNT to Oldlick Creek Webster Huntington 38.664389 -80.484709 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050007 Temporary Access Road 45 - 0.0021 - 10 - 4-204

S-F43 UNT to Oldlick Creek Webster Huntington 38.663706 -80.478644 Perennial RPW Category B-2 Trout Waters, Tier 2 05050007 Pipeline ROW 101 - 0.0232 - 375 - 4-202

S-E67 Right Fork Holly Creek Webster Huntington 38.648021 -80.489704 Perennial RPW Category B-2 Trout Waters, Tier 2 05050007 Pipeline ROW 92 - 0.1803 - 2910 - 4-206

S-B62 Narrows Run Webster Huntington 38.646185 -80.486813 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050007 ATWS 15 - 0.0103 - 50 - 4-215

S-B62 Narrows Run Webster Huntington 38.643910 -80.485213 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050007 Permanent Access Road - 29 - 0.0200 - 97 4-215

S-E71 UNT to Elk River Webster Huntington 38.614405 -80.506004 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050007 Pipeline ROW 44 - 0.0020 - 33 - 4-218

S-H111 UNT to Elk River Webster Huntington 38.613367 -80.504620 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050007 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0020 - 10 - 4-218

S-H111 UNT to Elk River Webster Huntington 38.613341 -80.504620 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050007 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0020 - 10 - 4-218

S-H114 UNT to Elk River Webster Huntington 38.613259 -80.504243 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050007 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0010 - 5 - 4-218

S-H112 UNT to Elk River Webster Huntington 38.613163 -80.504012 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050007 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0015 - 7 - 4-218

S-H113 UNT to Elk River Webster Huntington 38.612982 -80.503647 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050007 Pipeline ROW 74 - 0.0203 - 327 - 4-218

S-H113 UNT to Elk River Webster Huntington 38.612878 -80.503687 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050007 Pipeline ROW 9 - 0.0026 - 42 - 4-218

S-H113 UNT to Elk River Webster Huntington 38.612874 -80.503682 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050007 Pipeline ROW 9 - 0.0026 - 41 - 4-218

S-H110 UNT to Houston Run Webster Huntington 38.587200 -80.509634 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050007 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0015 - 7 - 4-222

S-T29 Houston Run Webster Huntington 38.579092 -80.525620 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050007 Pipeline ROW 76 0.0525 - 847 - 4-230

S-A83/A91 UNT to Camp Creek Webster Huntington 38.557064 -80.535592 Perennial RPW Category B-2 Trout Waters, Tier 2 05050007 Pipeline ROW 75 - 0.0518 - 835 - 4-235

S-A93 UNT to Camp Creek Webster Huntington 38.556823 -80.535751 Ephemeral NRPW Category B-2 Trout Waters, Tier 2 05050007 Temporary Access Road 13 - 0.0025 - 12 - 4-235

S-A93 UNT to Camp Creek Webster Huntington 38.556682 -80.535572 Ephemeral NRPW Category B-2 Trout Waters, Tier 2 05050007 Pipeline ROW 105 - 0.0193 - 312 - 4-235

S-A92 UNT to Camp Creek Webster Huntington 38.556658 -80.535607 Ephemeral NRPW Category B-2 Trout Waters, Tier 2 05050007 Pipeline ROW 59 - 0.0175 - 282 - 4-235

S-H108 Lower Laurel Fork Webster Huntington 38.549358 -80.539260 Perennial RPW Category B-2 Trout Waters, Tier 2 05050007 Pipeline ROW 78 - 0.0251 - 405 - 4-236

3 of 13 Table 2. Stream Impacts Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Temporary Permanent Temporary Permanent Temporary Fill Permanent Fill Stream ID NHD Stream Name1 County USACE District Latitude2 Longitude2 Flow Regime Water Type3 Stream Designation4 HUC 8 Impact Type Impact Impact Impact Area Impact Area Figure (cubic yard)6 (cubic yard)7 (linear ft) (linear ft) (acres)5 (acres)5

S-H105 UNT to Camp Creek Webster Huntington 38.548824 -80.539644 Perennial RPW Category B-2 Trout Waters, Tier 2 05050007 Pipeline ROW 121 - 0.0083 - 135 - 4-236

S-H107 UNT to Camp Creek Webster Huntington 38.548467 -80.540073 Intermittent RPW Category B-2 Trout Waters, Tier 2 05050007 Pipeline ROW 10 - 0.0003 - 5 - 4-236

S-H107 UNT to Camp Creek Webster Huntington 38.548463 -80.540050 Intermittent RPW Category B-2 Trout Waters, Tier 2 05050007 Permanent Access Road - 30 - 0.0010 - 3 4-236

S-H107 UNT to Camp Creek Webster Huntington 38.548378 -80.539980 Intermittent RPW Category B-2 Trout Waters, Tier 2 05050007 Pipeline ROW 90 - 0.0031 - 50 - 4-236

S-H104 Camp Creek Webster Huntington 38.548121 -80.540431 Perennial RPW Category B-2 Trout Waters, Tier 2 05050007 Pipeline ROW 104 - 0.0360 - 580 - 4-236

S-H103 UNT to Camp Creek Webster Huntington 38.545817 -80.542972 Intermittent RPW Category B-2 Trout Waters, Tier 2 05050007 Pipeline ROW 37 - 0.0034 - 16 - 4-248

S-B34 Amos Run Webster Huntington 38.493956 -80.560990 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050007 Pipeline ROW 81 - 0.0561 - 904 - 4-260

S-B35 UNT to Amos Run Webster Huntington 38.493884 -80.560969 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050007 Pipeline ROW 80 - 0.0037 - 59 - 4-260

S-B36 UNT to Amos Run Webster Huntington 38.493819 -80.560919 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050007 Pipeline ROW 72 - 0.0033 - 53 - 4-260

S-B37 UNT to Amos Run Webster Huntington 38.493750 -80.560898 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050007 Pipeline ROW 82 - 0.0038 - 61 - 4-260

S-B38 UNT to Amos Run Webster Huntington 38.493723 -80.560843 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050007 Pipeline ROW 43 - 0.0020 - 32 - 4-260

S-B42 UNT to Amos Run Webster Huntington 38.493645 -80.560892 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050007 Pipeline ROW 101 - 0.0046 - 75 - 4-260

S-B39b UNT to Amos Run Webster Huntington 38.493532 -80.560792 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050007 Pipeline ROW 142 - 0.0008 - 13 - 4-260

S-B45 UNT to Amos Run Webster Huntington 38.493394 -80.560786 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050007 Pipeline ROW 177 - 0.0122 - 196 - 4-260

S-B39a/B46 UNT to Amos Run Webster Huntington 38.493363 -80.560657 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050007 Pipeline ROW 110 - 0.0076 - 122 - 4-260

S-B39b UNT to Amos Run Webster Huntington 38.493352 -80.560574 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050007 Pipeline ROW 3 - 0.0002 - 0 - 4-260

S-B39a/B46 UNT to Amos Run Webster Huntington 38.493227 -80.560529 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050007 Pipeline ROW 11 - 0.0007 - 12 - 4-260

S-O4 Lost Run Webster Huntington 38.483002 -80.556464 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050007 Pipeline ROW 92 - 0.0379 - 612 - 4-263

S-O5 UNT to Laurel Creek Webster Huntington 38.482251 -80.555499 Ephemeral NRPW Category B-2 Trout Waters, Tier 2 05050007 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0010 - 5 - 4-263

S-A81 UNT to Laurel Creek Webster Huntington 38.481219 -80.554668 Ephemeral NRPW Category B-2 Trout Waters, Tier 2 05050007 Temporary Access Road 81 - 0.0037 - 18 - 4-263

S-A79 Laurel Creek Webster Huntington 38.480782 -80.554682 Perennial RPW Category B-2 Trout Waters, Tier 2 05050007 Timber Mat Crossing 55 - 0.0278 - 134 - 4-263

S-A80 UNT to Laurel Creek Webster Huntington 38.480687 -80.554061 Intermittent RPW Category B-2 Trout Waters, Tier 2 05050007 Temporary Access Road 104 - 0.0096 - 46 - 4-263

S-E58 Little Glade Run Webster Huntington 38.443669 -80.551989 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050007 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0040 - 20 - 4-269

S-E55 UNT to Laurel Creek Webster Huntington 38.440270 -80.559955 Ephemeral NRPW Category B-2 Trout Waters, Tier 2 05050007 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0010 - 5 - 4-271

S-F35 UNT to Birch River Webster Huntington 38.424082 -80.570710 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050007 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0025 - 12 - 4-278

S-F34 UNT to Birch River Webster Huntington 38.423988 -80.570680 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050007 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0025 - 12 - 4-278

S-F36a UNT to Birch River Webster Huntington 38.422056 -80.569457 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050007 Temporary Access Road 5 - 0.0006 - 11 - 4-278

S-F36a UNT to Birch River Webster Huntington 38.421474 -80.570012 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050007 Temporary Access Road 23 - 0.0027 - 13 - 4-278

S-F36a UNT to Birch River Webster Huntington 38.418662 -80.573898 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050007 Temporary Access Road 23 - 0.0027 - 13 - 4-278

S-F36a UNT to Birch River Webster Huntington 38.418122 -80.574566 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050007 Temporary Access Road 20 - 0.0023 - 3 - 4-278

S-F36b UNT to Birch River Webster Huntington 38.417934 -80.576775 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050007 Temporary Access Road 65 - 0.0300 - 145 - 4-279

S-F36b UNT to Birch River Webster Huntington 38.417774 -80.576635 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050007 Pipeline ROW 78 - 0.0359 - 580 - 4-279

S-F36b UNT to Birch River Webster Huntington 38.417693 -80.576495 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050007 Temporary Access Road 16 - 0.0074 - 36 - 4-279

S-F37 UNT to Birch River Webster Huntington 38.417651 -80.576431 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050007 Temporary Access Road 20 - 0.0018 - 9 - 4-279

S-C49 UNT to Birch River Webster Huntington 38.416587 -80.577890 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050007 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0015 - 7 - 4-279

S-B33 UNT to Meadow Fork Webster Huntington 38.408941 -80.589063 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050007 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0051 - 24 - 4-281

S-B32-Braid UNT to Meadow Fork Webster Huntington 38.405871 -80.591069 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050007 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0035 - 17 - 4-281

S-B32 UNT to Meadow Fork Webster Huntington 38.405683 -80.591116 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050007 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0035 - 17 - 4-281

S-EF40 UNT to Meadow Fork Webster Huntington 38.400883 -80.597787 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050007 Anode Bed 52 - 0.0084 - 41 - 4-282

S-B30 UNT to Meadow Fork Webster Huntington 38.399733 -80.597536 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050007 Anode Bed 27 - 0.0024 - 12 - 4-282

S-B29 Meadow Fork Webster Huntington 38.399618 -80.597332 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 1 05050007 Pipeline ROW 85 - 0.0136 - 220 - 4-282

S-E50 UNT to Gauley River Webster Huntington 38.370597 -80.611921 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 93 - 0.0085 - 138 - 4-289

S-E52 UNT to Gauley River Webster Huntington 38.369110 -80.611761 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0015 - 7 - 4-290

S-E50 UNT to Gauley River Webster Huntington 38.367280 -80.612317 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 82 - 0.0075 - 122 - 4-289

S-E49 UNT to Gauley River Nicholas Huntington 38.365574 -80.613141 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 88 - 0.0020 - 33 - 4-290

S-E46 Strouds Creek Webster Huntington 38.363374 -80.617277 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0152 - 73 - 4-291

S-E46 Strouds Creek Webster Huntington 38.363326 -80.616955 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Temporary Access Road 43 - 0.0296 - 143 - 4-291

S-F21 Barn Run Nicholas Huntington 38.355859 -80.633328 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0020 - 10 - 4-293

S-F20 Barn Run Nicholas Huntington 38.355800 -80.633223 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0051 - 24 - 4-293

S-IJ57 UNT to Barn Run Nicholas Huntington 38.352362 -80.636401 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 82 - 0.0094 - 152 - 4-293

S-IJ59 UNT to Barn Run Nicholas Huntington 38.348372 -80.641152 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0035 - 17 - 4-295

S-IJ60 UNT to Rockcamp Run Nicholas Huntington 38.343699 -80.644721 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 77 - 0.0141 - 227 - 4-296

S-IJ62 UNT to Cherry Run Nicholas Huntington 38.343547 -80.647035 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 79 - 0.0054 - 88 - 4-296

S-B28 Cherry Run Nicholas Huntington 38.340083 -80.655413 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0051 - 24 - 4-298

S-B26 UNT to Cherry Run Nicholas Huntington 38.339012 -80.659609 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Temporary Access Road 43 - 0.0039 - 19 - 4-299

S-J32 Big Beaver Creek Nicholas Huntington 38.331763 -80.670342 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 1 05050005 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0177 - 86 - 4-301

S-A76 UNT to Big Beaver Creek Nicholas Huntington 38.329126 -80.671211 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 77 - 0.0106 - 172 - 4-301

S-A75 UNT to Big Beaver Creek Nicholas Huntington 38.326001 -80.670358 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 84 - 0.0193 - 311 - 4-302

S-A74 UNT to Big Beaver Creek Nicholas Huntington 38.325540 -80.670150 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 75 - 0.0069 - 112 - 4-302

4 of 13 Table 2. Stream Impacts Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Temporary Permanent Temporary Permanent Temporary Fill Permanent Fill Stream ID NHD Stream Name1 County USACE District Latitude2 Longitude2 Flow Regime Water Type3 Stream Designation4 HUC 8 Impact Type Impact Impact Impact Area Impact Area Figure (cubic yard)6 (cubic yard)7 (linear ft) (linear ft) (acres)5 (acres)5

S-A73 UNT to Big Beaver Creek Nicholas Huntington 38.323815 -80.670069 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 83 - 0.0114 - 184 - 4-302

S-A72 UNT to Big Beaver Creek Nicholas Huntington 38.321687 -80.670952 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0020 - 10 - 4-302

S-A71 UNT to Big Beaver Creek Nicholas Huntington 38.321572 -80.670958 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0020 - 10 - 4-302

S-A71-Braid UNT to Big Beaver Creek Nicholas Huntington 38.321548 -80.670969 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0040 - 20 - 4-302

S-A67 UNT to Big Beaver Creek Nicholas Huntington 38.317575 -80.671553 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 76 - 0.0121 - 196 - 4-303

S-A69 UNT to Big Beaver Creek Nicholas Huntington 38.317217 -80.671495 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 82 - 0.0113 - 183 - 4-303

S-A69 UNT to Big Beaver Creek Nicholas Huntington 38.317089 -80.671565 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 16 - 0.0022 - 36 - 4-303

S-H99 UNT to Big Beaver Creek Nicholas Huntington 38.312952 -80.673145 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 96 0.0088 - 142 - 4-304

S-H96 UNT to Big Beaver Creek Nicholas Huntington 38.309759 -80.675706 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Temporary Access Road 39 - 0.0018 - 9 - 4-304

S-H95 UNT to Big Beaver Creek Nicholas Huntington 38.309738 -80.675733 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Temporary Access Road 259 - 0.0178 - 86 - 4-304

S-A65 Big Beaver Creek Nicholas Huntington 38.308183 -80.675347 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 1 05050005 Pipeline ROW 77 - 0.1240 - 2000 - 4-304

S-A64 UNT to Granny Run Nicholas Huntington 38.304538 -80.673827 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 54 - 0.0086 - 139 - 4-306

S-N15 UNT to Granny Run Nicholas Huntington 38.301571 -80.674776 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0061 - 29 - 4-306

S-N14 Granny Run Nicholas Huntington 38.297014 -80.676341 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0040 - 20 - 4-307

S-N14 Granny Run Nicholas Huntington 38.296646 -80.676258 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0040 - 20 - 4-307

S-I43 UNT to Big Run Nicholas Huntington 38.293473 -80.677158 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0051 - 24 - 4-308

S-I44 Big Run Nicholas Huntington 38.291332 -80.679265 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0040 - 20 - 4-308

S-I45 UNT to Big Run Nicholas Huntington 38.290061 -80.680304 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0030 - 15 - 4-308

S-I47 UNT to Gauley River Nicholas Huntington 38.284291 -80.685885 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 80 - 0.0037 - 59 - 4-310

S-I48 UNT to Gauley River Nicholas Huntington 38.280116 -80.687738 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0051 - 22 - 4-310

S-J28 UNT to Little Laurel Creek Nicholas Huntington 38.263235 -80.687908 Intermittent RPW Category B-2 Trout Waters, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 79 - 0.0091 - 147 - 4-315

S-J25 UNT to Little Laurel Creek Nicholas Huntington 38.256682 -80.687348 Ephemeral NRPW Category B-2 Trout Waters, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 77 - 0.0089 - 143 - 4-317

S-J24 UNT to Little Laurel Creek Nicholas Huntington 38.256302 -80.687350 Perennial RPW Category B-2 Trout Waters, Tier 1 05050005 Pipeline ROW 76 - 0.0261 - 422 - 4-317

S-J24 UNT to Little Laurel Creek Nicholas Huntington 38.256248 -80.687358 Perennial RPW Category B-2 Trout Waters, Tier 1 05050005 Pipeline ROW 76 - 0.0261 - 421 - 4-317

S-J23-EPH UNT to Little Laurel Creek Nicholas Huntington 38.234331 -80.707513 Ephemeral NRPW Category B-2 Trout Waters, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 109 - 0.0025 - 41 - 4-326

S-J22 UNT to Little Laurel Creek Nicholas Huntington 38.233718 -80.708268 Intermittent RPW Category B-2 Trout Waters, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 85 - 0.0058 - 94 - 4-326

S-N10 Skelt Run Nicholas Huntington 38.231025 -80.710633 Perennial RPW Category B-2 Trout Waters, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 78 - 0.0071 - 115 - 4-327

S-N10-Braid Skelt Run Nicholas Huntington 38.230934 -80.710804 Intermittent RPW Category B-2 Trout Waters, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 101 - 0.0069 - 112 - 4-327

S-EE1 UNT to Skelt Run Nicholas Huntington 38.228924 -80.713076 Ephemeral NRPW Category B-2 Trout Waters, Tier 2 05050005 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0020 - 10 - 4-327

S-N13-Braid UNT to Skelt Run Nicholas Huntington 38.226869 -80.715487 Intermittent RPW Category B-2 Trout Waters, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 37 - 0.0050 - 24 - 4-328

S-N13 UNT to Skelt Run Nicholas Huntington 38.226851 -80.715393 Intermittent RPW Category B-2 Trout Waters, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 89 - 0.0041 - 66 - 4-328

S-L41 Jims Creek Nicholas Huntington 38.220793 -80.717100 Perennial RPW Category B-2 Trout Waters, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 76 - 0.0349 - 564 - 4-328

S-L38 UNT to Riley Branch Nicholas Huntington 38.205534 -80.718246 Perennial RPW Category B-2 Trout Waters, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 75 - 0.0052 - 83 - 4-340

S-L35 Riley Branch Nicholas Huntington 38.203887 -80.719122 Perennial RPW Category B-2 Trout Waters, Tier 2 05050005 Temporary Access Road 52 - 0.0048 - 31 - 4-341

S-L35 Riley Branch Nicholas Huntington 38.203887 -80.719122 Perennial RPW Category B-2 Trout Waters, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 86 - 0.0079 - 128 - 4-341

S-L35 Riley Branch Nicholas Huntington 38.203097 -80.719248 Perennial RPW Category B-2 Trout Waters, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 87 - 0.0080 - 129 - 4-341

S-L35 Riley Branch Nicholas Huntington 38.200338 -80.717177 Perennial RPW Category B-2 Trout Waters, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 79 - 0.0072 - 117 - 4-341

S-I37 UNT to Hominy Creek Nicholas Huntington 38.196644 -80.718856 Ephemeral NRPW Category B-2 Trout Waters, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 40 - 0.0056 - 27 - 4-342

S-I38 UNT to Hominy Creek Nicholas Huntington 38.194221 -80.719357 Intermittent RPW Category B-2 Trout Waters, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 77 - 0.0089 - 143 - 4-342

S-I39 UNT to Hominy Creek Nicholas Huntington 38.194025 -80.719298 Intermittent RPW Category B-2 Trout Waters, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 79 - 0.0126 - 204 - 4-342

S-I40 UNT to Hominy Creek Nicholas Huntington 38.187582 -80.723025 Intermittent RPW Category B-2 Trout Waters, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 82 - 0.0133 - 214 - 4-343

S-I41 UNT to Hominy Creek Nicholas Huntington 38.179384 -80.729497 Intermittent RPW Category B-2 Trout Waters, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 78 - 0.0143 - 231 - 4-344

S-I36 Hominy Creek Nicholas Huntington 38.178889 -80.729790 Perennial RPW Category B-2 Trout Waters, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 77 - 0.0976 - 1575 - 4-347

S-I31 UNT to Hominy Creek Nicholas Huntington 38.163802 -80.730743 Ephemeral NRPW Category B-2 Trout Waters, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 73 - 0.0033 - 54 - 4-355

S-N8a UNT to Hominy Creek Nicholas Huntington 38.162363 -80.733602 Perennial RPW Category B-2 Trout Waters, Tier 2 05050005 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0020 - 10 - 4-355

S-VV1 UNT to Hominy Creek Nicholas Huntington 38.161064 -80.735022 Intermittent RPW Category B-2 Trout Waters, Tier 2 05050005 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0020 - 10 - 4-355

S-H88 Sugar Branch Nicholas Huntington 38.136744 -80.730560 Perennial RPW Category B-2 Trout Waters, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 76 - 0.0697 - 1125 - 4-359

S-H71 UNT to Hominy Creek Nicholas Huntington 38.124315 -80.735783 Perennial RPW Category B-2 Trout Waters, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 93 - 0.0257 - 415 - 4-362

S-H67 UNT to Hominy Creek Nicholas Huntington 38.120580 -80.736772 Perennial RPW Category B-2 Trout Waters, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 85 - 0.0235 - 379 - 4-363

S-H64 UNT to Hominy Creek Nicholas Huntington 38.116279 -80.735319 Intermittent RPW Category B-2 Trout Waters, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 87 - 0.0060 - 96 - 4-364

S-V3 UNT to Hominy Creek Nicholas Huntington 38.115823 -80.730960 Perennial RPW Category B-2 Trout Waters, Tier 2 05050005 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0061 - 29 - 4-365

S-EF41 UNT to Hominy Creek Nicholas Huntington 38.107549 -80.726284 Intermittent RPW Category B-2 Trout Waters, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 82 - 0.0038 - 61 - 4-366

S-J19 UNT to Meadow Creek Greenbrier Huntington 38.028599 -80.743623 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0010 - 5 - 4-382

S-J20 UNT to Meadow Creek Greenbrier Huntington 38.023801 -80.747266 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0152 - 73 - 4-385

S-I25 UNT to Meadow Creek Greenbrier Huntington 38.020430 -80.753194 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 75 - 0.0086 - 139 - 4-390

S-I26 UNT to Meadow Creek Greenbrier Huntington 38.019129 -80.755220 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 78 - 0.0090 - 145 - 4-390

S-I27 UNT to Meadow Creek Greenbrier Huntington 38.018031 -80.755999 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0025 - 12 - 4-390

S-I28 Meadow River Greenbrier Huntington 37.982078 -80.755369 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0253 - 122 - 4-397

S-L26 UNT to Meadow River Greenbrier Huntington 37.981900 -80.755213 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 205 - 0.0141 - 227 - 4-397

5 of 13 Table 2. Stream Impacts Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Temporary Permanent Temporary Permanent Temporary Fill Permanent Fill Stream ID NHD Stream Name1 County USACE District Latitude2 Longitude2 Flow Regime Water Type3 Stream Designation4 HUC 8 Impact Type Impact Impact Impact Area Impact Area Figure (cubic yard)6 (cubic yard)7 (linear ft) (linear ft) (acres)5 (acres)5

S-L26 UNT to Meadow River Greenbrier Huntington 37.980598 -80.754872 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 166 - 0.0114 - 184 - 4-397

S-EF38 UNT to Little Sewell Creek Greenbrier Huntington 37.963259 -80.733162 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0015 - 7 - 4-400

S-L24 UNT to Little Sewell Creek Greenbrier Huntington 37.963068 -80.733141 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0020 - 10 - 4-400

S-L27 UNT to Little Sewell Creek Greenbrier Huntington 37.960725 -80.732852 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0010 - 5 - 4-401

S-L30 UNT to Little Sewell Creek Greenbrier Huntington 37.954276 -80.739708 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 136 - 0.0093 - 151 - 4-402

S-L22 Little Sewell Creek Greenbrier Huntington 37.954035 -80.739868 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 1 05050005 Pipeline ROW 75 - 0.0517 - 834 - 4-402

S-L20 UNT to Little Sewell Creek Greenbrier Huntington 37.949579 -80.742646 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 96 - 0.0111 - 179 - 4-403

S-L10 UNT to Boggs Creek Greenbrier Huntington 37.938308 -80.747009 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 103 - 0.0071 - 115 - 4-405

S-L11 UNT to Boggs Creek Greenbrier Huntington 37.938229 -80.746912 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 26 - 0.0018 - 9 - 4-405

S-I21 UNT to Boggs Creek Greenbrier Huntington 37.918228 -80.736774 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 30 - 0.0034 - 55 - 4-409

S-I21 UNT to Boggs Creek Greenbrier Huntington 37.918164 -80.736852 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 77 - 0.0089 - 143 - 4-409

S-I22 UNT to Boggs Creek Greenbrier Huntington 37.918041 -80.736833 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 94 - 0.0043 - 70 - 4-409

S-I23a UNT to Boggs Creek Greenbrier Huntington 37.917347 -80.738534 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Permanent Access Road - 33 - 0.0030 - 10 4-409

S-IJ54 UNT to Boggs Creek Greenbrier Huntington 37.917125 -80.742425 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Permanent Access Road - 31 - 0.0036 - 17 4-410

S-IJ53 UNT to Boggs Creek Greenbrier Huntington 37.916234 -80.744156 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Permanent Access Road - 20 - 0.0055 - 27 4-410

S-HH8 UNT to Buffalo Creek Greenbrier Huntington 37.865308 -80.753802 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 ATWS 15 0.0007 3 4-421

S-K25/K18 UNT to Buffalo Creek Greenbrier Huntington 37.863772 -80.756993 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 ATWS 70 0.0096 156 4-421

S-K17 Buffalo Creek Greenbrier Huntington 37.863065 -80.757391 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 75 - 0.0432 - 698 - 4-420

S-K19 UNT to Buffalo Creek Greenbrier Huntington 37.860940 -80.757825 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 93 - 0.0107 - 172 - 4-421

S-K21 UNT to Buffalo Creek Greenbrier Huntington 37.858566 -80.755584 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 82 - 0.0189 - 304 - 4-422

S-K22 UNT to Buffalo Creek Greenbrier Huntington 37.858315 -80.755546 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 78 - 0.0125 - 202 - 4-422

S-UV6 UNT to Morris Fork Greenbrier Huntington 37.854386 -80.754981 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 88 - 0.0161 - 260 - 4-422

S-UV2 Morris Fork Greenbrier Huntington 37.851099 -80.752978 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 88 - 0.0324 - 523 - 4-423

S-U22 UNT to Meadow River Greenbrier Huntington 37.839558 -80.748496 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 80 - 0.0221 - 356 - 4-425

S-FF1 UNT to Meadow River Greenbrier Huntington 37.837560 -80.751903 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Temporary Access Road 11 - 0.0008 - 4 - 4-425

S-FF1 UNT to Meadow River Greenbrier Huntington 37.837519 -80.751898 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Temporary Access Road - 31 - 0.0021 - 10 4-425

S-EE4 UNT to Red Spring Branch Summers Huntington 37.813881 -80.748817 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050004 Pipeline ROW 137 - 0.0079 - 127 - 4-429

S-M6 UNT to Red Spring Branch Summers Huntington 37.807650 -80.746173 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050004 Pipeline ROW 110 0.0101 - 163 - 4-430

S-J13 UNT to Patterson Creek Summers Huntington 37.797484 -80.733605 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 92 - 0.0085 - 137 - 4-432

S-J13 UNT to Patterson Creek Summers Huntington 37.796572 -80.732397 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 96 - 0.0088 - 142 - 4-432

S-J13 UNT to Patterson Creek Summers Huntington 37.795915 -80.731850 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050005 Pipeline ROW 124 - 0.0114 - 183 - 4-432

S-M5 Red Spring Branch Summers Huntington 37.792243 -80.728802 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050004 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0030 - 15 - 4-433

S-M4 UNT to Red Spring Branch Summers Huntington 37.786834 -80.728719 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050004 Temporary Access Road 47 - 0.0032 - 16 - 4-434

S-I13 UNT to Lick Creek Summers Huntington 37.782534 -80.719085 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050004 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0076 - 37 - 4-437

S-I14 UNT to Lick Creek Summers Huntington 37.781099 -80.719318 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050004 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0035 - 17 - 4-437

S-I15 UNT to Lick Creek Summers Huntington 37.779878 -80.720470 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050004 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0051 - 24 - 4-437

S-I16 UNT to Lick Creek Summers Huntington 37.779381 -80.721388 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050004 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0020 - 10 - 4-440

S-I12 Lick Creek Summers Huntington 37.775891 -80.710797 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 1 05050004 Permanent Access Road - 38 - 0.0035 - 11 4-438

S-I17 UNT to Lick Creek Summers Huntington 37.775160 -80.728058 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050004 Pipeline ROW 78 - 0.0045 - 72 - 4-441

S-I10 UNT to Lick Creek Summers Huntington 37.772437 -80.713781 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050004 Permanent Access Road - 26 - 0.0018 - 9 4-439

S-I19 Lick Creek Summers Huntington 37.772089 -80.732901 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 1 05050004 Pipeline ROW 77 - 0.0265 - 428 - 4-441

S-I20 UNT to Lick Creek Summers Huntington 37.771406 -80.733241 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050004 Pipeline ROW 92 - 0.0212 - 342 - 4-441

S-N5 UNT to Hungard Creek Summers Huntington 37.704240 -80.744827 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050003 Pipeline ROW 87 - 0.0040 - 65 - 4-459

S-K14 UNT to Righthand Fork Hungard Creek Summers Huntington 37.696788 -80.739242 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050003 Pipeline ROW 97 - 0.0089 - 143 - 4-460

S-N3 UNT to Hungard Creek Summers Huntington 37.694776 -80.736952 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050003 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0025 - 12 - 4-461

S-N2 Hungard Creek Summers Huntington 37.694507 -80.736682 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 1 05050003 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0101 - 49 - 4-461

S-CD23 UNT to Hungard Creek Summers Huntington 37.694228 -80.736099 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050003 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0045 - 22 - 4-461

S-N4 UNT to Hungard Creek Summers Huntington 37.693961 -80.735841 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050003 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0015 - 7 - 4-461

S-KL29 Right Fork Hungard Creek Summers Huntington 37.692932 -80.733839 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 1 05050003 Pipeline ROW 75 - 0.0863 - 1392 - 4-461

S-M3 Hungard Creek Summers Huntington 37.692868 -80.734247 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050003 Pipeline ROW 80 - 0.0183 - 295 - 4-461

S-CV17 UNT to Greenbrier River Summers Huntington 37.681865 -80.730095 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050003 Pipeline ROW 76 - 0.0070 - 34 - 4-464

S-EF53 UNT to Greenbrier River Summers Huntington 37.681323 -80.729672 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050003 Temporary Access Road 51 - 0.0095 - 46 - 4-464

S-I9 UNT to Greenbrier River Summers Huntington 37.675977 -80.732822 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050003 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0035 - 17 - 4-465

S-K10 UNT to Greenbrier River Summers Huntington 37.675079 -80.734384 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050003 Temporary Access Road 9 - 0.0013 - 6 - 4-465

S-K10 UNT to Greenbrier River Summers Huntington 37.675070 -80.734447 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050003 Permanent Access Road - 31 - 0.0043 - 21 4-465

S-K10 UNT to Greenbrier River Summers Huntington 37.675058 -80.734522 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050003 Temporary Access Road 9 - 0.0013 - 6 - 4-465

S-L4 UNT to Greenbrier River Summers Huntington 37.673213 -80.729772 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050003 Pipeline ROW 77 - 0.0176 - 284 - 4-465

S-L2 UNT to Greenbrier River Summers Huntington 37.671392 -80.728311 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050003 Pipeline ROW 88 - 0.0081 - 130 - 4-467

S-L1 UNT to Kelly Creek Summers Huntington 37.668076 -80.723470 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050003 Pipeline ROW 76 - 0.0104 - 168 - 4-468

6 of 13 Table 2. Stream Impacts Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Temporary Permanent Temporary Permanent Temporary Fill Permanent Fill Stream ID NHD Stream Name1 County USACE District Latitude2 Longitude2 Flow Regime Water Type3 Stream Designation4 HUC 8 Impact Type Impact Impact Impact Area Impact Area Figure (cubic yard)6 (cubic yard)7 (linear ft) (linear ft) (acres)5 (acres)5

S-J5 Kelly Creek Summers Huntington 37.666864 -80.721794 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 1 05050003 Pipeline ROW 103 - 0.0471 - 759 - 4-468

S-K4 UNT to Keller Creek Summers Huntington 37.665806 -80.725709 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050003 Temporary Access Road - 22 - 0.0010 - 4 4-468

S-J4 UNT to Keller Creek Summers Huntington 37.663926 -80.715460 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050003 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0025 - 12 - 4-469

S-G47 UNT to Wind Creek Summers Huntington 37.654112 -80.702579 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050003 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0010 - 5 - 4-471

S-G52 UNT to Wind Creek Monroe Huntington 37.627537 -80.695593 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050003 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0010 - 5 - 4-479

S-G49 UNT to Wind Creek Monroe Huntington 37.627381 -80.695679 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050003 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0101 - 49 - 4-479

S-G48 Wind Creek Monroe Huntington 37.627308 -80.695759 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050003 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0101 - 49 - 4-479

S-H61 UNT to Stoney Creek Monroe Huntington 37.618426 -80.699138 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050003 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0126 - 61 - 4-483

S-OP1 Stony Creek Monroe Huntington 37.600003 -80.700509 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050003 Pipeline ROW 78 - 0.0090 - 145 - 4-487

S-IJ64 UNT to Little Stony Creek Monroe Huntington 37.591822 -80.705874 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050003 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0030 - 15 - 4-488

S-A63 Slate Run Monroe Huntington 37.560706 -80.709825 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050002 Permanent Access Road - 25 - 0.0057 - 28 4-492

S-A63 Slate Run Monroe Huntington 37.560460 -80.710233 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050002 Pipeline ROW 88 - 0.0203 - 327 - 4-492

S-A61 UNT to Slate Run Monroe Huntington 37.559351 -80.709683 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050002 Temporary Access Road 8 - 0.0012 - 6 - 4-493

S-A61 UNT to Slate Run Monroe Huntington 37.559334 -80.709736 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050002 Permanent Access Road - 26 - 0.0041 - 14 4-493

S-A61 UNT to Slate Run Monroe Huntington 37.559328 -80.709792 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050002 Temporary Access Road 8 - 0.0013 - 6 - 4-493

S-A61 UNT to Slate Run Monroe Huntington 37.559320 -80.710037 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050002 Pipeline ROW 81 - 0.0131 - 211 - 4-493

S-A60 Slate Run Monroe Huntington 37.558698 -80.709966 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050002 Pipeline ROW 87 - 0.0358 - 578 - 4-492

S-CV26 UNT to Slate Run Monroe Huntington 37.556445 -80.708883 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050002 Permanent Access Road - 32 - 0.0044 21 4-493

S-D31 Indian Creek Monroe Huntington 37.554163 -80.710853 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 1 05050002 Pipeline ROW 75 - 0.1120 - 1807 - 4-493

S-D29 UNT to Hans Creek Monroe Huntington 37.547394 -80.712099 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050002 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0020 - 10 - 4-494

S-D25 UNT to Hans Creek Monroe Huntington 37.538768 -80.718855 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050002 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0020 - 10 - 4-496

S-F18 UNT to Hans Creek Monroe Huntington 37.538273 -80.719070 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050002 Temporary Access Road - 26 - 0.0107 - 52 4-496

S-F18 UNT to Hans Creek Monroe Huntington 37.536872 -80.716923 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050002 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0091 - 44 - 4-496

S-Z5 UNT to Hans Creek Monroe Huntington 37.524333 -80.711450 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050002 Pipeline ROW 75 - 0.0034 - 56 - 4-499

S-Z4 UNT to Hans Creek Monroe Huntington 37.524302 -80.711444 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050002 Pipeline ROW 75 - 0.0043 - 69 - 4-499

S-MN2 UNT to Hans Creek Monroe Huntington 37.520012 -80.707606 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050002 Pipeline ROW 81 0.0130 - 210 - 4-500

S-CV19 Hans Creek Monroe Huntington 37.500284 -80.691498 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 1 05050002 Pipeline ROW 77 - 0.0619 - 998 - 4-505

S-MN38 UNT to Blue Lick Creek Monroe Huntington 37.487721 -80.681929 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050002 Pipeline ROW 22 0.0030 - 48 - 4-510

S-MN37 UNT to Blue Lick Creek Monroe Huntington 37.487584 -80.681992 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050002 Pipeline ROW 95 0.0040 - 65 - 4-510

S-MN40 UNT to Blue Lick Creek Monroe Huntington 37.487519 -80.681996 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050002 Pipeline ROW 37 0.0010 - 16 - 4-510

S-G44 UNT to Hans Creek Monroe Huntington 37.474870 -80.676267 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050002 Pipeline ROW 86 - 0.0079 - 128 - 4-511

S-G43 UNT to Hans Creek Monroe Huntington 37.473139 -80.675738 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050002 Timber Mat Crossing 22 - 0.0025 - 12 - 4-511

S-G42 UNT to Hans Creek Monroe Huntington 37.472602 -80.675456 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050002 Pipeline ROW 79 - 0.0055 - 88 - 4-512

S-MN45 UNT to Hans Creek Monroe Huntington 37.462878 -80.670284 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050002 Pipeline ROW 87 0.0040 - 65 - 4-513

S-CV27 UNT to Hans Creek Monroe Huntington 37.462850 -80.669582 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050002 Pipeline ROW 37 - 0.0017 - 8 - 4-513

S-E43 UNT to Dry Creek Monroe Huntington 37.453834 -80.664417 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050002 Pipeline ROW 92 - 0.0147 - 237 - 4-515

S-E45 UNT to Dry Creek Monroe Huntington 37.453798 -80.664266 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050002 Pipeline ROW 101 - 0.0069 - 112 - 4-515

S-E45 UNT to Dry Creek Monroe Huntington 37.453718 -80.664097 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050002 Pipeline ROW 7 - 0.0005 - 8 - 4-515

S-E40 Dry Creek Monroe Huntington 37.451003 -80.667795 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 1 05050002 Temporary Access Road 43 - 0.0117 - 57 - 4-515

S-E40 Dry Creek Monroe Huntington 37.450757 -80.667719 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 1 05050002 Pipeline ROW 82 - 0.0227 - 366 - 4-515

S-E41 UNT to Dry Creek Monroe Huntington 37.450692 -80.667650 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050002 Pipeline ROW 23 - 0.0010 - 5 - 4-516

S-C38 UNT to Painter Run Monroe Huntington 37.427033 -80.694254 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050002 Pipeline ROW 25 - 0.0041 - 66 - 4-521

S-C38 UNT to Painter Run Monroe Huntington 37.426915 -80.694499 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050002 Pipeline ROW 89 - 0.0143 - 231 - 4-521

S-C39 Painter Run Monroe Huntington 37.426686 -80.694499 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 1 05050002 Pipeline ROW 109 - 0.0125 - 202 - 4-521

S-C41 UNT to Painter Run Monroe Huntington 37.426161 -80.694592 Intermittent RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050002 Pipeline ROW 143 - 0.0100 - 161 - 4-521

S-C40 UNT to Painter Run Monroe Huntington 37.425372 -80.693417 Perennial RPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 05050002 Temporary Access Road 77 - 0.0053 - 26 - 4-521

S-Q12 UNT to Kimballton Branch Giles Norfolk 37.375311 -80.680878 Ephemeral NRPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 05050002 Pipeline ROW 86 - 0.0079 - 127 - 4-531

S-Q13 Kimballton Branch Giles Norfolk 37.374377 -80.682038 Perennial RPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 05050002 Pipeline ROW 90 - 0.0310 - 500 - 4-532

S-P6 UNT to Stony Creek Giles Norfolk 37.362202 -80.688092 Ephemeral NRPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 05050002 Pipeline ROW 78 - 0.0107 - 173 - 4-535

S-S5-Braid-2 Stony Creek Giles Norfolk 37.360325 -80.684214 Ephemeral NRPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 05050002 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0028 - 13 - 4-536

S-S5-Braid-1 Stony Creek Giles Norfolk 37.360276 -80.684193 Ephemeral NRPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 05050002 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0032 - 16 - 4-536 Candy darter, Green floater, pistol grip, Natural S-S5 Stony Creek Giles Norfolk 37.360071 -80.683960 Perennial RPW 05050002 Timber Mat Crossing 40 - 0.0184 - 178 - 4-536 Trout, Coldwater Fishery, Stockable Trout S-G29 UNT to Dry Branch Giles Norfolk 37.350430 -80.658259 Ephemeral NRPW - 05050002 Pipeline ROW 30 - 0.0028 - 13 - 4-541

S-G30 UNT to Dry Branch Giles Norfolk 37.350373 -80.658230 Ephemeral NRPW - 05050002 Pipeline ROW 85 - 0.0156 - 252 - 4-541

S-G32 Dry Branch Giles Norfolk 37.349095 -80.652040 Intermittent RPW - 05050002 Pipeline ROW 110 - 0.0152 - 244 - 4-542

S-G33 UNT to Dry Branch Giles Norfolk 37.348641 -80.647225 Perennial RPW - 05050002 Pipeline ROW 99 - 0.0182 - 293 - 4-542

S-G35 UNT to Little Stony Creek Giles Norfolk 37.344876 -80.633426 Perennial RPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 05050002 Timber Mat Crossing 25 - 0.0115 - 69 - 4-544

S-SS4 UNT to Little Stony Creek Giles Norfolk 37.344859 -80.631295 Ephemeral NRPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 05050002 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0014 - 7 - 4-544

S-G35 UNT to Little Stony Creek Giles Norfolk 37.344779 -80.633379 Perennial RPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 05050002 Timber Mat Crossing 25 - 0.0115 - 69 - 4-544

7 of 13 Table 2. Stream Impacts Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Temporary Permanent Temporary Permanent Temporary Fill Permanent Fill Stream ID NHD Stream Name1 County USACE District Latitude2 Longitude2 Flow Regime Water Type3 Stream Designation4 HUC 8 Impact Type Impact Impact Impact Area Impact Area Figure (cubic yard)6 (cubic yard)7 (linear ft) (linear ft) (acres)5 (acres)5

S-Z7 UNT to Little Stony Creek Giles Norfolk 37.344278 -80.626185 Intermittent RPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 05050002 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0014 - 7 - 4-545

S-Z7-Braid-1 UNT to Little Stony Creek Giles Norfolk 37.344277 -80.626113 Ephemeral NRPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 05050002 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0014 - 7 - 4-545

S-Z9 UNT to Little Stony Creek Giles Norfolk 37.344163 -80.628400 Perennial RPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 05050002 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0018 - 9 - 4-544

S-Z10 UNT to Little Stony Creek Giles Norfolk 37.342351 -80.620823 Intermittent RPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 05050002 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0055 - 27 - 4-545

S-Z11 UNT to Little Stony Creek Giles Norfolk 37.342236 -80.620542 Perennial RPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery, Stockable Trout 05050002 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0023 - 11 - 4-545

S-Z12-EPH UNT to Little Stony Creek Giles Norfolk 37.342214 -80.620312 Ephemeral RPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 05050002 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0028 - 13 - 4-545

S-Z13 Little Stony Creek Giles Norfolk 37.342172 -80.620090 Perennial RPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery, Stockable Trout 05050002 Timber Mat Crossing 25 - 0.0115 - 69 - 4-545

S-Z14 UNT to Little Stony Creek Giles Norfolk 37.340977 -80.618031 Intermittent RPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 05050002 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0018 - 9 - 4-545

S-YZ1 Doe Creek Giles Norfolk 37.338952 -80.614618 Intermittent RPW - 05050002 Temporary Access Road 102 - 0.0234 - 113 - 4-546

S-A34 UNT to Doe Creek Giles Norfolk 37.337763 -80.606008 Ephemeral NRPW - 05050002 Pipeline ROW 86 - 0.0138 - 223 - 4-548

S-A33 UNT to Doe Creek Giles Norfolk 37.337639 -80.605571 Ephemeral NRPW - 05050002 Pipeline ROW 111 - 0.0178 - 288 - 4-548

S-YZ1 Doe Creek Giles Norfolk 37.337562 -80.614711 Intermittent RPW - 05050002 Temporary Access Road 92 - 0.0211 - 102 - 4-546

S-YZ1 Doe Creek Giles Norfolk 37.337048 -80.614625 Intermittent RPW - 05050002 Temporary Access Road 121 - 0.0278 - 134 - 4-546

S-A32 UNT to Doe Creek Giles Norfolk 37.335094 -80.596868 Perennial RPW - 05050002 Pipeline ROW 78 - 0.0287 - 462 - 4-549

S-QQ2 Sinking Creek Craig Norfolk 37.333152 -80.429438 Perennial RPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery, Stockable Trout 05050002 Temporary Access Road 40 - 0.0321 - 156 - 4-581

S-MN11-Upstream UNT to Sinking Creek Giles Norfolk 37.332869 -80.559168 Ephemeral NRPW - 05050002 Temporary Access Road 15 - 0.0014 - 7 - 4-554

S-MN11-Upstream UNT to Sinking Creek Giles Norfolk 37.332191 -80.559979 Ephemeral NRPW - 05050002 Temporary Access Road 30 - 0.0028 - 13 - 4-554 S-MN11- UNT to Sinking Creek Giles Norfolk 37.332146 -80.560079 Ephemeral NRPW - 05050002 Temporary Access Road 37 - 0.0042 - 21 - 4-554 Downstream S-Y3 UNT to Doe Creek Giles Norfolk 37.331748 -80.583355 Ephemeral NRPW - 05050002 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0046 - 22 - 4-551

S-Y2 Doe Creek Giles Norfolk 37.331332 -80.583047 Perennial RPW - 05050002 Timber Mat Crossing 25 - 0.0115 - 69 - 4-551

S-PP4 UNT to Sinking Creek Craig Norfolk 37.328329 -80.422810 Intermittent RPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 05050002 Pipeline ROW 84 - 0.0039 - 62 - 4-579

S-PP3 UNT to Sinking Creek Craig Norfolk 37.326705 -80.425803 Perennial RPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 05050002 Pipeline ROW 82 - 0.0056 - 91 - 4-579

S-RR4 UNT to Sinking Creek Giles Norfolk 37.326015 -80.556831 Perennial RPW - 05050002 Temporary Access Road 85 - 0.0059 - 28 - 4-556

S-E24 UNT to Sinking Creek Giles Norfolk 37.325728 -80.565082 Perennial RPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 05050002 Pipeline ROW 81 - 0.0372 - 600 - 4-553

S-E25-Downstream UNT to Sinking Creek Giles Norfolk 37.325638 -80.564680 Perennial RPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 05050002 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0037 - 18 - 4-553

S-E25-Upstream UNT to Sinking Creek Giles Norfolk 37.325607 -80.564373 Perennial RPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 05050002 Pipeline ROW 15 - 0.0034 - 17 - 4-553

S-E25-Downstream UNT to Sinking Creek Giles Norfolk 37.325566 -80.564634 Perennial RPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 05050002 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0037 - 18 - 4-553

S-PP1 UNT to Sinking Creek Craig Norfolk 37.324781 -80.431446 Intermittent RPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 05050002 Pipeline ROW 86 - 0.0059 - 96 - 4-578

S-RR5 UNT to Sinking Creek Giles Norfolk 37.323702 -80.555627 Perennial RPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 05050002 Pipeline ROW 83 - 0.0191 - 307 - 4-555

S-PA07 UNT to Sinking Creek Giles Norfolk 37.323533 -80.555257 Intermittent RPW - 05050002 Pipeline ROW 115 - 0.0053 - 85 - 4-555

S-IJ18-EPH UNT to Sinking Creek Giles Norfolk 37.322737 -80.552396 Ephemeral NRPW - 05050002 Pipeline ROW 74 - 0.0102 - 164 - 4-555

S-IJ19 UNT to Sinking Creek Giles Norfolk 37.322194 -80.553058 Ephemeral NRPW - 05050002 Temporary Access Road 43 - 0.0039 - 19 - 4-555

S-IJ19 UNT to Sinking Creek Giles Norfolk 37.321823 -80.55311 Ephemeral NRPW - 05050002 Temporary Access Road 9 - 0.0008 - 4 - 4-555

S-IJ18-INT UNT to Sinking Creek Giles Norfolk 37.321756 -80.553011 Intermittent RPW - 05050002 Temporary Access Road 44 - 0.0040 - 20 - 4-555

S-PP22 UNT to Craig Creek Montgomery Norfolk 37.321090 -80.412831 Intermittent RPW Atlantic Pigtoe, Coldwater Fishery 02080201 Timber Mat Crossing 44 - 0.0040 - 20 - 4-584

S-OO12 UNT to Sinking Creek Giles Norfolk 37.318956 -80.440648 Ephemeral NRPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 05050002 Pipeline ROW 25 - 0.0011 - 6 - 4-577

S-OO13 UNT to Sinking Creek Giles Norfolk 37.318930 -80.440930 Perennial RPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 05050002 Pipeline ROW 77 - 0.0354 - 570 - 4-577

S-OO14 UNT to Sinking Creek Giles Norfolk 37.318647 -80.441619 Perennial RPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 05050002 Pipeline ROW 86 - 0.0079 - 127 - 4-577

S-IJ17 UNT to Sinking Creek Giles Norfolk 37.318324 -80.547720 Ephemeral NRPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 05050002 Pipeline ROW 31 - 0.0057 - 28 - 4-558

S-IJ16-b UNT to Sinking Creek Giles Norfolk 37.318246 -80.547711 Ephemeral NRPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 05050002 Pipeline ROW 78 - 0.0179 - 289 - 4-558

S-PP21 UNT to Craig Creek Montgomery Norfolk 37.317187 -80.409235 Perennial RPW Atlantic Pigtoe, Coldwater Fishery 02080201 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0018 - 9 - 4-584

S-PP20 UNT to Craig Creek Montgomery Norfolk 37.316523 -80.408646 Perennial RPW Atlantic Pigtoe, Coldwater Fishery 02080201 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0028 - 13 - 4-584

S-RR13 Craig Creek Montgomery Norfolk 37.314504 -80.402613 Perennial RPW Atlantic Pigtoe, Stockable Trout, Coldwater Fishery 02080201 Temporary Access Road 41 - 0.0329 - 159 - 4-585

S-HH18 UNT to Craig Creek Montgomery Norfolk 37.313910 -80.398683 Perennial RPW Atlatnic pigtoe, orangefin madtom Coldwater Fishery 02080201 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0028 - 13 - 4-586

S-RR14 UNT to Craig Creek Montgomery Norfolk 37.313615 -80.402521 Ephemeral NRPW Atlantic Pigtoe, Coldwater Fishery 02080201 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0032 - 16 - 4-585

S-OO6 Craig Creek Montgomery Norfolk 37.313511 -80.404606 Perennial RPW Atlantic Pigtoe, Stockable Trout, Coldwater Fishery 02080201 Timber Mat Crossing 35 - 0.0161 - 136 - 4-585

S-QQ3 UNT to Sinking Creek Giles Norfolk 37.311869 -80.532365 Ephemeral NRPW - 05050002 Temporary Access Road 15 - 0.0007 - 3 - 4-560

S-IJ16-a UNT to Sinking Creek Giles Norfolk 37.311730 -80.544091 Ephemeral NRPW - 05050002 Permanent Access Road 6 - 0.0010 - 5 - 4-559

S-IJ16-a UNT to Sinking Creek Giles Norfolk 37.311730 -80.544091 Ephemeral NRPW - 05050002 Permanent Access Road - 45 - 0.0072 - 35 4-559 Green floater, Non-listed mussels, Natural Trout, S-NN17 Sinking Creek Giles Norfolk 37.311616 -80.515786 Perennial RPW 05050002 Timber Mat Crossing 55 - 0.0253 - 336 - 4-564 Coldwater Fishery, Stockable Trout S-KL43 UNT to Sinking Creek Giles Norfolk 37.307524 -80.466665 Perennial RPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 05050002 Pipeline ROW 75 - 0.0172 - 278 - 4-573

S-NN11 UNT to Sinking Creek Giles Norfolk 37.305508 -80.467231 Intermittent RPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 05050002 Pipeline ROW 84 - 0.0096 - 156 - 4-573

S-NN12 UNT to Sinking Creek Giles Norfolk 37.300454 -80.472911 Ephemeral NRPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 05050002 Pipeline ROW 88 - 0.0040 - 65 - 4-571

S-MN21 UNT to Mill Creek Montgomery Norfolk 37.299397 -80.391243 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom, Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 03010101 Pipeline ROW 80 - 0.0129 - 207 - 4-588

S-MM17 UNT to Sinking Creek Giles Norfolk 37.298226 -80.480624 Perennial RPW - 05050002 Temporary Access Road 49 - 0.0022 - 11 - 4-569

S-MN22 UNT to Mill Creek Montgomery Norfolk 37.297166 -80.386612 Ephemeral NRPW Orangefin madtom, Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 03010101 Pipeline ROW 96 - 0.0044 - 71 - 4-589

S-RR2 Greenbriar Branch Giles Norfolk 37.296666 -80.494174 Perennial RPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 05050002 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0037 - 18 - 4-567

S-YZ6 UNT to Greenbriar Branch Giles Norfolk 37.296612 -80.494165 Intermittent RPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 05050002 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0028 - 13 - 4-567

S-EF62 UNT to Mill Creek Montgomery Norfolk 37.296356 -80.375118 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom, Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 03010101 Pipeline ROW 76 - 0.0192 - 310 - 4-590

8 of 13 Table 2. Stream Impacts Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Temporary Permanent Temporary Permanent Temporary Fill Permanent Fill Stream ID NHD Stream Name1 County USACE District Latitude2 Longitude2 Flow Regime Water Type3 Stream Designation4 HUC 8 Impact Type Impact Impact Impact Area Impact Area Figure (cubic yard)6 (cubic yard)7 (linear ft) (linear ft) (acres)5 (acres)5

S-MM18 UNT to Sinking Creek Giles Norfolk 37.296226 -80.481455 Ephemeral NRPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 05050002 Pipeline ROW 88 - 0.0101 - 163 - 4-569

S-IJ52 UNT to Mill Creek Montgomery Norfolk 37.296153 -80.367510 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom, Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 03010101 Pipeline ROW 84 - 0.0309 - 498 - 4-591 Orangefin madtom, Non-listed mussels, Natural S-EF65 Mill Creek Montgomery Norfolk 37.295743 -80.375921 Intermittent RPW 03010101 Pipeline ROW 152 - 0.0209 - 338 - 4-590 Trout, Coldwater Fishery, Stockable Trout Roanoke logperch, Orangefin madtom, Non-listed S-G36 North Fork Roanoke River Montgomery Norfolk 37.268586 -80.313161 Perennial RPW 03010101 Temporary Access Road 26 - 0.0119 - 58 - 4-602 mussels, Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery UNT to North Fork Roanoke S-G38 Montgomery Norfolk 37.267002 -80.312898 Ephemeral NRPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0014 - 7 - 4-603 River UNT to North Fork Roanoke S-G40 Montgomery Norfolk 37.264882 -80.307302 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom, Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0014 - 7 - 4-603 River UNT to North Fork Roanoke S-PP23 Montgomery Norfolk 37.264858 -80.307151 Ephemeral NRPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0011 - 6 - 4-604 River UNT to North Fork Roanoke S-G39 Montgomery Norfolk 37.264817 -80.308486 Intermittent RPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 03010101 Pipeline ROW 82 - 0.0113 - 182 - 4-604 River S-MM14 UNT to Flatwoods Branch Montgomery Norfolk 37.258717 -80.293210 Ephemeral NRPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 105 - 0.0169 - 272 - 4-608

S-MM15 UNT to Flatwoods Branch Montgomery Norfolk 37.258673 -80.296446 Intermittent RPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 82 - 0.0113 - 182 - 4-608

S-MM11 UNT to Flatwoods Branch Montgomery Norfolk 37.258403 -80.288186 Ephemeral NRPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 80 - 0.0147 - 237 - 4-609

S-F15 UNT to Flatwoods Branch Montgomery Norfolk 37.258198 -80.286029 Intermittent RPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 129 - 0.0178 - 287 - 4-609

S-MM13 UNT to Flatwoods Branch Montgomery Norfolk 37.258176 -80.289222 Ephemeral NRPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 85 - 0.0098 - 157 - 4-608

S-F16a/F16b UNT to Flatwoods Branch Montgomery Norfolk 37.257998 -80.284735 Ephemeral NRPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 81 - 0.0056 - 90 - 4-609

S-C36 UNT to Flatwoods Branch Montgomery Norfolk 37.257260 -80.281611 Intermittent RPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 96 - 0.0066 - 107 - 4-609

S-C36 UNT to Flatwoods Branch Montgomery Norfolk 37.257133 -80.281475 Intermittent RPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 36 - 0.0025 - 40 - 4-609

S-MM31 UNT to Flatwoods Branch Montgomery Norfolk 37.256959 -80.280329 Ephemeral NRPW - 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0018 - 9 - 4-609

S-C29 Flatwoods Branch Montgomery Norfolk 37.256387 -80.278021 Ephemeral NRPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 46 - 0.0013 - 20 - 4-610

S-C25 UNT to Bradshaw Creek Montgomery Norfolk 37.254342 -80.267895 Intermittent RPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 03010101 Pipeline ROW 115 - 0.0079 - 128 - 4-611

S-C24 UNT to Bradshaw Creek Montgomery Norfolk 37.254135 -80.266743 Intermittent RPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 03010101 Pipeline ROW 108 - 0.0074 - 120 - 4-611 Roanoke logperch, Orangefin madtom, Natural S-C21 Bradshaw Creek Montgomery Norfolk 37.251791 -80.258990 Perennial RPW 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 25 - 0.0115 - 69 - 4-613 Trout, Coldwater Fishery S-NN19 UNT to Roanoke River Montgomery Norfolk 37.244319 -80.206995 Intermittent RPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 76 - 0.0061 - 99 - 4-627

S-AB16 UNT to Roanoke River Montgomery Norfolk 37.231693 -80.198778 Intermittent RPW - 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0023 - 11 - 4-631

S-I1 UNT to Roanoke River Montgomery Norfolk 37.231179 -80.198460 Intermittent RPW - 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0064 - 31 - 4-631

S-CD12b UNT to South Fork Roanoke River Montgomery Norfolk 37.229764 -80.201144 Perennial RPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0028 - 13 - 4-631

S-EF19 UNT to Indian Run Montgomery Norfolk 37.216102 -80.197390 Ephemeral NRPW Warmwater Fishery, Tier 2 03010101 Pipeline ROW 79 - 0.0091 - 146 - 4-634

S-EF20a UNT to Roanoke River Montgomery Norfolk 37.210922 -80.193318 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom, Non-listed mussels 03010101 Pipeline ROW 80 - 0.0110 - 178 - 4-635

S-MM22 UNT to Roanoke River Montgomery Norfolk 37.205284 -80.187282 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom, Non-listed mussels 03010101 Pipeline ROW 175 - 0.0603 - 972 - 4-637

S-IJ50 UNT to Roanoke River Roanoke Norfolk 37.194064 -80.167933 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom, Non-listed mussels 03010101 Pipeline ROW 77 - 0.0442 - 713 - 4-641

S-Y13 UNT to Bottom Creek Roanoke Norfolk 37.187687 -80.151146 Intermittent RPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 03010101 Pipeline ROW 85 - 0.0156 - 252 - 4-644 Orangefin madtom, Non-listed mussels, Natural S-Y14 UNT to Bottom Creek Roanoke Norfolk 37.187568 -80.151049 Perennial RPW 03010101 Pipeline ROW 77 - 0.0247 - 399 - 4-644 Trout, Coldwater Fishery S-EF57 UNT to Bottom Creek Roanoke Norfolk 37.181736 -80.148948 Intermittent RPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 03010101 Temporary Access Road 42 - 0.0077 - 37 - 4-645

S-EF55 UNT to Bottom Creek Roanoke Norfolk 37.181506 -80.149497 Intermittent RPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 03010101 Pipeline ROW 33 - 0.0061 - 98 - 4-645

S-EF34b UNT to Bottom Creek Roanoke Norfolk 37.181385 -80.149140 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom, Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 03010101 Pipeline ROW 81 - 0.0186 - 300 - 4-645

S-EF33 UNT to Bottom Creek Roanoke Norfolk 37.179186 -80.141000 Intermittent RPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 03010101 Pipeline ROW 148 - 0.0306 - 493 - 4-647

S-IJ82 UNT to Bottom Creek Roanoke Norfolk 37.170458 -80.138216 Intermittent RPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0069 - 33 - 4-648

S-IJ85 UNT to Bottom Creek Roanoke Norfolk 37.169474 -80.130356 Perennial RPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 03010101 Permanent Access Road - 50 - 0.0092 - 44 4-650

S-IJ83 UNT to Bottom Creek Roanoke Norfolk 37.169211 -80.138258 Intermittent RPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 148 - 0.0170 - 82 - 4-649

S-IJ88 Bottom Creek Roanoke Norfolk 37.168395 -80.138295 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom, Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 30 - 0.0450 - 726 - 4-649

S-IJ84 UNT to Bottom Creek Roanoke Norfolk 37.168361 -80.138381 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom, Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 35 - 0.0121 - 58 - 4-649

S-IJ89 UNT to Bottom Creek Roanoke Norfolk 37.165862 -80.139317 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom, Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0046 - 22 - 4-649

S-IJ90 UNT to Bottom Creek Roanoke Norfolk 37.165685 -80.139378 Intermittent RPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0023 - 11 - 4-649

S-KL25 UNT to Mill Creek Roanoke Norfolk 37.160173 -80.134799 Intermittent RPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 03010101 Pipeline ROW 82 - 0.0094 - 152 - 4-651

S-ST9b UNT to Mill Creek Roanoke Norfolk 37.154424 -80.129179 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom, Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 03010101 Pipeline ROW 20 - 0.0069 - 33 - 4-652

S-ST9b UNT to Mill Creek Roanoke Norfolk 37.154424 -80.129179 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom, Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0069 - 33 - 4-652

S-KL55 UNT to Mill Creek Roanoke Norfolk 37.150009 -80.13246 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom, Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0069 - 33 - 4-653

S-IJ12 UNT to Mill Creek Roanoke Norfolk 37.148333 -80.133919 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom, Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0060 - 29 - 4-653

S-EF44 UNT to Bottom Creek Roanoke Norfolk 37.143003 -80.138399 Intermittent RPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0032 - 16 - 4-654 Orangefin madtom, Stockable Trout, Natural Trout, S-IJ43 Mill Creek Roanoke Norfolk 37.138636 -80.139715 Perennial RPW 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0083 - 40 - 4-655 Coldwater Fishery S-Y9 UNT to Mill Creek Roanoke Norfolk 37.134576 -80.137649 Intermittent RPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 44 - 0.0040 - 20 - 4-656

S-Y7 UNT to Mill Creek Roanoke Norfolk 37.134481 -80.137622 Intermittent RPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 32 - 0.0029 - 14 - 4-656

S-Y8 UNT to Mill Creek Roanoke Norfolk 37.134176 -80.137484 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom, Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0018 - 9 - 4-656

S-B22 UNT to Mill Creek Roanoke Norfolk 37.128922 -80.133769 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom, Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0018 - 9 - 4-659

S-B23 UNT to Mill Creek Roanoke Norfolk 37.128853 -80.133910 Intermittent RPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 14 - 0.0006 - 3 - 4-659

S-B25 UNT to Mill Creek Roanoke Norfolk 37.128490 -80.132601 Intermittent RPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 76 - 0.0087 - 42 - 4-659

S-B21 UNT to Mill Creek Roanoke Norfolk 37.128484 -80.130943 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom, Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 03010101 Pipeline ROW 92 - 0.0084 - 136 - 4-659

S-H1 Green Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.127733 -80.116787 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom, Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0046 - 22 - 4-661

S-G26 UNT to Green Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.127077 -80.111387 Intermittent RPW - 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0032 - 16 - 4-662

S-G27 UNT to Green Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.126962 -80.111052 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0032 - 16 - 4-662

9 of 13 Table 2. Stream Impacts Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Temporary Permanent Temporary Permanent Temporary Fill Permanent Fill Stream ID NHD Stream Name1 County USACE District Latitude2 Longitude2 Flow Regime Water Type3 Stream Designation4 HUC 8 Impact Type Impact Impact Impact Area Impact Area Figure (cubic yard)6 (cubic yard)7 (linear ft) (linear ft) (acres)5 (acres)5

S-G24 UNT to Green Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.126412 -80.121398 Intermittent RPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 75 - 0.0103 - 167 - 4-661

S-G25 UNT to Green Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.125398 -80.121401 Intermittent RPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 42 - 0.0067 - 33 - 4-661

S-RR18 UNT to Green Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.125055 -80.113578 Intermittent RPW - 03010101 Permanent Access Road 8 - 0.0004 - 2 - 4-662 UNT to North Fork Blackwater S-D11 Franklin Norfolk 37.124137 -80.086182 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0046 - 22 - 4-666 River S-D8 North Fork Blackwater River Franklin Norfolk 37.123098 -80.074673 Perennial RPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 03010101 Pipeline ROW 78 - 0.0216 - 349 - 4-667 UNT to North Fork Blackwater S-D12 Franklin Norfolk 37.121558 -80.085642 Intermittent RPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 54 - 0.0074 - 120 - 4-666 River UNT to North Fork Blackwater S-D13 Franklin Norfolk 37.121513 -80.085680 Intermittent RPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 117 - 0.0107 - 173 - 4-666 River S-D14 UNT to North Fork Blackwater River Franklin Norfolk 37.121473 -80.088457 Intermittent RPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 234 - 0.0161 - 260 - 4-666 UNT to North Fork Blackwater S-II4 Franklin Norfolk 37.115679 -80.060300 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0069 - 33 - 4-670 River UNT to North Fork Blackwater S-GH7 Franklin Norfolk 37.106614 -80.054219 Perennial RPW - 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0041 - 20 - 4-672 River UNT to North Fork Blackwater S-GH15 Franklin Norfolk 37.106177 -80.050105 Intermittent RPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 75 - 0.0069 - 111 - 4-674 River UNT to North Fork Blackwater S-GH14 Franklin Norfolk 37.105883 -80.048861 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Pipeline ROW 76 - 0.0070 - 113 - 4-674 River UNT to North Fork Blackwater S-GH11 Franklin Norfolk 37.104707 -80.046220 Intermittent RPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 77 - 0.0053 - 86 - 4-674 River UNT to North Fork Blackwater S-GH9 Franklin Norfolk 37.104329 -80.045343 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Pipeline ROW 78 - 0.0072 - 116 - 4-674 River UNT to North Fork Blackwater S-RR08 Franklin Norfolk 37.103290 -80.041868 Ephemeral NRPW - 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0032 - 16 - 4-674 River UNT to North Fork Blackwater S-RR09 Franklin Norfolk 37.102491 -80.041046 Ephemeral NRPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 77 - 0.0159 - 257 - 4-675 River UNT to North Fork Blackwater S-RR11 Franklin Norfolk 37.101127 -80.039653 Ephemeral NRPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 77 - 0.0124 - 200 - 4-675 River UNT to North Fork Blackwater S-IJ1 Franklin Norfolk 37.093062 -80.027724 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Pipeline ROW 107 - 0.0295 - 476 - 4-677 River UNT to North Fork Blackwater S-IJ2 Franklin Norfolk 37.092891 -80.027593 Intermittent RPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 40 - 0.0023 - 37 - 4-677 River S-II6 UNT to Little Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.092697 -79.978402 Intermittent NRPW - 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0014 - 7 - 4-685 UNT to North Fork Blackwater S-IJ3 Franklin Norfolk 37.092600 -80.027231 Intermittent RPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 77 - 0.0088 - 143 - 4-677 River S-GH6 UNT to Little Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.092397 -79.983227 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0014 - 7 - 4-684

S-II12 UNT to Little Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.091608 -79.987839 Intermittent RPW - 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0009 - 4 - 4-684

S-II11 UNT to Little Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.091564 -79.988051 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0018 - 9 - 4-684

S-II8 UNT to Little Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.091413 -79.993944 Intermittent RPW - 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0009 - 4 - 4-683

S-II9 UNT to Little Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.091382 -79.990620 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0092 - 44 - 4-683

S-II7 UNT to Little Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.091354 -79.992013 Intermittent RPW - 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0018 - 9 - 4-683 UNT to North Fork Blackwater S-IJ4 Franklin Norfolk 37.091189 -80.024366 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0018 - 9 - 4-677 River S-KL2 UNT to Little Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.090361 -79.996354 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0017 - 8 - 4-682

S-GH2 UNT to Teels Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.090153 -79.953936 Intermittent RPW - 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0009 - 4 - 4-689

S-GH4 UNT to Teels Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.089812 -79.956077 Perennial RPW - 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0023 - 11 - 4-688

S-GH3 UNT to Teels Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.089745 -79.956042 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0028 - 13 - 4-688

S-IJ10 Little Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.089179 -80.005026 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0014 - 7 - 4-681

S-E29 UNT to Teels Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.089178 -79.950110 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Pipeline ROW 80 - 0.0147 - 237 - 4-689

S-E28 Teels Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.089047 -79.9613 Perennial RPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 82 - 0.0226 - 364 - 4-687

S-E28 Teels Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.085247 -79.948057 Perennial RPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 76 - 0.0209 - 338 - 4-687

S-E28 Teels Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.082875 -79.945556 Perennial RPW - 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 101 - 0.0278 - 449 - 4-687

S-EF4 UNT to Teels Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.078963 -79.941911 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Pipeline ROW 80 - 0.0202 - 326 - 4-691

S-EF7 UNT to Teels Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.074664 -79.941123 Ephemeral NRPW - 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0009 - 4 - 4-692

S-EF7 UNT to Teels Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.074636 -79.941336 Ephemeral NRPW - 03010101 ATWS 22 - 0.0010 - 5 - 4-692

S-EF12 Teels Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.073367 -79.939865 Perennial RPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 79 - 0.0363 - 585 - 4-692

S-MM42 UNT to Teels Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.070703 -79.937069 Ephemeral NRPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 81 - 0.0037 - 60 - 4-693

S-D23 Teels Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.070322 -79.931039 Perennial RPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 92 - 0.0479 - 772 - 4-694

S-D22 UNT to Teels Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.070101 -79.929732 Intermittent RPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 83 - 0.0152 - 246 - 4-694

S-D18 UNT to Teels Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.069560 -79.926213 Ephemeral NRPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 30 - 0.0014 - 7 - 4-694

S-RR15 UNT to Teels Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.069542 -79.933892 Perennial RPW - 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0006 - 31 - 4-694

S-D20 UNT to Teels Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.069485 -79.926230 Intermittent RPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 76 - 0.0140 - 225 - 4-694

S-EF48 UNT to Blackwater River Franklin Norfolk 37.064748 -79.874420 Intermittent RPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 86 - 0.0039 - 64 - 4-705

S-YZ4 UNT to Blackwater River Franklin Norfolk 37.064723 -79.878190 Ephemeral NRPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 84 - 0.0058 - 93 - 4-704

S-C14 Teels Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.063956 -79.921985 Perennial RPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 90 - 0.0839 - 1,353 - 4-696

S-YZ5 UNT to Blackwater River Franklin Norfolk 37.063464 -79.878281 Ephemeral NRPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 86 - 0.0079 - 127 - 4-704

S-KL41 UNT to Blackwater River Franklin Norfolk 37.062262 -79.862639 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Pipeline ROW 75 - 0.0207 - 333 - 4-706

S-KL39 UNT to Blackwater River Franklin Norfolk 37.061193 -79.880018 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Pipeline ROW 121 - 0.0181 - 291 - 4-704

S-C16 UNT to Teels Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.060610 -79.921179 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0069 - 33 - 4-696

S-KL54 UNT to Maggodee Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.059535 -79.840624 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Pipeline ROW 76 - 0.0174 - 281 - 4-710

S-C8 UNT to Blackwater River Franklin Norfolk 37.059098 -79.853595 Intermittent RPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 86 - 0.0099 - 159 - 4-708

S-F4 UNT to Blackwater River Franklin Norfolk 37.059060 -79.853379 Ephemeral NRPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 82 - 0.0188 - 91 - 4-708

S-C17 Teels Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.058390 -79.918015 Perennial RPW - 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 30 - 0.0138 - 100 - 4-696

S-KL52 UNT to Maggodee Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.058165 -79.844877 Ephemeral NRPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 105 - 0.0024 - 39 - 4-709

10 of 13 Table 2. Stream Impacts Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Temporary Permanent Temporary Permanent Temporary Fill Permanent Fill Stream ID NHD Stream Name1 County USACE District Latitude2 Longitude2 Flow Regime Water Type3 Stream Designation4 HUC 8 Impact Type Impact Impact Impact Area Impact Area Figure (cubic yard)6 (cubic yard)7 (linear ft) (linear ft) (acres)5 (acres)5

S-S11 UNT to Maggodee Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.057776 -79.838583 Perennial RPW - 03010101 Temporary Access Road 41 - 0.0104 - 50 - 4-710

S-F8 UNT to Maggodee Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.057724 -79.836406 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Pipeline ROW 83 - 0.0572 - 922 - 4-710

S-CD6 Little Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.057584 -79.913921 Perennial RPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 77 - 0.1016 - 1,639 - 4-698

S-HH4 UNT to Maggodee Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.056594 -79.835785 Intermittent RPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 97 - 0.0200 - 323 - 4-711

S-KL51 UNT to Blackwater River Franklin Norfolk 37.056084 -79.850384 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Pipeline ROW 67 - 0.0085 - 136 - 4-708

S-KL38 UNT to Blackwater River Franklin Norfolk 37.055912 -79.883177 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Pipeline ROW 78 - 0.0125 - 202 - 4-702

S-C20 UNT to Maggodee Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.055193 -79.833881 Ephemeral NRPW - 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0018 - 9 - 4-711

S-C19 Maggodee Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.055147 -79.830098 Perennial RPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 75 - 0.0690 - 1,113 - 4-711

S-KL36 UNT to Blackwater River Franklin Norfolk 37.053336 -79.884604 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0034 - 17 - 4-702

S-F11 Blackwater River Franklin Norfolk 37.052843 -79.825711 Perennial TNW Non-listed mussels 03010101 Pipeline ROW 91 - 0.1553 - 2,506 - 4-712

S-KL35 UNT to Blackwater River Franklin Norfolk 37.052125 -79.886182 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 35 - 0.0020 - 10 - 4-702

S-F9b UNT to Blackwater River Franklin Norfolk 37.049238 -79.817223 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Pipeline ROW 76 - 0.0262 - 422 - 4-713

S-II2 Little Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.049219 -79.908513 Perennial RPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 76 - 0.0745 - 1,203 - 4-699

S-F10 UNT to Blackwater River Franklin Norfolk 37.048037 -79.813934 Ephemeral NRPW - 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0041 - 20 - 4-713

S-CD1 UNT to Blackwater River Franklin Norfolk 37.047765 -79.897636 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Pipeline ROW 104 - 0.0084 - 135 - 4-701

S-F9a UNT to Blackwater River Franklin Norfolk 37.047172 -79.813000 Intermittent RPW - 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0069 - 33 - 4-713

S-MM29 UNT to Maple Branch Franklin Norfolk 37.043871 -79.822898 Perennial RPW - 03010101 Temporary Access Road 42 - 0.0145 - 70 - 4-714

S-MM23 Maple Branch Franklin Norfolk 37.043854 -79.822974 Perennial RPW - 03010101 Temporary Access Road 78 - 0.0358 - 173 - 4-714

S-GG4 UNT to Blackwater River Franklin Norfolk 37.042742 -79.809015 Ephemeral NRPW - 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0046 - 22 - 4-716

S-A36 UNT to Foul Ground Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.037916 -79.804237 Ephemeral NRPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 77 - 0.0071 - 114 - 4-717

S-A38 UNT to Foul Ground Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.036271 -79.799442 Intermittent RPW - 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 30 - 0.0062 - 30 - 4-718

S-A40 UNT to Foul Ground Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.036173 -79.799240 Intermittent RPW - 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 13 - 0.0017 - 8 - 4-718

S-A41 Foul Ground Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.031714 -79.788213 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Pipeline ROW 76 - 0.0209 - 338 - 4-720

S-GH36 UNT to Foul Ground Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.031063 -79.778588 Intermittent RPW - 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0014 - 7 - 4-721

S-KL17 UNT to Foul Ground Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.031011 -79.778435 Intermittent RPW - 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0023 - 11 - 4-721

S-GH37 UNT to Foul Ground Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.030974 -79.778190 Intermittent RPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 46 - 0.0032 - 15 - 4-721

S-GH38 UNT to Foul Ground Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.030972 -79.778083 Intermittent RPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 7 - 0.0005 - 2 - 4-721

S-GH39 UNT to Foul Ground Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.030861 -79.778069 Intermittent RPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 103 - 0.0095 - 153 - 4-721

S-GH40 UNT to Foul Ground Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.028893 -79.774785 Ephemeral NRPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 89 - 0.0061 - 99 - 4-721

S-GH44 UNT to Foul Ground Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.028392 -79.773359 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 103 - 0.0142 - 69 - 4-721

S-G22 UNT to Poplar Camp Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.019612 -79.761958 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Pipeline ROW 80 - 0.0220 - 356 - 4-723

S-G23 UNT to Poplar Camp Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.019526 -79.762002 Intermittent RPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 42 - 0.0029 - 14 - 4-723

S-G21 UNT to Poplar Camp Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.019359 -79.761643 Intermittent RPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 54 - 0.0037 - 18 - 4-723

S-G20 Poplar Camp Creek Franklin Norfolk 37.017364 -79.760000 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0046 - 22 - 4-724

S-G18 UNT to Blackwater River Franklin Norfolk 37.009236 -79.754238 Intermittent RPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 81 - 0.0037 - 60 - 4-725

S-G17 UNT to Blackwater River Franklin Norfolk 37.005496 -79.752655 Ephemeral NRPW - 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0023 - 11 - 4-726

S-E18 UNT to Blackwater River Franklin Norfolk 37.001271 -79.747749 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Pipeline ROW 94 - 0.0151 - 244 - 4-727

S-E17 UNT to Blackwater River Franklin Norfolk 37.000529 -79.742760 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Pipeline ROW 95 - 0.0174 - 281 - 4-727

S-E14 UNT to Blackwater River Franklin Norfolk 36.995814 -79.735144 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Pipeline ROW 82 - 0.0376 - 607 - 4-728

S-H38 UNT to Jacks Creek Franklin Norfolk 36.989430 -79.722366 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0055 - 27 - 4-730

S-H32 UNT to Jacks Creek Franklin Norfolk 36.988273 -79.708199 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0046 - 22 - 4-732

S-H37 UNT to Jacks Creek Franklin Norfolk 36.988031 -79.717450 Ephemeral NRPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 82 - 0.0113 - 182 - 4-731

S-H34 UNT to Jacks Creek Franklin Norfolk 36.988009 -79.711881 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0014 - 7 - 4-732

S-H36 UNT to Jacks Creek Franklin Norfolk 36.988008 -79.714922 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0014 - 7 - 4-731

S-H30 UNT to Jacks Creek Franklin Norfolk 36.987961 -79.702711 Intermittent RPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 4 - 0.0001 - 1 - 4-734

S-A18 UNT to Jacks Creek Franklin Norfolk 36.987818 -79.700634 Intermittent RPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 87 - 0.0052 - 84 - 4-734

S-A19/H26 UNT to Jacks Creek Franklin Norfolk 36.987719 -79.698901 Intermittent RPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 212 - 0.0341 - 550 - 4-734

S-A20 UNT to Jacks Creek Franklin Norfolk 36.987715 -79.698555 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0032 - 16 - 4-734

S-H28 UNT to Jacks Creek Franklin Norfolk 36.985174 -79.692272 Ephemeral NRPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 16 - 0.0022 - 11 - 4-735

S-H27 UNT to Jacks Creek Franklin Norfolk 36.985124 -79.692272 Ephemeral NRPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 36 - 0.0083 - 40 - 4-735

S-A22 UNT to Jacks Creek Franklin Norfolk 36.984846 -79.691870 Intermittent RPW - 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0037 - 18 - 4-735

S-MM44 UNT to Little Jacks Creek Franklin Norfolk 36.982507 -79.687818 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0018 - 9 - 4-735

S-MM46 UNT to Little Jacks Creek Franklin Norfolk 36.982240 -79.687500 Intermittent RPW - 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 9 - 0.0006 - 3 - 4-735

S-MM45 UNT to Little Jacks Creek Franklin Norfolk 36.981971 -79.686901 Ephemeral NRPW - 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 33 - 0.0030 - 15 - 4-735

S-MM48 UNT to Little Jacks Creek Franklin Norfolk 36.979223 -79.684192 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 25 - 0.0040 - 19 - 4-736

S-H25 Little Jacks Creek Franklin Norfolk 36.978529 -79.682186 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0032 - 16 - 4-736

S-H24 UNT to Little Jacks Creek Franklin Norfolk 36.978025 -79.680682 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0046 - 22 - 4-736

S-H23 UNT to Turkey Creek Franklin Norfolk 36.976421 -79.677525 Ephemeral NRPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 92 - 0.0106 - 170 - 4-738

S-HH1 UNT to Turkey Creek Franklin Norfolk 36.974647 -79.674453 Ephemeral NRPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 18 - 0.0021 - 10 - 4-738

11 of 13 Table 2. Stream Impacts Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Temporary Permanent Temporary Permanent Temporary Fill Permanent Fill Stream ID NHD Stream Name1 County USACE District Latitude2 Longitude2 Flow Regime Water Type3 Stream Designation4 HUC 8 Impact Type Impact Impact Impact Area Impact Area Figure (cubic yard)6 (cubic yard)7 (linear ft) (linear ft) (acres)5 (acres)5

S-A13 Turkey Creek Franklin Norfolk 36.973282 -79.673075 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0037 - 18 - 4-738

S-A11 UNT to Turkey Creek Franklin Norfolk 36.973237 -79.669898 Ephemeral NRPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 55 - 0.0038 - 18 - 4-740

S-H17 Dinner Creek Franklin Norfolk 36.972125 -79.662987 Intermittent RPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 101 - 0.0185 - 299 - 4-741

S-A7 UNT to Dinner Creek Franklin Norfolk 36.972032 -79.662504 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0028 - 13 - 4-741

S-SS8 Polecat Creek Franklin Norfolk 36.970904 -79.657370 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom, 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0037 - 18 - 4-741

S-CD8 UNT to Owens Creek Franklin Norfolk 36.970522 -79.653726 Intermittent RPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 78 - 0.0081 - 130 - 4-742

S-AB8 UNT to Owens Creek Franklin Norfolk 36.970133 -79.651328 Intermittent RPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 84 - 0.0077 - 124 - 4-742

S-DD3 Owens Creek Franklin Norfolk 36.969118 -79.645042 Intermittent RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0069 - 33 - 4-743

S-G16 Strawfield Creek Franklin Norfolk 36.968640 -79.642174 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 30 - 0.0138 - 100 - 4-743

S-G15 UNT to Parrot Branch Franklin Norfolk 36.967711 -79.636590 Intermittent RPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 88 - 0.0182 - 293 - 4-744

S-G13 Parrot Branch Franklin Norfolk 36.967025 -79.630747 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0037 - 18 - 4-744

S-D3 UNT to Jonnikin Creek Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.965631 -79.605542 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0046 - 22 - 4-747

S-D4 UNT to Jonnikin Creek Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.965600 -79.604894 Intermittent RPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 105 - 0.0145 - 233 - 4-747

S-D2 Jonnikin Creek Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.965405 -79.599130 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0083 - 40 - 4-748

S-D7 UNT to Jonnikin Creek Franklin Norfolk 36.964763 -79.617043 Intermittent RPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 80 - 0.0147 - 237 - 4-746

S-D1-EPH UNT to Jonnikin Creek Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.964430 -79.595691 Ephemeral NRPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 61 - 0.0140 - 226 - 4-748

S-D1-INT UNT to Jonnikin Creek Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.964407 -79.595841 Intermittent RPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 29 - 0.0067 - 32 - 4-748

S-G11 UNT to Jonnikin Creek Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.962420 -79.590500 Intermittent RPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 77 - 0.0106 - 171 - 4-749

S-G9 UNT to Jonnikin Creek Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.959361 -79.586437 Intermittent RPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 79 - 0.0073 - 117 - 4-751

S-G8 UNT to Jonnikin Creek Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.957805 -79.583545 Intermittent RPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 90 - 0.0083 - 133 - 4-751

S-Q15 UNT to Jonnikin Creek Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.957580 -79.583492 Ephemeral NRPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 103 - 0.0118 - 191 - 4-751

S-A6 UNT to Rocky Creek Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.952275 -79.580460 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0023 - 11 - 4-750

S-H11-Braid UNT to Rocky Creek Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.949615 -79.579553 Ephemeral NRPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 85 - 0.0039 - 19 - 4-750

S-F2 UNT to Rocky Creek Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.944049 -79.571442 Ephemeral NRPW - 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0032 - 16 - 4-753

S-C7 UNT to Rocky Creek Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.944016 -79.571517 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0092 - 44 - 4-753

S-C3 Harpen Creek Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.929762 -79.526109 Perennial RPW Roanoke logperch, Orangefin madtom 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0083 - 40 - 4-758

S-C4 UNT to Harpen Creek Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.929745 -79.526290 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 58 - 0.0053 - 26 - 4-758

S-H13 Harpen Creek Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.925105 -79.517350 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Pipeline ROW 77 - 0.0354 - 570 - 4-759

S-G6 UNT to Harpen Creek Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.920737 -79.505898 Intermittent RPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 80 - 0.0110 - 178 - 4-761

S-G5 UNT to Harpen Creek Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.917694 -79.496604 Ephemeral NRPW - 03010101 Pipeline ROW 77 - 0.0106 - 171 - 4-762

S-G4 Harpen Creek Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.916463 -79.492669 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 30 - 0.0138 - 100 - 4-762

S-G3 UNT to Harpen Creek Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.915658 -79.490029 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0041 - 20 - 4-762

S-CC16 UNT to Harpen Creek Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.913003 -79.487838 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0051 - 24 - 4-763

S-CC14 UNT to Cherrystone Creek Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.905329 -79.471492 Intermittent RPW - 03010105 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0037 - 18 - 4-765

S-CC13 UNT to Cherrystone Creek Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.905307 -79.471574 Intermittent RPW - 03010105 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0032 - 16 - 4-765

S-MM8 UNT to Cherrystone Creek Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.902991 -79.468220 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010105 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0028 - 13 - 4-766

S-CC15 UNT to Cherrystone Creek Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.901941 -79.466535 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010105 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0028 - 13 - 4-766

S-CC8 UNT to Cherrystone Creek Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.899437 -79.462685 Intermittent RPW - 03010105 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0037 - 18 - 4-766

S-CC5 UNT to Cherrystone Creek Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.899411 -79.462483 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010105 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0055 - 27 - 4-766

S-CC5 UNT to Cherrystone Creek Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.899248 -79.462396 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010105 Timber Mat Crossing 54 - 0.0149 - 240 - 4-766

S-CC9 UNT to Cherrystone Creek Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.897740 -79.458046 Ephemeral NRPW - 03010105 Pipeline ROW 81 - 0.0102 - 165 - 4-767

S-CC10 UNT to Cherrystone Creek Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.897315 -79.456119 Intermittent RPW - 03010105 Pipeline ROW 78 - 0.0161 - 260 - 4-767

S-MM10 UNT to Cherrystone Creek Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.895915 -79.452960 Intermittent RPW - 03010105 Pipeline ROW 9 - 0.0014 - 7 - 4-768

S-CC11 UNT to Cherrystone Creek Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.895808 -79.452920 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010105 Pipeline ROW 87 - 0.0160 - 258 - 4-768

S-CC1 Cherrystone Creek Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.894043 -79.445744 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010105 Pipeline ROW 82 - 0.0282 - 456 - 4-769

S-CC3 UNT to Cherrystone Creek Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.893727 -79.444763 Ephemeral NRPW - 03010105 Pipeline ROW 91 - 0.0167 - 270 - 4-769

S-P5 UNT to Cherrystone Creek Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.892751 -79.440053 Ephemeral NRPW - 03010105 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0023 - 11 - 4-769

S-IJ35-EPH UNT to Pole Bridge Branch Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.891451 -79.433781 Ephemeral NRPW - 03010105 Pipeline ROW 171 - 0.0157 - 253 - 4-770

S-Q4 UNT to Pole Bridge Branch Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.886114 -79.430914 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010105 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0023 - 11 - 4-771

S-Q3 Pole Bridge Branch Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.884444 -79.428220 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010105 Pipeline ROW 75 - 0.0430 - 694 - 4-771

S-Q2 UNT to Pole Bridge Branch Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.884284 -79.427914 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010105 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0032 - 16 - 4-771

S-B6 UNT to Pole Bridge Branch Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.879063 -79.420189 Ephemeral NRPW - 03010105 Pipeline ROW 84 - 0.0193 - 311 - 4-772

S-B8 UNT to Pole Bridge Branch Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.877937 -79.417992 Intermittent RPW - 03010105 Pipeline ROW 82 - 0.0075 - 121 - 4-773

S-B9 UNT to Pole Bridge Branch Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.877416 -79.416255 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010105 Pipeline ROW 78 - 0.0125 - 202 - 4-773

S-DD4-Braid-1 UNT to Mill Creek Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.871651 -79.404061 Intermittent RPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 03010105 Pipeline ROW 67 - 0.0092 - 149 - 4-775

S-DD4 UNT to Mill Creek Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.871478 -79.403907 Intermittent RPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 03010105 Pipeline ROW 147 - 0.0202 - 327 - 4-775

S-KL27 UNT to Mill Creek Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.866534 -79.400511 Ephemeral NRPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 03010105 Pipeline ROW 84 - 0.0019 - 31 - 4-776

S-C1 Mill Creek Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.863513 -79.397914 Intermittent RPW Natural Trout, Coldwater Fishery 03010105 Pipeline ROW 92 - 0.0127 - 204 - 4-777

S-G2 Little Cherrystone Creek Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.851931 -79.386051 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010105 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0032 - 16 - 4-779

12 of 13 Table 2. Stream Impacts Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Temporary Permanent Temporary Permanent Temporary Fill Permanent Fill Stream ID NHD Stream Name1 County USACE District Latitude2 Longitude2 Flow Regime Water Type3 Stream Designation4 HUC 8 Impact Type Impact Impact Impact Area Impact Area Figure (cubic yard)6 (cubic yard)7 (linear ft) (linear ft) (acres)5 (acres)5

S-B2 UNT to Little Cherrystone Creek Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.849394 -79.377780 Ephemeral NRPW - 03010105 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0023 - 11 - 4-780

S-H55 UNT to Little Cherrystone Creek Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.843486 -79.369222 Ephemeral NRPW - 03010105 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0014 - 7 - 4-781

S-H54 UNT to Little Cherrystone Creek Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.841112 -79.366848 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010105 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0055 - 27 - 4-781

S-GG11 UNT to Little Cherrystone Creek Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.841093 -79.366942 Perennial RPW - 03010105 Timber Mat Crossing 46 - 0.0084 - 41 - 4-781

S-H3 UNT to Little Cherrystone Creek Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.834501 -79.360244 Intermittent RPW - 03010105 Pipeline ROW 18 - 0.0025 - 12 - 4-783

S-H5 UNT to Little Cherrystone Creek Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.833412 -79.359823 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010105 Pipeline ROW 83 - 0.0152 - 246 - 4-783

S-OO1 UNT to Little Cherrystone Creek Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.830285 -79.356618 Intermittent RPW - 03010105 Pipeline ROW 84 - 0.0096 - 156 - 4-783

S-H44 UNT to Little Cherrystone Creek Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.829823 -79.346016 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010105 Timber Mat Crossing 33 - 0.0061 - 29 - 4-785

S-H42 UNT to Little Cherrystone Creek Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.828993 -79.344442 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010105 Permanent Access Road - 15 - 0.0017 - 11 4-785

S-H42 UNT to Little Cherrystone Creek Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.828958 -79.344315 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010105 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0032 - 16 - 4-785

S-OO2 UNT to Little Cherrystone Creek Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.828831 -79.353849 Intermittent RPW - 03010105 Pipeline ROW 78 - 0.0090 - 144 - 4-784

S-EF26 Little Cherrystone Creek Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.828207 -79.349814 Perennial RPW Orangefin madtom 03010105 Timber Mat Crossing 20 - 0.0092 - 44 - 4-784

Notes: 1 - For identified streams without a NHD (National Hydrography Dataset) name, the identified stream was given the name, “Unidentified Tributary (UNT)”, of the first named receiving waterbody 2 - In decimal degrees 3 - RPW = Relatively Permanent Waters - NRPW = Non-Relatively Permanent Waters - TNW = Traditional Navigable Waters 4 - See Section 1.9.2 and Section 4.2 for more information 5 - Impact acerages are rounded to 4 decimal places. 6 - Temporary fill discharge into waters of the U.S. Cubic yards rounded to the nerest whole number. 7 - Permanent fill associated with the construction of Permanent access road and facilities. Cubic yards rounded to the nerest whole number.

13 of 13 Table 3. Wetland Impacts Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project Permanent Cowardin USACE Water Temporary Conversion Permanent Fill Temporary Fill Permanent Fill Wetland ID* County USACE District Latitude1 Longitude1 HUC 8 Impact Type Figure Class2 Type3 Impacts (acres)4 Impacts Impacts (acres)4 (cubic yards)5 (cubic yards)6 (acres)4 W-B55 Harrison Pittsburgh 39.436246 -80.474973 PEM RPWWD 05020002 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0054 - - 26 - 4-36 W-J32-PEM-1 Harrison Pittsburgh 39.391614 -80.477085 PEM RPWWN 05020002 Temporary Access Road 0.0417 - - 202 - 4-44 W-A10a Harrison Pittsburgh 39.369569 -80.485054 PEM RPWWD 05020002 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0153 - - 74 - 4-49 W-B1a Harrison Pittsburgh 39.360192 -80.492766 PEM NRPWW 05020002 Pipeline ROW 0.0119 - - 192 - 4-50 W-A40 Harrison Pittsburgh 39.358924 -80.493367 PEM RPWWN 05020002 Pipeline ROW/ATWS 0.3111 - - 1,506 - 4-51 W-A39 Harrison Pittsburgh 39.358865 -80.490797 PEM RPWWN 05020002 Permanent Access Road 0.0280 - - 136 - 4-51 W-ST11 Harrison Pittsburgh 39.338239 -80.519656 PEM NRPWW 05020002 Temporary Access Road/ATWS 0.0228 - - 110 - 4-56 W-ST12-PEM Harrison Pittsburgh 39.337471 -80.522128 PSS RPWWD 05020002 Temporary Access Road/ATWS 0.0582 - - 282 - 4-56 W-ST12-PSS Harrison Pittsburgh 39.337457 -80.522185 PEM RPWWD 05020002 Temporary Access Road/ATWS - 0.1444 - 699 - 4-56 W-B4a Harrison Pittsburgh 39.316784 -80.526129 PEM RPWWD 05020002 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0214 - - 104 - 4-59 W-UU1 Harrison Pittsburgh 39.290258 -80.518898 PFO RPWWD 05020002 Pipeline ROW - 0.0045 - 22 - 4-66 W-UU3 Harrison Pittsburgh 39.289750 -80.518517 PFO RPWWN 05020002 Pipeline ROW - 0.0065 - 105 - 4-66 W-UU4a Harrison Pittsburgh 39.253101 -80.540498 PEM RPWWD 05020002 Pipeline ROW/ATWS 0.1268 - - 2,046 - 4-74 W-F52 Harrison Pittsburgh 39.250487 -80.551891 PEM NRPWW 05020002 Temporary Access Road 0.0625 - - 302 - 4-76 W-F54 Harrison Pittsburgh 39.249640 -80.550121 PEM NRPWW 05020002 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0042 - - 20 - 4-76 W-F53 Harrison Pittsburgh 39.249629 -80.549909 PEM NRPWW 05020002 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0080 - - 39 - 4-76 W-F55 Harrison Pittsburgh 39.249464 -80.551040 PEM NRPWW 05020002 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0173 - - 84 - 4-76 W-K43 Harrison Pittsburgh 39.243915 -80.553961 PEM RPWWD 05020002 Pipeline ROW 0.2086 - - 3,365 - 4-77 W-K44 Harrison Pittsburgh 39.243493 -80.554033 PEM RPWWD 05020002 Pipeline ROW 0.0671 - - 1,083 - 4-77 W-K52 Doddridge Pittsburgh 39.236762 -80.558524 PEM RPWWN 05030201 Temporary Access Road 0.0021 - - 10 - 4-78 W-K52 Doddridge Pittsburgh 39.236727 -80.558550 PEM RPWWN 5030201 Permanent Access Road - - 0.0115 - 56 4-78 W-CV15 Harrison Pittsburgh 39.223490 -80.548109 PEM RPWWD 05020002 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0512 - 248 - 4-81 W-J40 Lewis Pittsburgh 39.167631 -80.578355 PEM RPWWD 05020002 Pipeline ROW 0.2931 - - 4,729 - 4-92 W-J40 Lewis Pittsburgh 39.167564 -80.578800 PEM RPWWD 05020002 Temporary Access Road 0.1812 - - 877 - 4-92 W-A24 Harrison Pittsburgh 39.165608 -80.569523 PEM NRPWW 05020002 Temporary Access Road 0.0002 - - 1 - 4-91 W-A24 Harrison Pittsburgh 39.165608 -80.569523 PEM NRPWW 05020002 Temporary Access Road 0.0002 - - 1 - 4-91 W-VV5 Lewis Pittsburgh 39.137820 -80.576075 PEM RPWWD 05020002 ATWS 0.0202 - - 98 - 4-99 W-IJ23 Lewis Pittsburgh 39.131093 -80.572126 PEM RPWWN 05020002 Temporary Access Road 0.0065 - - 31 - 4-100 W-IJ24 Lewis Pittsburgh 39.130718 -80.571966 PEM RPWWN 05020002 Temporary Access Road 0.0041 - - 20 - 4-100 W-J20 Lewis Pittsburgh 39.116053 -80.589196 PEM NRPWW 05020002 Permanent Access Road 0.0081 - - 39 - 4-103 W-J23 Lewis Pittsburgh 39.114118 -80.586522 PEM RPWWN 05020002 Pipeline ROW 0.0130 - - 210 - 4-103 W-K31 Lewis Pittsburgh 39.080555 -80.581362 PEM NRPWW 05020002 Pipeline ROW/Temporary Access Road 0.1135 - - 549 - 4-109 W-ST14 Lewis Pittsburgh 39.079947 -80.583108 PEM RPWWD 05020002 Anode Bed 0.0394 - - 191 - 4-110 W-ST15 Lewis Pittsburgh 39.079855 -80.582499 PEM RPWWN 05020002 Anode Bed 0.0711 - - 344 - 4-110 W-B46 Lewis Pittsburgh 39.079854 -80.581439 PEM RPWWD 05020002 Pipeline ROW/Temporary Access Road 0.1255 - - 607 - 4-110 W-B47 Lewis Pittsburgh 39.079451 -80.581349 PEM RPWWD 05020002 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0682 - - 330 - 4-110 W-B51 Lewis Pittsburgh 39.078107 -80.581235 PEM NRPWW 05020002 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0035 - - 17 - 4-110 W-B54 Lewis Pittsburgh 39.073907 -80.581491 PEM NRPWW 05020002 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0101 - - 49 - 4-110 W-H112 Lewis Pittsburgh 39.066480 -80.581624 PEM NRPWW 05020002 Pipeline ROW 0.0231 - - 373 - 4-111 W-ME1 Wetzel Huntington 39.561837 -80.544176 PEM RPWWD 05030201 ATWS 0.0382 - - 185 - 4-1 W-ME2 Wetzel Huntington 39.559744 -80.546756 PEM RPWWN 05030201 ATWS 0.1036 - - 501 - 4-1 W-ME3 Wetzel Huntington 39.559075 -80.547489 PEM RPWWN 05030201 ATWS 0.0869 - - 421 - 4-1 W-A1a Wetzel Huntington 39.553912 -80.544941 PEM RPWWD 05030201 Pipeline ROW 0.0038 - - 18 - 4-3 W-A2a Wetzel Huntington 39.553508 -80.545518 PEM RPWWN 05030201 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0424 - - 205 - 4-3 W-A4a Wetzel Huntington 39.544642 -80.542833 PEM NRPWW 05030201 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0070 - - 34 - 4-5 W-IJ31 Wetzel Huntington 39.505764 -80.541781 PEM RPWWN 05030201 ATWS 0.0992 - - 480 - 4-18 W-IJ31 Wetzel Huntington 39.505612 -80.541681 PEM RPWWN 05030201 Permanent Access Road - - 0.0082 - 40 4-18 W-A27-PFO Wetzel Huntington 39.502389 -80.523497 PFO RPWWD 05030201 Pipeline ROW - 0.0547 - 882 - 4-20 W-A27-PEM Wetzel Huntington 39.502356 -80.523420 PEM RPWWD 05030201 Pipeline ROW 0.0497 - - 802 - 4-20 W-A35 Wetzel Huntington 39.491159 -80.520537 PEM NRPWW 05030201 Pipeline ROW 0.0066 - - 107 - 4-23 W-A34 Wetzel Huntington 39.489742 -80.520750 PEM RPWWD 05030201 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0296 - - 143 - 4-23 W-WX5 Wetzel Huntington 39.463909 -80.502672 PEM RPWWD 05030201 Temporary Access Road 0.0011 - - 5 - 4-28 W-WX4 Wetzel Huntington 39.463864 -80.502581 PEM RPWWD 05030201 Temporary Access Road 0.0095 - - 46 - 4-28 W-K45 Doddridge Huntington 39.228900 -80.552328 PEM RPWWD 05030201 Pipeline ROW 0.0401 - - 648 - 4-80 W-K41 Doddridge Huntington 39.208990 -80.551957 PEM RPWWD 05030201 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0109 - - 53 - 4-84 W-A23 Doddridge Huntington 39.201188 -80.552996 PEM RPWWD 05030201 Pipeline ROW 0.2701 - - 4,358 - 4-85 W-A23 Doddridge Huntington 39.201157 -80.553264 PEM RPWWD 05030201 Permanent Access Road - - 0.0579 - 280 4-85 W-B57 Lewis Huntington 39.111745 -80.587352 PEM NRPWW 05030203 Pipeline ROW/Temporary Access Road 0.0336 - - 163 - 4-104 W-K33-PSS Lewis Huntington 39.095059 -80.585064 PSS RPWWD 05030203 Pipeline ROW - 0.0024 - 12 - 4-106 W-K33-PEM Lewis Huntington 39.095056 -80.584787 PEM RPWWD 05030203 Pipeline ROW 0.1544 - - 2,490 - 4-106 W-K34-PEM Lewis Huntington 39.093945 -80.585460 PEM RPWWD 05030203 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0253 - - 122 - 4-106 W-H109 Lewis Huntington 39.053324 -80.582020 PEM NRPWW 05030203 Pipeline ROW - - 0.0027 - 13 4-114 W-I22-PEM Lewis Huntington 39.052952 -80.582437 PEM RPWWD 05030203 ATWS 0.0018 - - 9 - 4-114 W-I22-PEM Lewis Huntington 39.052768 -80.582196 PEM RPWWD 05030203 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0162 - - 78 - 4-114

1 of 7 Table 3. Wetland Impacts Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project Permanent Cowardin USACE Water Temporary Conversion Permanent Fill Temporary Fill Permanent Fill Wetland ID* County USACE District Latitude1 Longitude1 HUC 8 Impact Type Figure Class2 Type3 Impacts (acres)4 Impacts Impacts (acres)4 (cubic yards)5 (cubic yards)6 (acres)4 W-I22-PEM Lewis Huntington 39.052760 -80.582147 PEM RPWWD 05030203 Permanent Access Road - - 0.0059 - 28 4-114 W-KK6 Lewis Huntington 39.017820 -80.596977 PEM RPWWD 05030203 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0212 - - 103 - 4-119 W-I15 Lewis Huntington 38.968609 -80.592042 PEM RPWWN 05030203 Pipeline ROW 0.0631 - - 1,018 - 4-128 W-I16 Lewis Huntington 38.964758 -80.590881 PEM NRPWW 05030203 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0177 - - 86 - 4-129 W-I17 Lewis Huntington 38.964195 -80.590961 PEM NRPWW 05030203 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0017 - 8 - 4-129 W-I20 Lewis Huntington 38.962362 -80.590607 PEM NRPWW 05030203 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0379 - - 183 - 4-129 W-I21 Lewis Huntington 38.962126 -80.590741 PEM NRPWW 05030203 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0631 - - 306 - 4-129 W-UU7 Lewis Huntington 38.933646 -80.585074 PEM NRPWW 05030203 Pipeline ROW 0.0038 - - 19 - 4-135 W-H103 Lewis Huntington 38.933290 -80.584765 PEM RPWWN 05030203 ATWS 0.0037 - - 18 - 4-135 W-H103 Lewis Huntington 38.933290 -80.584765 PEM RPWWN 05030203 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0050 - - 24 - 4-135 W-H102 Lewis Huntington 38.933168 -80.584990 PEM RPWWN 05030203 ATWS 0.0129 - - 62 - 4-135 W-H107 Lewis Huntington 38.932901 -80.584200 PEM RPWWD 05030203 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0328 - - 159 - 4-135 W-H98 Lewis Huntington 38.925976 -80.578373 PEM NRPWW 05030203 Permanent Access Road - - 0.0331 - 160 4-136 W-H98 Lewis Huntington 38.925868 -80.578367 PEM NRPWW 05030203 Temporary Access Road 0.0032 - - 15 - 4-136 W-H108 Lewis Huntington 38.918766 -80.573564 PEM RPWWN 05030203 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0278 - - 134 - 4-140 W-H96 Lewis Huntington 38.913939 -80.571910 PEM RPWWD 05030203 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0039 - 19 - 4-142 W-H95 Lewis Huntington 38.913311 -80.571953 PEM RPWWD 05030203 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0414 - - 200 - 4-142 W-VV9 Lewis Huntington 38.904701 -80.563951 PEM RPWWD 05030203 Pipeline ROW 0.0534 - - 259 - 4-144 W-CD17 Lewis Huntington 38.904074 -80.563709 PEM RPWWD 05030203 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0335 - 162 - 4-144 W-CD16 Lewis Huntington 38.903722 -80.563418 PEM RPWWN 05030203 Temporary Access Road/ ATWS 0.0023 - - 11 - 4-144 W-CD16 Lewis Huntington 38.903722 -80.563418 PEM RPWWN 05030203 Pipeline ROW 0.0226 - - 365 - 4-144 W-VV8 Lewis Huntington 38.903514 -80.563258 PEM RPWWD 05030203 Pipeline ROW 0.0708 - - 1,143 - 4-144 W-CD18 Lewis Huntington 38.902751 -80.564644 PEM RPWWD 05030203 Temporary Access Road 0.0322 - - 156 - 4-144 W-CD19 Lewis Huntington 38.902618 -80.564694 PEM RPWWD 05030203 Temporary Access Road 0.0080 - - 39 - 4-144 W-CD21 Lewis Huntington 38.901049 -80.566582 PEM RPWWN 05030203 Temporary Access Road 0.0161 - - 78 - 4-146 W-CD23 Lewis Huntington 38.898699 -80.568306 PEM RPWWD 05030203 Temporary Access Road 0.0349 - - 169 - 4-146 W-CD24 Lewis Huntington 38.898648 -80.568238 PEM RPWWD 05030203 Temporary Access Road 0.0094 - - 45 - 4-146 W-CD36 Lewis Huntington 38.898177 -80.568287 PEM RPWWN 05030203 Temporary Access Road 0.0049 - - 24 - 4-146 W-CD25 Lewis Huntington 38.898021 -80.568159 PEM RPWWN 05030203 Temporary Access Road 0.0100 - - 48 - 4-146 W-CD26 Lewis Huntington 38.897805 -80.568155 PEM RPWWN 05030203 Temporary Access Road 0.0114 - - 55 - 4-146 W-VV10 Lewis Huntington 38.897282 -80.567014 PEM NRPWW 05030203 Temporary Access Road 0.0091 - - 44 - 4-146 W-UV17 Lewis Huntington 38.893199 -80.556196 PFO RPWWN 05030203 Pipeline ROW - 0.0055 - 27 - 4-148 W-ST16 Lewis Huntington 38.892534 -80.556680 PEM RPWWN 05030203 Temporary Anode Bed 0.0711 - - 344 - 4-148 W-VV11 Lewis Huntington 38.890576 -80.554852 PEM NRPWW 05030203 Temporary Access Road 0.0246 - - 119 - 4-148 W-VV12 Lewis Huntington 38.890309 -80.553784 PEM NRPWW 05030203 Temporary Access Road 0.0277 - - 134 - 4-148 W-VV4-PEM Lewis Huntington 38.863280 -80.525705 PEM RPWWD 05030203 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0131 - - 64 - 4-158 W-VV4-PFO Lewis Huntington 38.863238 -80.525813 PFO RPWWD 05030203 Timber Mat Crossing - 0.0263 - 127 - 4-158 W-VV3-PEM Lewis Huntington 38.862795 -80.525190 PEM RPWWD 05030203 Pipeline ROW 0.0447 - - 721 - 4-158 W-VV3-PFO Braxton Huntington 38.862691 -80.525163 PFO RPWWD 05030203 Pipeline ROW - 0.0160 - 259 - 4-158 W-H90 Braxton Huntington 38.760419 -80.513602 PEM RPWWD 05030203 Pipeline ROW 0.0388 - - 627 - 4-179 W-QR13 Braxton Huntington 38.751445 -80.516905 PEM RPWWN 05030203 Temporary Access Road 0.0618 - - 299 - 4-180 W-QR12 Braxton Huntington 38.749364 -80.522081 PEM RPWWN 05030203 Temporary Access Road 0.0881 - - 426 - 4-181 W-QR11 Braxton Huntington 38.747846 -80.521602 PEM RPWWN 05030203 Temporary Access Road 0.0559 - - 271 - 4-181 W-I11b Braxton Huntington 38.708869 -80.489369 PEM NRPWW 05050007 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0098 - - 47 - 4-194 W-R2 Webster Huntington 38.667178 -80.480225 PEM RPWWD 05050007 Temporary Access Road 0.0620 - - 300 - 4-201 W-KK3 Webster Huntington 38.667027 -80.478547 PEM RPWWD 05050007 Pipeline ROW 0.0222 - - 357 - 4-201 W-R3 Webster Huntington 38.666869 -80.480889 PEM NRPWW 05050007 Temporary Access Road 0.0155 - - 75 - 4-201 W-F46 Webster Huntington 38.664132 -80.479008 PEM RPWWN 05050007 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0039 - 19 - 4-202 W-R4 Webster Huntington 38.664021 -80.483434 PEM NRPWW 05050007 Temporary Access Road 0.0432 - - 209 - 4-204 W-H75 Webster Huntington 38.607280 -80.504722 PEM RPWWN 05050007 Pipeline ROW 0.0108 - - 174 - 4-219 W-H79 Webster Huntington 38.602069 -80.508493 PEM NRPWW 05050007 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0077 - 125 - 4-220 W-H81 Webster Huntington 38.599491 -80.506376 PEM NRPWW 05050007 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0237 - - 115 - 4-220 W-H82 Webster Huntington 38.598415 -80.505238 PEM NRPWW 05050007 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0128 - 62 - 4-221 W-H86 Webster Huntington 38.591803 -80.508481 PEM NRPWW 05050007 Pipeline ROW 0.0013 - - 6 - 4-222 W-H83 Webster Huntington 38.591372 -80.508904 PEM NRPWW 05050007 Pipeline ROW/Temporary Access Road 0.0177 - - 86 - 4-222 W-T4 Webster Huntington 38.586855 -80.518697 PEM NRPWW 05050007 Temporary Access Road 0.0403 - - 195 - 4-224 W-H85 Webster Huntington 38.586644 -80.510350 PEM NRPWW 05050007 Pipeline ROW 0.0069 - - 33 - 4-222 W-A20-PFO Webster Huntington 38.566923 -80.529968 PFO NRPWW 05050007 Timber Mat Crossing - 0.0298 - 144 - 4-232 W-A20-PEM Webster Huntington 38.566910 -80.530098 PEM NRPWW 05050007 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0117 - 57 - 4-232 W-A19 Webster Huntington 38.557156 -80.538578 PEM RPWWD 05050007 Temporary Access Road 0.0265 - - 128 - 4-235 W-H70 Webster Huntington 38.557097 -80.526293 PEM NRPWW 05050007 Permanent Access Road - - 0.0057 - 28 4-238 W-H71 Webster Huntington 38.556454 -80.526913 PEM NRPWW 05050007 Permanent Access Road - - 0.0205 - 99 4-238 W-H72 Webster Huntington 38.553783 -80.527760 PEM NRPWW 05050007 Permanent Access Road - - 0.0064 - 31 4-237 W-H73 Webster Huntington 38.553085 -80.528148 PEM NRPWW 05050007 Permanent Access Road - - 0.0061 - 29 4-237

2 of 7 Table 3. Wetland Impacts Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project Permanent Cowardin USACE Water Temporary Conversion Permanent Fill Temporary Fill Permanent Fill Wetland ID* County USACE District Latitude1 Longitude1 HUC 8 Impact Type Figure Class2 Type3 Impacts (acres)4 Impacts Impacts (acres)4 (cubic yards)5 (cubic yards)6 (acres)4 W-H74 Webster Huntington 38.552748 -80.533585 PEM NRPWW 05050007 Permanent Access Road - - 0.0115 - 56 4-237 W-H67 Webster Huntington 38.549313 -80.539242 PFO RPWWD 05050007 Pipeline ROW/Temporary Access Road - 0.0908 - 1,465 - 4-236 W-H66 Webster Huntington 38.548873 -80.539592 PFO RPWWD 05050007 Pipeline ROW - 0.2496 - 4,026 - 4-236 W-H64-PEM Webster Huntington 38.548175 -80.540709 PEM RPWWD 05050007 Pipeline ROW 0.0276 - - 133 - 4-236 W-H64-PSS Webster Huntington 38.548099 -80.540896 PSS RPWWD 05050007 Pipeline ROW - 0.0422 - 681 - 4-236 W-H64-PEM-2 Webster Huntington 38.548058 -80.540847 PEM RPWWD 05050007 Pipeline ROW 0.0289 - - 466 - 4-236 W-H56 Webster Huntington 38.545807 -80.542983 PEM RPWWD 05050007 Pipeline ROW 0.0206 - - 100 - 4-248 W-O13 Webster Huntington 38.533655 -80.513682 PEM RPWWN 05050007 Permanent Access Road - - 0.0405 - 196 4-244 W-KL8 Webster Huntington 38.519565 -80.545076 PEM NRPWW 05050007 Pipeline ROW 0.0976 - - 472 - 4-252 W-H60 Webster Huntington 38.517850 -80.544693 PEM NRPWW 05050007 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0495 - - 240 - 4-253 W-H61 Webster Huntington 38.517345 -80.545025 PEM NRPWW 05050007 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0094 - 151 - 4-253 W-H62 Webster Huntington 38.517147 -80.545591 PEM NRPWW 05050007 Pipeline ROW 0.0335 - - 162 - 4-253 W-B39 Webster Huntington 38.508151 -80.559329 PEM NRPWW 05050007 Pipeline ROW 0.0906 - - 1,462 - 4-255 W-B31 Webster Huntington 38.494322 -80.561155 PEM RPWWD 05050007 Pipeline ROW 0.0515 - - 831 - 4-260 W-B35 Webster Huntington 38.493757 -80.560962 PSS RPWWD 05050007 Pipeline ROW - 0.0108 - 174 - 4-260 W-A18 Webster Huntington 38.481237 -80.555783 PEM RPWWD 05050007 Temporary Access Road 0.2038 - - 986 - 4-263 W-E28 Webster Huntington 38.443010 -80.551309 PSS RPWWD 05050007 Permanent Access Road - - 0.0084 - 40 4-269 W-E30 Webster Huntington 38.441535 -80.550864 PEM RPWWN 05050007 Temporary Access Road - - 0.0316 - 153 4-269 W-F26 Webster Huntington 38.428623 -80.567054 PEM NRPWW 05050007 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0045 - 22 - 4-277 W-F29 Webster Huntington 38.424050 -80.570711 PEM RPWWD 05050007 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0071 - - 34 - 4-278 W-F28 Webster Huntington 38.423890 -80.570659 PEM RPWWD 05050007 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0071 - - 34 - 4-278 W-F40 Webster Huntington 38.421461 -80.570007 PSS RPWWD 05050007 Temporary Access Road - 0.0188 - 91 - 4-278 W-F41 Webster Huntington 38.417599 -80.576458 PEM RPWWD 05050007 Temporary Access Road 0.0002 - - 1 - 4-279 W-B30 Webster Huntington 38.405713 -80.591171 PEM RPWWD 05050007 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0429 - - 208 - 4-281 W-B28 Webster Huntington 38.399940 -80.597527 PEM RPWWD 05050007 Pipeline ROW/Anode Bed 0.2983 - - 4,812 - 4-282 W-E21 Webster Huntington 38.370595 -80.611923 PEM RPWWD 05050005 Pipeline ROW 0.0389 - - 627 - 4-289 W-E18-PEM Webster Huntington 38.367359 -80.612334 PEM RPWWD 05050005 Pipeline ROW 0.0208 - - 101 - 4-290 W-E18-PSS Webster Huntington 38.367284 -80.612248 PSS RPWWD 05050005 Pipeline ROW - 0.0538 - 868 - 4-290 W-E16 Nicholas Huntington 38.364427 -80.614459 PEM NRPWW 05050005 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0091 - - 44 - 4-291 W-E13 Webster Huntington 38.364017 -80.616570 PFO RPWWN 05050005 Timber Mat Crossing - 0.0107 - 52 - 4-291 W-F13 Nicholas Huntington 38.356737 -80.631888 PEM RPWWN 05050005 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0394 - - 191 - 4-293 W-F12 Nicholas Huntington 38.356528 -80.632264 PEM RPWWD 05050005 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0576 - - 279 - 4-293 W-F11 Nicholas Huntington 38.355680 -80.633383 PEM RPWWN 05050005 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0652 - - 315 - 4-293 W-K23 Nicholas Huntington 38.355273 -80.633811 PEM RPWWN 05050005 Pipeline ROW 0.0489 - - 789 - 4-293 W-K20 Nicholas Huntington 38.354644 -80.634586 PEM RPWWD 05050005 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0100 - 48 - 4-293 W-IJ51 Nicholas Huntington 38.352366 -80.636369 PEM RPWWD 05050005 Pipeline ROW 0.0410 - - 662 - 4-293 W-IJ50 Nicholas Huntington 38.350787 -80.637226 PEM RPWWN 05050005 Pipeline ROW 0.0528 - - 852 - 4-294 W-IJ55 Nicholas Huntington 38.343568 -80.646491 PEM RPWWN 05050005 Pipeline ROW 0.0218 - - 352 - 4-296 W-B27 Nicholas Huntington 38.339713 -80.655364 PEM RPWWD 05050005 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0874 - - 423 - 4-299 W-B26-PEM-1 Nicholas Huntington 38.339034 -80.659282 PEM RPWWD 05050005 Temporary Access Road 0.0273 - - 132 - 4-299 W-B26-PEM-2 Nicholas Huntington 38.338935 -80.659254 PEM RPWWD 05050005 Temporary Access Road 0.0060 - - 29 - 4-299 W-FF6-PSS Nicholas Huntington 38.337803 -80.658933 PSS RPWWN 05050005 Timber Mat Crossing - 0.0333 - 161 - 4-299 W-FF6-PEM Nicholas Huntington 38.337774 -80.658995 PEM RPWWN 05050005 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0793 - - 384 - 4-299 W-FF3 Nicholas Huntington 38.332776 -80.669068 PEM RPWWN 05050005 Pipeline ROW 0.0444 - - 716 - 4-301 W-FF4 Nicholas Huntington 38.329122 -80.671098 PEM RPWWD 05050005 Pipeline ROW 0.0037 - - 18 - 4-301 W-A17 Nicholas Huntington 38.327813 -80.670776 PEM NRPWW 05050005 Pipeline ROW 0.1300 - - 2,098 - 4-301 W-A15 Nicholas Huntington 38.323735 -80.670118 PSS RPWWD 05050005 Pipeline ROW - 0.0891 - 1,437 - 4-302 W-A14 Nicholas Huntington 38.321643 -80.670901 PFO RPWWD 05050005 Timber Mat Crossing - 0.0374 - 181 - 4-302 W-H53 Nicholas Huntington 38.313047 -80.673265 PEM RPWWD 05050005 Pipeline ROW 0.0039 - - 63 - 4-304 W-H50 Nicholas Huntington 38.309707 -80.676585 PEM NRPWW 05050005 Temporary Access Road 0.0114 - - 55 - 4-304 W-N25 Nicholas Huntington 38.302028 -80.674533 PEM RPWWD 05050005 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0104 - 50 - 4-306 W-N24 Nicholas Huntington 38.299148 -80.675928 PEM RPWWN 05050005 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0031 - 15 - 4-307 W-N22 Nicholas Huntington 38.296941 -80.676479 PEM RPWWN 05050005 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0030 - 14 - 4-307 W-I7 Nicholas Huntington 38.293453 -80.677084 PFO RPWWD 05050005 Timber Mat Crossing - 0.0333 - 161 - 4-308 W-CV13 Nicholas Huntington 38.273139 -80.686452 PEM RPWWN 05050005 Permanent Access Road 0.0159 - - 77 - 4-312 W-CV12 Nicholas Huntington 38.271829 -80.685245 PEM RPWWD 05050005 Temporary Access Road 0.0098 - - 47 - 4-312 W-RS04 Nicholas Huntington 38.264804 -80.683146 PEM NRPWW 05050005 Temporary Access Road 0.0254 - - 123 - 4-316 W-J8 Nicholas Huntington 38.263168 -80.687930 PFO RPWWD 05050005 Pipeline ROW - 0.0533 - 860 - 4-315 W-MN4 Nicholas Huntington 38.262968 -80.683949 PEM RPWWD 05050005 Temporary Access Road 0.0463 - - 224 - 4-316 W-J7 Nicholas Huntington 38.233731 -80.708250 PFO RPWWD 05050005 Pipeline ROW - 0.0693 - 1,119 - 4-326 W-N18 Nicholas Huntington 38.224246 -80.716448 PEM NRPWW 05050005 Pipeline ROW 0.0075 - - 36 - 4-328 W-L28 Nicholas Huntington 38.203621 -80.719372 PEM RPWWD 05050005 Pipeline ROW 0.0064 - - 31 - 4-341 W-L27 Nicholas Huntington 38.202610 -80.718505 PEM RPWWN 05050005 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0029 - 14 - 4-341 W-I11a Nicholas Huntington 38.179434 -80.729511 PEM RPWWD 05050005 Pipeline ROW 0.0579 - - 934 - 4-344

3 of 7 Table 3. Wetland Impacts Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project Permanent Cowardin USACE Water Temporary Conversion Permanent Fill Temporary Fill Permanent Fill Wetland ID* County USACE District Latitude1 Longitude1 HUC 8 Impact Type Figure Class2 Type3 Impacts (acres)4 Impacts Impacts (acres)4 (cubic yards)5 (cubic yards)6 (acres)4 W-U7 Nicholas Huntington 38.178298 -80.729744 PEM RPWWN 05050005 ATWS 0.0666 - - 322 - 4-347 W-I5 Nicholas Huntington 38.175595 -80.730736 PEM RPWWN 05050005 Pipeline ROW 0.0082 - - 133 - 4-347 W-VV2 Nicholas Huntington 38.161072 -80.735000 PEM RPWWD 05050005 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0136 - - 66 - 4-355 W-N16 Nicholas Huntington 38.157063 -80.738304 PEM NRPWW 05050005 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0232 - - 112 - 4-356 W-H41 Nicholas Huntington 38.127873 -80.733868 PEM RPWWN 05050005 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0151 - 73 - 4-362 W-H33 Nicholas Huntington 38.124326 -80.735761 PEM RPWWD 05050005 Pipeline ROW 0.0590 - - 952 - 4-362 W-H35 Nicholas Huntington 38.124117 -80.736018 PEM RPWWN 05050005 Pipeline ROW - - 0.0177 - 285 4-362 W-H31 Nicholas Huntington 38.116376 -80.735285 PEM RPWWN 05050005 Pipeline ROW 0.0139 - - 67 - 4-364 W-EF31 Nicholas Huntington 38.107483 -80.726303 PEM RPWWD 05050005 Pipeline ROW/ATWS 0.0208 - - 336 - 4-366 W-M18 Greenbrier Huntington 38.061194 -80.720732 PEM NRPWW 05050005 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0364 - - 176 - 4-374 W-M20 Greenbrier Huntington 38.060869 -80.723064 PEM NRPWW 05050005 Pipeline ROW 0.0031 - - 15 - 4-374 W-M23 Greenbrier Huntington 38.060683 -80.722348 PEM NRPWW 05050005 Pipeline ROW 0.0616 - - 994 - 4-374 W-M22 Greenbrier Huntington 38.060661 -80.722616 PSS NRPWW 05050005 Pipeline ROW - 0.0039 - 19 - 4-374 W-J6 Greenbrier Huntington 38.053361 -80.732198 PFO RPWWD 05050005 Pipeline ROW - 0.0744 - 1,201 - 4-376 W-ST27 Greenbrier Huntington 38.029124 -80.742585 PEM NRPWW 05050005 Temporary Access Road 0.0075 - - 36 - 4-382 W-KL40 Greenbrier Huntington 38.029060 -80.736807 PEM RPWWD 05050005 Temporary Access Road 0.0312 - - 151 - 4-388 W-ST28 Greenbrier Huntington 38.028800 -80.743155 PEM NRPWW 05050005 Temporary Access Road 0.0310 - - 150 - 4-382 W-IJ60 Greenbrier Huntington 38.024335 -80.739643 PEM RPWWN 05050005 Temporary Access Road 0.0174 - - 84 - 4-387 W-IJ59 Greenbrier Huntington 38.022031 -80.743027 PEM RPWWN 05050005 Temporary Access Road 0.0024 - - 12 - 4-387 W-IJ58-PEM-3 Greenbrier Huntington 38.021808 -80.743351 PEM RPWWD 05050005 Temporary Access Road 0.0056 - - 27 - 4-387 W-V6 Greenbrier Huntington 37.993269 -80.756363 PEM RPWWN 05050005 Temporary Access Road 0.0422 - - 204 - 4-394 W-HS1 Greenbrier Huntington 37.986454 -80.758418 PEM NRPWW 05050005 Pipeline ROW - - 0.0360 - 581 4-395 W-QR2 Greenbrier Huntington 37.983978 -80.756817 PEM RPWWD 05050005 Permanent Access Road - - 0.0010 - 5 4-397 W-QR2 Greenbrier Huntington 37.983212 -80.756099 PEM RPWWD 05050005 Pipeline ROW/Temporary Access Road 0.2435 - - 3,929 - 4-397 W-L16 Greenbrier Huntington 37.980653 -80.754908 PEM RPWWD 05050005 Pipeline ROW 0.0247 - - 398 - 4-397 W-L19 Greenbrier Huntington 37.954250 -80.739757 PEM RPWWD 05050005 Pipeline ROW/Temporary Access Road 0.1060 - - 1,711 - 4-402 W-L13 Greenbrier Huntington 37.953825 -80.740037 PEM RPWWN 05050005 Pipeline ROW 0.0316 - - 509 - 4-402 W-L12 Greenbrier Huntington 37.953736 -80.739892 PEM RPWWN 05050005 Pipeline ROW 0.0075 - - 36 - 4-402 W-L11 Greenbrier Huntington 37.949563 -80.742715 PEM RPWWD 05050005 Pipeline ROW 0.0194 - - 94 - 4-403 W-L4 Greenbrier Huntington 37.938675 -80.746774 PEM RPWWN 05050005 Pipeline ROW 0.0404 - - 196 - 4-405 W-L2 Greenbrier Huntington 37.938326 -80.746878 PEM RPWWD 05050005 Pipeline ROW/Temporary Access Road 0.0393 - - 635 - 4-405 W-IJ47-PEM Greenbrier Huntington 37.916423 -80.743551 PEM RPWWD 05050005 Permanent Access Road - - 0.0113 - 55 4-410 W-IJ47-PEM Greenbrier Huntington 37.916255 -80.743867 PEM RPWWD 05050005 Permanent Access Road - - 0.0520 - 252 4-410 W-W10 Greenbrier Huntington 37.911495 -80.727880 PEM NRPWW 05050005 Temporary Access Road 0.0488 - - 236 - 4-412 W-K7 Greenbrier Huntington 37.863700 -80.757095 PEM RPWWN 05050005 Pipeline ROW 0.0078 - - 126 - 4-421 W-K7 Greenbrier Huntington 37.863527 -80.757286 PEM RPWWN 05050005 Pipeline ROW 0.3206 - - 5,173 - 4-421 W-IJ30 Greenbrier Huntington 37.862357 -80.757476 PEM RPWWD 05050005 Pipeline ROW 0.3236 - - 5,221 - 4-421 W-UV9 Greenbrier Huntington 37.862309 -80.757756 PEM RPWWN 05050005 Pipeline ROW 0.1090 - - 1,759 - 4-421 W-UV11 Greenbrier Huntington 37.861173 -80.757726 PEM RPWWN 05050005 Pipeline ROW 0.0285 - - 138 - 4-421 W-UV10 Greenbrier Huntington 37.861066 -80.757954 PEM RPWWN 05050005 Pipeline ROW 0.0035 - - 17 - 4-421 W-K9-PEM-1 Greenbrier Huntington 37.860916 -80.757817 PEM RPWWD 05050005 Pipeline ROW 0.0354 - - 572 - 4-421 W-K10 Greenbrier Huntington 37.858743 -80.755724 PEM RPWWN 05050005 Pipeline ROW 0.0068 - - 33 - 4-422 W-UV4 Greenbrier Huntington 37.854391 -80.755038 PSS RPWWD 05050005 Pipeline ROW - 0.0885 - 1,427 - 4-422 W-UV8 Greenbrier Huntington 37.851590 -80.752937 PEM RPWWD 05050005 Pipeline ROW 0.4913 - - 7,926 - 4-423 W-EE4 Summers Huntington 37.813845 -80.748769 PEM RPWWD 05050004 Pipeline ROW 0.0453 - - 730 - 4-429 W-M2 Summers Huntington 37.807721 -80.746088 PEM RPWWD 05050004 Pipeline ROW 0.1064 - - 1,717 - 4-430 W-I10 Summers Huntington 37.783907 -80.718899 PEM NRPWW 05050005 Permanent Access Road - - 0.0550 - 266 4-437 W-EF40 Summers Huntington 37.693888 -80.735663 PEM RPWWD 05050003 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0889 - - 430 - 4-461 W-MM20-PFO Summers Huntington 37.681648 -80.730225 PFO RPWWD 05050003 Pipeline ROW, Temporary Access Road, ATWS - 0.2990 - 3,773 - 4-464 W-EF36 Summers Huntington 37.675423 -80.732001 PEM RPWWN 05050003 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0035 - - 17 - 4-465 W-K2-PEM Summers Huntington 37.668130 -80.723493 PEM RPWWD 05050003 Pipeline ROW 0.0140 - - 225 - 4-468 W-G7 Summers Huntington 37.654106 -80.702592 PEM NRPWW 05050003 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0121 - - 59 - 4-471 W-OP1 Monroe Huntington 37.600067 -80.700400 PEM RPWWD 05050003 Pipeline ROW 0.1359 - - 2,193 - 4-487 W-A13 Monroe Huntington 37.559410 -80.710082 PEM RPWWD 05050002 Pipeline ROW/Temporary Access Road 0.2991 - - 4,826 - 4-493 W-A13 Monroe Huntington 37.559332 -80.709734 PEM RPWWD 05050002 Permanent Access Road - - 0.0228 - 110 4-493 W-MN14 Monroe Huntington 37.520227 -80.707365 PEM RPWWD 05050002 Pipeline ROW/Access Road/ATWS 0.0390 - - 313 - 4-500 W-MN15 Monroe Huntington 37.520166 -80.707532 PEM RPWWN 05050002 Pipeline ROW 0.0070 - - 113 - 4-500 W-MN18-PEM Monroe Huntington 37.487662 -80.681791 PEM RPWWD 05050002 Pipeline ROW 0.0510 - - 823 - 4-510 W-MN18-PFO Monroe Huntington 37.487474 -80.681854 PFO RPWWD 05050002 Pipeline ROW - 0.1750 - 2,823 - 4-510 W-MN1 Monroe Huntington 37.473153 -80.675740 PEM RPWWD 05050002 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0187 - - 90 - 4-512 W-G6 Monroe Huntington 37.472534 -80.675718 PEM RPWWD 05050002 Pipeline ROW 0.0684 - - 1,103 - 4-512 W-CV25-PSS-1 Monroe Huntington 37.462852 -80.669557 PSS RPWWD 05050002 Pipeline ROW - 0.0270 - 436 - 4-513 W-MN24 Monroe Huntington 37.462833 -80.670273 PEM NRPWW 05050002 Pipeline ROW 0.0100 - - 161 - 4-513 W-CV25-PEM-2 Monroe Huntington 37.462746 -80.669518 PEM RPWWD 05050002 Pipeline ROW 0.0200 - - 323 - 4-513

4 of 7 Table 3. Wetland Impacts Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project Permanent Cowardin USACE Water Temporary Conversion Permanent Fill Temporary Fill Permanent Fill Wetland ID* County USACE District Latitude1 Longitude1 HUC 8 Impact Type Figure Class2 Type3 Impacts (acres)4 Impacts Impacts (acres)4 (cubic yards)5 (cubic yards)6 (acres)4 W-E12 Monroe Huntington 37.450761 -80.667516 PEM RPWWD 05050002 Pipeline ROW 0.0041 - - 20 - 4-516 W-C14 Monroe Huntington 37.427083 -80.694569 PEM RPWWN 05050002 Pipeline ROW 0.0113 - - 55 - 4-521 W-C13 Monroe Huntington 37.426734 -80.694534 PEM RPWWD 05050002 Pipeline ROW 0.2172 - - 3,503 - 4-521 W-C17 Monroe Huntington 37.425547 -80.693481 PEM RPWWD 05050002 Temporary Access Road 0.0306 - - 148 - 4-521 W-Z11 Giles Norfolk 37.346591 -80.641713 PEM NRPWW 05050002 Pipeline ROW 0.0262 - - 423 - 4-543 W-Z3 Giles Norfolk 37.342244 -80.620612 PSS RPWWD 05050002 Timber Mat Crossing - 0.0136 - 66 - 4-545 W-CD12 Giles Norfolk 37.318644 -80.441717 PEM RPWWD 05050002 Pipeline ROW 0.0208 - - 335 - 4-577 W-MM10 Giles Norfolk 37.298219 -80.480617 PEM RPWWD 05050002 Temporary Access Road 0.0254 - - 123 - 4-569 W-RR1b Giles Norfolk 37.296670 -80.494042 PEM RPWWD 05050002 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0056 - - 27 - 4-567 W-IJ46-PEM Montgomery Norfolk 37.296153 -80.367508 PEM RPWWD 03010101 Pipeline ROW 0.0294 - - 474 - 4-591 W-AD4 Montgomery Norfolk 37.286984 -80.330124 PEM RPWWD 03010101 Temporary Access Road 0.0069 - - 33 - 4-596 W-NN6 Montgomery Norfolk 37.268174 -80.316468 PEM RPWWN 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0083 - - 40 - 4-603 W-F9-PFO Montgomery Norfolk 37.258109 -80.285892 PFO RPWWD 03010101 Pipeline ROW - 0.0169 - 82 - 4-609 W-C12-PEM Montgomery Norfolk 37.257265 -80.281667 PEM RPWWD 03010101 Pipeline ROW 0.2066 - - 3,333 - 4-609 W-C12 Montgomery Norfolk 37.257192 -80.281649 PFO RPWWD 03010101 Pipeline ROW - 0.0523 - 253 - 4-609 W-C11 Montgomery Norfolk 37.257107 -80.281351 PSS RPWWD 03010101 Pipeline ROW - 0.0461 - 223 - 4-609 W-C6 Montgomery Norfolk 37.255860 -80.275715 PEM NRPWW 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0139 - - 67 - 4-610 W-C5 Montgomery Norfolk 37.255606 -80.274237 PEM NRPWW 03010101 Pipeline ROW 0.0454 - - 732 - 4-610 W-AB7 Montgomery Norfolk 37.231426 -80.198615 PEM RPWWD 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0040 - - 19 - 4-631 W-KL58 Montgomery Norfolk 37.229183 -80.203106 PEM RPWWD 03010101 Permanent Access Road - - 0.0392 - 190 4-631 W-EF5-PFO Montgomery Norfolk 37.210948 -80.193359 PFO RPWWD 03010101 Pipeline ROW - 0.0852 - 1,374 - 4-635 W-EF18 Roanoke Norfolk 37.179449 -80.140665 PSS RPWWD 03010101 Temporary Access Road - 0.0052 - 25 - 4-647 W-EF17 Roanoke Norfolk 37.179402 -80.140600 PFO RPWWD 03010101 Temporary Access Road - 0.0224 - 108 - 4-647 W-IJ94-PEM Roanoke Norfolk 37.170092 -80.138294 PEM RPWWD 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0202 - - 98 - 4-649 W-IJ96-PEM Roanoke Norfolk 37.169461 -80.130376 PEM RPWWD 03010101 Permanent Access Road - - 0.0133 - 63 4-650 W-IJ96-PEM Roanoke Norfolk 37.169461 -80.130376 PEM RPWWD 03010101 Permanent Access Road 0.0028 - - 14 - 4-650 W-IJ97 Roanoke Norfolk 37.169197 -80.129448 PEM RPWWD 03010101 Permanent Access Road - - 0.0005 - 2 4-650 W-IJ95-PSS Roanoke Norfolk 37.169068 -80.138278 PSS RPWWD 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing - 0.0254 - 123 - 4-649 W-IJ102 Roanoke Norfolk 37.168289 -80.138375 PFO RPWWD 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing - 0.0100 - 48 - 4-649 W-KL17 Roanoke Norfolk 37.160152 -80.134774 PSS RPWWD 03010101 Pipeline ROW - 0.0435 - 702 - 4-651 W-EF42 Roanoke Norfolk 37.157611 -80.133722 PEM RPWWD 03010101 Pipeline ROW 0.0083 - - 40 - 4-652 W-HS02 Roanoke Norfolk 37.157427 -80.133413 PEM RPWWD 03010101 Pipeline ROW 0.2893 - - 4,668 - 4-652 W-AB6-PEM-2 Roanoke Norfolk 37.156825 -80.131998 PEM RPWWD 03010101 Pipeline ROW 0.3271 - - 5,277 - 4-652 W-AB6-PFO-1 Roanoke Norfolk 37.156713 -80.131681 PFO RPWWD 03010101 Pipeline ROW - 0.0618 - 997 - 4-652 W-AB6-PEM-1 Roanoke Norfolk 37.156170 -80.130794 PEM RPWWD 03010101 Pipeline ROW 0.0647 - - 1,044 - 4-652 W-AB6-PSS Roanoke Norfolk 37.156034 -80.130603 PSS RPWWD 03010101 Pipeline ROW - 0.0061 - 30 - 4-652 W-AB5 Roanoke Norfolk 37.155840 -80.130227 PFO RPWWN 03010101 Pipeline ROW - 0.0042 - 20 - 4-652 W-AB3-PEM-2 Roanoke Norfolk 37.155664 -80.129569 PEM RPWWD 03010101 Pipeline ROW 0.1547 - - 2,495 - 4-652 W-EF46 Roanoke Norfolk 37.154575 -80.129122 PSS RPWWD 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing - 0.0682 - 330 - 4-652 W-KL48-PSS-1 Roanoke Norfolk 37.152292 -80.130022 PSS RPWWD 03010101 Pipeline ROW - 0.0454 - 733 - 4-653 W-KL48-PEM Roanoke Norfolk 37.151965 -80.130049 PEM RPWWD 03010101 Pipeline ROW 0.0063 - - 31 - 4-653 W-KL48-PSS-2 Roanoke Norfolk 37.150926 -80.131271 PSS RPWWD 03010101 Pipeline ROW - 0.0264 - 128 - 4-653 W-KL50 Roanoke Norfolk 37.150728 -80.131537 PEM RPWWN 03010101 Pipeline ROW 0.0408 - - 658 - 4-653 W-KL49 Roanoke Norfolk 37.150297 -80.132193 PEM RPWWN 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0152 - - 74 - 4-653 W-KL51-PEM Roanoke Norfolk 37.150006 -80.132403 PEM RPWWD 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0063 - - 30 - 4-653 W-KL51-PSS Roanoke Norfolk 37.149975 -80.132476 PSS RPWWD 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing - 0.0080 - 39 - 4-653 W-MN7-PEM Roanoke Norfolk 37.148328 -80.133901 PEM RPWWD 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0116 - - 56 - 4-653 W-EF44 Roanoke Norfolk 37.142977 -80.138322 PEM RPWWD 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0085 - - 41 - 4-654 W-IJ36 Roanoke Norfolk 37.138922 -80.139845 PSS RPWWD 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing - 0.1237 - 599 - 4-655 W-Z7 Roanoke Norfolk 37.136601 -80.128216 PSS RPWWD 03010101 Temporary Access Road - 0.0003 - 1 - 4-657 W-Z6 Roanoke Norfolk 37.136466 -80.128238 PFO RPWWD 03010101 Temporary Access Road - 0.0028 - 14 - 4-657 W-IJ62 Roanoke Norfolk 37.135529 -80.134044 PEM RPWWD 03010101 Temporary Access Road 0.0001 - - 1 - 4-656 W-Y2 Roanoke Norfolk 37.134284 -80.137448 PEM RPWWD 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0189 - - 91 - 4-656 W-IJ10 Roanoke Norfolk 37.132561 -80.131744 PEM RPWWD 03010101 Permanent Access Road 0.0020 - - 10 - 4-656 W-Q11 Roanoke Norfolk 37.132470 -80.131638 PEM RPWWD 03010101 Permanent Access Road 0.0130 - - 63 - 4-656 W-KL1 Roanoke Norfolk 37.132456 -80.131463 PEM RPWWN 03010101 Permanent Access Road 0.0018 - - 9 - 4-656 W-B25-PEM-4 Roanoke Norfolk 37.128942 -80.133774 PEM RPWWD 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0093 - - 45 - 4-659 W-B25-PEM-1 Roanoke Norfolk 37.128645 -80.133283 PEM RPWWD 03010101 Pipeline ROW 0.1934 - - 3,120 - 4-659 W-B24-PSS Roanoke Norfolk 37.128540 -80.130794 PSS RPWWD 03010101 Pipeline ROW - 0.1637 - 2,641 - 4-659 W-B24-PEM Roanoke Norfolk 37.128530 -80.131060 PEM RPWWD 03010101 Pipeline ROW 0.1031 - - 1,663 - 4-659 W-B25-PSS-2 Roanoke Norfolk 37.128527 -80.132335 PSS RPWWD 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing - 0.0830 - 402 - 4-659 W-B25-PEM-1 Roanoke Norfolk 37.128449 -80.132802 PEM RPWWD 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0140 - - 68 - 4-659 W-B25-PEM-2 Roanoke Norfolk 37.128436 -80.132646 PEM RPWWD 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0048 - - 78 - 4-659 W-ST2-PEM Franklin Norfolk 37.125329 -80.121460 PEM RPWWD 03010101 Pipeline ROW 0.1142 - - 1,842 - 4-661

5 of 7 Table 3. Wetland Impacts Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project Permanent Cowardin USACE Water Temporary Conversion Permanent Fill Temporary Fill Permanent Fill Wetland ID* County USACE District Latitude1 Longitude1 HUC 8 Impact Type Figure Class2 Type3 Impacts (acres)4 Impacts Impacts (acres)4 (cubic yards)5 (cubic yards)6 (acres)4 W-RR4 Franklin Norfolk 37.125117 -80.113530 PEM RPWWD 03010101 Permanent Access Road 0.0216 - - 105 - 4-662 W-RR3 Franklin Norfolk 37.124214 -80.114746 PEM RPWWD 03010101 Permanent Access Road 0.0019 - - 9 - 4-662 W-KL41 Franklin Norfolk 37.123851 -80.115802 PEM RPWWD 03010101 Permanent Access Road 0.0229 - - 111 - 4-661 W-D4 Franklin Norfolk 37.122629 -80.076102 PEM RPWWN 03010101 Permanent Access Road 0.0031 - - 15 - 4-667 W-D4 Franklin Norfolk 37.122625 -80.076071 PEM RPWWN 03010101 Permanent Access Road - - 0.0009 - 4 4-667 W-D7-PEM Franklin Norfolk 37.121559 -80.085750 PEM RPWWD 03010101 Pipeline ROW 0.0159 - - 77 - 4-666 W-EF3 Franklin Norfolk 37.117734 -80.095992 PEM RPWWD 03010101 Permanent Access Road 0.0265 - - 128 - 4-665 W-IJ1 Franklin Norfolk 37.092927 -80.027568 PEM RPWWD 03010101 Pipeline ROW 0.0416 - - 671 - 4-677 W-IJ2-PSS Franklin Norfolk 37.092645 -80.027176 PSS RPWWD 03010101 Pipeline ROW - 0.0080 - 129 - 4-677 W-IJ2-PEM Franklin Norfolk 37.092596 -80.027214 PEM RPWWD 03010101 Pipeline ROW 0.0168 - - 271 - 4-677 W-GH2 Franklin Norfolk 37.092404 -79.983182 PSS RPWWD 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing - 0.0130 - 63 - 4-684 W-II8 Franklin Norfolk 37.091357 -79.992006 PEM RPWWD 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0088 - - 43 - 4-683 W-IJ6 Franklin Norfolk 37.089156 -80.005036 PEM RPWWD 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0046 - - 22 - 4-681 W-E7 Franklin Norfolk 37.084557 -79.947595 PEM RPWWD 03010101 Pipeline ROW 0.2522 - - 4,068 - 4-690 W-E8 Franklin Norfolk 37.082843 -79.946100 PEM RPWWD 03010101 Pipeline ROW 0.0691 - - 1,114 - 4-690 W-EF51 Franklin Norfolk 37.064781 -79.874460 PEM RPWWD 03010101 Pipeline ROW 0.0133 - - 64 - 4-705 W-KL43b Franklin Norfolk 37.059608 -79.840707 PEM RPWWD 03010101 Pipeline ROW 0.0004 - - 2 - 4-710 W-CD6 Franklin Norfolk 37.057586 -79.915232 PEM RPWWN 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0934 - - 452 - 4-698 W-CD5 Franklin Norfolk 37.055438 -79.910624 PFO RPWWN 03010101 Pipeline ROW - 0.1136 - 1,833 - 4-698 W-EF48 Franklin Norfolk 37.052142 -79.886197 PEM RPWWD 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0080 - - 39 - 4-702 W-CD1 Franklin Norfolk 37.047767 -79.897568 PFO RPWWD 03010101 Pipeline ROW - 0.1106 - 1,785 - 4-701 W-DD1 Franklin Norfolk 37.031961 -79.788589 PEM RPWWN 03010101 Pipeline ROW 0.0813 - - 1,312 - 4-720 W-A12-PFO Franklin Norfolk 37.031754 -79.788099 PFO RPWWD 03010101 Pipeline ROW - 0.0040 - 19 - 4-720 W-A12-PEM Franklin Norfolk 37.031643 -79.788111 PEM RPWWD 03010101 Pipeline ROW 0.0651 - - 1,050 - 4-720 W-GH16 Franklin Norfolk 37.028394 -79.773243 PFO RPWWD 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing - 0.0657 - 318 - 4-722 W-H17 Franklin Norfolk 36.989390 -79.722090 PFO RPWWD 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing - 0.0369 - 179 - 4-730 W-H11 Franklin Norfolk 36.988077 -79.702803 PEM RPWWD 03010101 Pipeline ROW 0.0468 - - 755 - 4-734 W-H16 Franklin Norfolk 36.988073 -79.714967 PEM RPWWD 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0232 - - 112 - 4-731 W-H14 Franklin Norfolk 36.988069 -79.711841 PEM RPWWD 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0061 - - 30 - 4-732 W-A8 Franklin Norfolk 36.987947 -79.700844 PEM RPWWD 03010101 Pipeline ROW 0.0154 - - 75 - 4-734 W-H15 Franklin Norfolk 36.987938 -79.714829 PSS RPWWD 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing - 0.0071 - 35 - 4-731 W-H9 Franklin Norfolk 36.978536 -79.682057 PEM RPWWN 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0085 - - 41 - 4-736 W-H6 Franklin Norfolk 36.972189 -79.663042 PEM RPWWD 03010101 Pipeline ROW 0.0057 - - 28 - 4-741 W-D3 Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.965318 -79.598760 PFO RPWWN 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing - 0.0285 - 138 - 4-748 W-MM17 Franklin Norfolk 36.964731 -79.617067 PEM RPWWD 03010101 Pipeline ROW 0.0068 - - 110 - 4-746 W-B5 Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.959293 -79.586201 PEM RPWWN 03010101 Pipeline ROW 0.0048 - - 23 - 4-751 W-B4-PSS Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.957884 -79.583666 PSS RPWWD 03010101 Pipeline ROW - 0.0047 - 23 - 4-751 W-C1 Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.929954 -79.526831 PEM RPWWN 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0182 - - 88 - 4-758 W-H5 Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.924983 -79.517159 PEM RPWWD 03010101 Pipeline ROW 0.2067 - - 3,335 - 4-759 W-B3 Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.916508 -79.492360 PEM RPWWN 03010101 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0013 - - 6 - 4-762 W-CC2-PEM Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.905418 -79.471566 PEM RPWWD 03010105 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0272 - - 132 - 4-765 W-MM5 Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.903012 -79.468192 PSS RPWWD 03010105 Timber Mat Crossing - 0.0390 - 189 - 4-766 W-MM9 Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.894087 -79.446110 PEM RPWWN 03010105 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0108 - - 52 - 4-769 W-MM8-PEM Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.894034 -79.445486 PEM RPWWN 03010105 Pipeline ROW 0.0553 - - 893 - 4-769 W-MM8-PFO Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.893930 -79.445461 PFO RPWWN 03010105 Pipeline ROW - 0.0421 - 679 - 4-769 W-Q2 Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.884674 -79.428607 PFO RPWWD 03010105 Pipeline ROW - 0.3770 - 6,082 - 4-771 W-Q1 Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.883985 -79.427305 PEM RPWWD 03010105 Pipeline ROW 0.0146 - - 236 - 4-771 W-G2 Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.851816 -79.385930 PEM RPWWD 03010105 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0346 - - 167 - 4-779 W-H1 Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.836097 -79.360895 PEM RPWWN 03010105 Pipeline ROW 0.0110 - - 53 - 4-782 W-EF6 Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.835004 -79.339128 PFO RPWWD 03010105 Pipeline ROW - 0.0667 - 323 - 4-786 W-H2 Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.834817 -79.360479 PEM RPWWD 03010105 Pipeline ROW 0.7987 - - 12,886 - 4-782 W-IJ21 Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.834623 -79.338527 PFO RPWWN 03010105 Timber Mat Crossing - 0.0106 - 51 - 4-786 W-H3 Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.833741 -79.360081 PEM RPWWN 03010105 Pipeline ROW 0.0509 - - 821 - 4-783

6 of 7 Table 3. Wetland Impacts Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project Permanent Cowardin USACE Water Temporary Conversion Permanent Fill Temporary Fill Permanent Fill Wetland ID* County USACE District Latitude1 Longitude1 HUC 8 Impact Type Figure Class2 Type3 Impacts (acres)4 Impacts Impacts (acres)4 (cubic yards)5 (cubic yards)6 (acres)4 W-MM3 Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.830361 -79.356631 PSS RPWWD 03010105 Pipeline ROW - 0.0340 - 548 - 4-783 W-IJ22-PEM Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.827780 -79.350264 PEM RPWWD 03010105 Timber Mat Crossing 0.0390 - - 189 - 4-784 W-IJ22-PFO Pittsylvania Norfolk 36.827748 -79.350295 PFO RPWWD 03010105 Timber Mat Crossing - 0.0785 - 380 - 4-784

Notes: 1 - In decimal degrees. 2 - PEM = Palustrine Emergent - PSS = Palustrine Scrub-Shrub - PFO = Palustrine Forested 3 - RPWWD = Wetlands directly abutting Relatively Permanent Waters (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into Traditional Navigable Waterways (TNWs) - RPWWN = Wetlands adjacent but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs - NRPWW = Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs 4 Construction of access roads will not result in impacts to tidal wetlands or wetlands adjacent to tidal waters. Construction, maintenance, or expansion of substation facilities will not result in discharges to non-tidal wetlands adjacent to tidal waters of the United States. 5 - Temporary fill discharge into waters of the U.S. 6 - Permanent fill associated with the construction of permanent access road and facilities

7 of 7 Table 4. Stream Impacts Summary Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project Temporary Permanent Temporary Fill Permanent Fill USACE District Cowardin Class Impact Impact (cubic yards) (cubic yards) (linear ft) (linear ft) Ephemeral 617 137 500 42 Intermittent 332 0 622 0 Pittsburgh District Perennial 1,007 55 4,458 178 Pittsburgh District Total 1,956 192 5,580 220 Ephemeral 4,944 265 4,745 92 Intermittent 5,624 296 8,511 152 Huntington District Perennial 8,518 335 42,208 536 Huntington District Total 19,086 896 55,464 780 Ephemeral 3,966 45 6,274 35 Intermittent 6,383 0 10,478 0 Norfolk District Perennial 6,941 65 30,327 55 Norfolk District Total 17,290 110 47,079 90 Ephemeral 9,527 447 11,519 169 Intermittent 12,339 296 19,611 152 All District Perennial 16,466 455 76,993 769 All Districts Grand total 38,332 1,198 108,123 1,090

Page 1 of 1 Table 5. Wetland Impacts Summary Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Permanent Temporary Impacts Permanent Fill Temporary Fill Permanent Fill USACE District Cowardin Class Conversion Impacts (acres) Impacts (acres) (cubic yards) (cubic yards) (acres)

PEM 1.9864 0.1444 0.0115 18,712 56 PSS 0.0582 0.0000 0.0000 282 0 Pittsburgh District PFO 0.0000 0.0110 0.0000 127 0 Pittsburgh District Total 2.0446 0.1554 0.0115 19,121 56 PEM 7.9192 0.0000 0.4259 90,137 2,667 PSS 0.0000 0.3698 0.0084 5,306 40 Huntington District PFO 0.0000 1.2251 0.0000 17,100 0 Huntington District Total 7.9192 1.5949 0.4343 112,543 2,707 PEM 3.9550 0.0000 0.0539 56,707 259 PSS 0.0000 0.7644 0.0000 7,029 0 Norfolk District PFO 0.0000 1.1898 0.0000 14,683 0 Norfolk District Total 3.9550 1.9542 0.0539 78,419 259 PEM 13.8606 0.1444 0.4913 165,556 2,982 PSS 0.0582 1.1342 0.0084 12,617 40 All District PFO 0.0000 2.4259 0.0000 31,910 0 All Districts Grand Total 13.9188 3.7045 0.4997 210,083 3,022

Page 1 of 1 Table 6. Counties and Towns Crossed by the Project Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Counties Crossed by Project Towns Near the Project Area

Wallace Harrison County, West Virginia Salem Bristol Mobley Wetzel County, West Virginia Smithfield Folsom Doddridge County, West Virginia Big Issac Churchville Lewis County, West Virginia Camden Orlando Orlando Braxton County, West Virginia Falls Mill Webster Springs Guardian Erbacon Webster County, West Virginia Halo Cowen Camden-On-Gauley Calvin Donald Tolbert Nicholas County, West Virginia Leivasy Snow Hill Green Valley Quinwood Leslie Orient Hill Greenbrier County, West Virginia Rainelle Craig Lawn Fayette County, West Virginia Springdale Tempa Summers County, West Virginia Pence Springs Creamery Wayside Monroe County, West Virginia Greenville Lindside Goldbond Kimballton Giles County, Virginia Newport Pembroke Craig County, Virginia Huffman Blacksburg Montgomery County, Virginia Lafayette Elliston Roanoke County, Virginia Bent Mountain Boones Mill Wirtz Rocky Mount Franklin County, Virginia Redwood Glade Hill Penhook Ajax Pullens Redeye Pittsylvania County, Virginia Chatham Eldon Knolls Transco Village

Page 1 of 1 Table 7. Watersheds Crossed by the Project Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Major Region (2-digit HUC1) Sub-Basin (8-digit HUC1) County State

West Fork (05020002) Marion, Harrison, Lewis

Middle Ohio-North (05030201) Wetzel, Doddridge

Little Kanawha (05030203) Lewis, Braxton

Elk (05050007) Braxton, Webster West Virginia Ohio Region (05) Gauley (05050005) Webster, Nicholas, Greenbrier

Lower New (05050004) Summers

Greenbrier (05050003) Summers, Monroe

Upper New (05050002) Monroe

Middle New (5050002) Giles, Craig

Mid Atlantic Region (02) Upper James (02080201) Montgomery Virginia Upper Roanoke (03010101) Montgomery, Roanoke, Franklin, Pittsylvania South Atlantic-Gulf Region (03) Banister (03010105) Pittsylvania

Notes: 1 - HUC: Hydrologic Unit Code

Page 1 of 1 Table 8. List of Affected Landowners Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Table Contains Privileged Information, Not Included in Public Version of Document Table 9. State and Federal Permit Status Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Federal

Authorization or Approval Agency Status

Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Issued 10/13/2017 (active) (163 FERC ¶ 61,043)

National Historic Preservation Act § 106 FERC Approved 12/20/2017 (active) Programmatic Agreement

Biological Opinion Project (05E2VA00-2016-F- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Issued 9/4/2020 (active) 0880, 05E2WV00-2015-F-0046)

Issued 9/25/2020 (request submitted 2/19/21 for NWP 12 Verification (LRH-2015-00592-GBR) USACE – Huntington District voluntary administrative revocation)

Issued 9/25/2020 (request submitted 2/19/21 for NWP 12 Verification (LPR-2015-798) USACE – Pittsburgh District voluntary administrative revocation)

Issued 12/26/2017, updated 1/23/2018 (request NWP 12 Verification (NAO-2017-0898) USACE – Norfolk District submitted 2/19/21 for voluntary administrative revocation)

Record of Decision Amending Jefferson National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and USFS Issued 1/11/2021 (active) Bureau of Land Management ROW Concurrence

Right-of-Way Grants for USACE Weston and Issued 12/28/2017 (active) Gauley Turnpike; Plan of Development Submittal Bureau of Land Management

Right-of-Way Grants for NFS Lands; Plan of Issued 1/15/2021 (active) Development Submittal

ROW through NPS Lands NPS Southeast Region Blue Ridge Parkway Issued 9/30/2020 (active)

Right-of-way grant to cross the Blue Ridge National Park Service, Blue Ridge Parkway Office 9/29/2020 Parkway

1 of 4 Table 9. State and Federal Permit Status Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

West Virginia - State

Authorization or Approval Agency Status

Clean Water Act § 401 Water Quality Certification West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection Submission Pending for Corps of Engineers Permits (WVDEP)

Clean Water Act § 401 Water Quality Certification WVDEP Waived 11/1/2017 for FERC Certificate

Natural Streams Preservation Act Issued 7/21/2017 (active; not necessary if Authorization for Greenbrier River for Greenbrier WVDEP proposed trenchless crossing is utilized) River

Water Pollution Control Act Permit – Construction Stormwater General Permit for Construction WVDEP Issued 11/1/2017 (active) Activities

Clean Air Permit: Bradshaw Compressor Station WVDEP Issued 3/14/2016 (active)

Clean Air Permit: Harris Compressor Station WVDEP Issued 3/4/2016 (active)

Clean Air Permit: Stallworth Compressor Station WVDEP Issued 4/11/2016 (active)

Road Bonds and Crossing Permits West Virginia Department of Highways Issued 4th Quarter 2017 (active)

NPDES Hydrostatic Test Discharge Permit WVDEP Issued (Multiple) (active)

Licenses and Rights of Entry West Virginia Division of Natural Resources Issued (Multiple) (active)

Well Drilling Permit West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources Issued 3/14/2019 (closed)2

West Virginia – Local

Authorization or Approval County Status

Braxton County Development Permit Braxton County Issued 2/1/2018 (active)

Floodplain Development Permit Doddridge County Issued 12/9/2018 (active)

Floodplain Building/Improvement Permit Greenbrier County Issued 6/22/2019 (active)

2 of 4 Table 9. State and Federal Permit Status Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Harrison County Planning Department Harrison County Issued 3/13/2019 (active)

West Virginia – Local (Continued)

Authorization or Approval County Status

Certificate of Compliance with the Floodplain Lewis County Issued 11/30/2018 (active) Ordinance for a Development/Change of Land Use

Floodplain Development Permit Monroe County Issued 1/3/2018 (active)

Nicholas County Development Permit Nicholas County Issued 5/14/2018 (active)

Floodplain Ordinance and Building Permit Summers County Issued 5/19/2018 (active)

Zoning/Building Permit Webster County Issued 10/29/2019 (active)

Floodplain Building Permit Wetzel County Issued 9/23/2019 (active)

Virginia – State

Authorization or Approval Agency Status

Annual Standards & Specifications for Erosion and Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) Reissued 4/15/2020 (active) Sediment Control and Stormwater Management

Erosion and Sediment Control Plans VDEQ Approved 3/26/2018 (active)

Stormwater Management Plans VDEQ Approved 3/26/2018 (active)

Virginia Water Protection Permit VDEQ Application Included with this Submittal

Clean Water Act § 401 Water Quality Certification Virginia State Water Control Board (VSWCB) Submission Pending for Corps of Engineers Permit

Section 401 Water Quality Certification No. 17-001 for Project activities in upland areas outside of the VSWCB Issued 12/8/2017 (active) Corps jurisdictional areas

Notification of No VWP Permit Required for VDEQ Approved 1/23/18 IWOMEV

3 of 4 Table 9. State and Federal Permit Status Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Permit for Encroachment on State-Owned Issued 1/31/2018 (active; modification Virginia Marine Resources Commission Submerged Lands requeseted in this submittal)

Virginia – State (Continued)

Authorization or Approval Agency Status

Road Bonds and Crossing Permits Virginia Department of Transportation Issued (various) (active)

Access or Utility Easement

Virginia Outdoors Foundation Issued 4th Quarter 2017 (active)

Application

Virginia – Local

Authorization or Approval County Status

Land Use Permit Franklin County Issued 6/4/2019 (active)

Floodplain Development Permit Giles County Submitted and Pending Approval

Zoning Verification Letter Montgomery County Issued 4/23/2018 (active)

Floodplain Permit Pittsylvania County Issued 4/17/2018 (Pending Renewal) Special Use Permit – TRANSCO Cherrystone Pittsylvania County Issued 4/2018 (active) Interconnect Floodplain Development Permit Roanoke County Issued 6/21/2018 (active)

Notes: 1 As required by Virginia law, the Project is subject to two separate Clean Water Act § 401 certifications. 2 Project activities authorized by this permit have been completed. BLM – Bureau of Land Management USACE- United States Army Corps of Engineers EPA – Environmental Protection Agency USDA – United States Department of Agriculture FERC – Federal Energy Regulatory Commission USDOT – United States Department of Transportation NFS – National Forest Service USFS – United States Forest Service NGA – Natural Gas Act USFWS – United States Fish and Wildlife Service NPS – National Park Service VA DEQ – Virginia Department of Environmental Quality NPDES - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System VDHR – Virginia Department of Historic Resources WV DEP – West Virginia Department of Environmental OLS – Office of Land and Streams Protection ROW – right-of-way WV DNR – West Virginia Division of Natural Resources SAA – Stream Activity Authorizations

4 of 4 Table 10. Completed Project Crossings Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Feature Name Water Type County USACE District Latitude1 Longitude1 Type of Impact Figure

S-J62 RPW Harrison Pittsburgh 39.445033 -80.482635 Pipeline ROW 4-35 S-B75/F49 RPW Harrison Pittsburgh 39.436571 -80.475198 Pipeline ROW 4-36 W-B55 RPWWD Harrison Pittsburgh 39.436246 -80.474973 Pipeline ROW 4-36 S-B74 RPW Harrison Pittsburgh 39.436245 -80.474976 Pipeline ROW 4-36 S-J51 RPW Harrison Pittsburgh 39.398116 -80.477174 Pipeline ROW 4-43 S-A10a RPW Harrison Pittsburgh 39.370005 -80.484974 Pipeline ROW 4-49 W-A10a RPWWD Harrison Pittsburgh 39.369569 -80.485054 Pipeline ROW 4-49 S-RR22 RPW Harrison Pittsburgh 39.342166 -80.512422 Pipeline ROW 4-55 S-B6a RPW Harrison Pittsburgh 39.317023 -80.526157 Pipeline ROW 4-59 W-B4a RPWWD Harrison Pittsburgh 39.316784 -80.526129 Pipeline ROW 4-59 S-B7a RPW Harrison Pittsburgh 39.316755 -80.526222 Pipeline ROW 4-59 W-F54 NRPWW Harrison Pittsburgh 39.249640 -80.550121 Pipeline ROW 4-76 W-F53 NRPWW Harrison Pittsburgh 39.249629 -80.549909 Pipeline ROW 4-76 W-F55 NRPWW Harrison Pittsburgh 39.249464 -80.551040 Pipeline ROW/Temporary Access Road 4-76 S-K80 RPW Harrison Pittsburgh 39.225747 -80.550164 Pipeline ROW 4-80 S-CV9 NRPW Harrison Pittsburgh 39.223690 -80.548273 Pipeline ROW 4-81 W-CV15 RPWWD Harrison Pittsburgh 39.223490 -80.548109 Pipeline ROW 4-81 S-K81 RPW Harrison Pittsburgh 39.223263 -80.547928 Pipeline ROW 4-81 S-CV10 RPW Harrison Pittsburgh 39.221719 -80.546951 Pipeline ROW 4-81 S-A106 NRPW Harrison Pittsburgh 39.168435 -80.577625 Pipeline ROW 4-92 S-A105 NRPW Harrison Pittsburgh 39.168266 -80.577815 Pipeline ROW 4-92 S-I67 RPW Lewis Pittsburgh 39.137145 -80.577026 Pipeline ROW 4-99 S-J43 RPW Lewis Pittsburgh 39.120579 -80.581328 Pipeline ROW 4-102 S-B67 RPW Lewis Pittsburgh 39.079556 -80.581346 Pipeline ROW 4-110 W-B47 RPWWD Lewis Pittsburgh 39.079451 -80.581349 Pipeline ROW 4-110 W-B51 NRPWW Lewis Pittsburgh 39.078107 -80.581235 Pipeline ROW 4-110 W-B54 NRPWW Lewis Pittsburgh 39.073907 -80.581491 Pipeline ROW 4-110 S-H184 NRPW Lewis Pittsburgh 39.069684 -80.580583 Pipeline ROW 4-111 S-H184a NRPW Lewis Pittsburgh 39.069645 -80.580591 Pipeline ROW 4-111 S-J66 RPW Wetzel Huntington 39.546030 -80.544314 Pipeline ROW 4-5 W-A4a NRPWW Wetzel Huntington 39.544654 -80.542771 Pipeline ROW 4-5 S-A5a RPW Wetzel Huntington 39.534241 -80.540995 Pipeline ROW 4-8 S-A6a RPW Wetzel Huntington 39.534023 -80.540889 Pipeline ROW 4-9 S-A125 RPW Wetzel Huntington 39.503477 -80.532902 Pipeline ROW 4-19 W-A35 NRPWW Wetzel Huntington 39.491159 -80.520537 Pipeline ROW 4-23 S-J60 RPW Wetzel Huntington 39.474354 -80.511825 Pipeline ROW 4-26 S-J56 RPW Wetzel Huntington 39.464315 -80.502077 Pipeline ROW 4-28 W-K41 RPWWD Doddridge Huntington 39.208990 -80.551957 Pipeline ROW 4-84 S-K54 RPW Doddridge Huntington 39.207673 -80.552957 Pipeline ROW 4-84 S-K58 NRPW Doddridge Huntington 39.205595 -80.553224 Pipeline ROW 4-84 S-K59 NRPW Doddridge Huntington 39.204704 -80.553272 Pipeline ROW 4-84

Page 1 of 4 Table 10. Completed Project Crossings Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Feature Name Water Type County USACE District Latitude1 Longitude1 Type of Impact Figure

S-K60 NRPW Doddridge Huntington 39.203779 -80.553410 Pipeline ROW 4-84 S-J46 RPW Lewis Huntington 39.094778 -80.584826 Pipeline ROW 4-106 S-J47b RPW Lewis Huntington 39.094003 -80.585481 Pipeline ROW 4-106 W-K34-PEM RPWWD Lewis Huntington 39.093945 -80.585460 Pipeline ROW 4-106 W-H109 NRPWW Lewis Huntington 39.053324 -80.582020 Pipeline ROW 4-114 S-I64 RPW Lewis Huntington 39.052748 -80.582213 Pipeline ROW 4-114 S-KK3a NRPW Lewis Huntington 39.019605 -80.597895 Pipeline ROW 4-119 W-KK6 RPWWD Lewis Huntington 39.017820 -80.596977 Pipeline ROW 4-119 S-KK5 RPW Lewis Huntington 39.017783 -80.596853 Pipeline ROW 4-119 S-KK5 RPW Lewis Huntington 39.017738 -80.597017 Pipeline ROW 4-119 S-KK5 RPW Lewis Huntington 39.017718 -80.597027 Pipeline ROW 4-119 S-KK6 RPW Lewis Huntington 39.017621 -80.596939 Pipeline ROW 4-119 S-KK7 RPW Lewis Huntington 39.017519 -80.597010 Pipeline ROW 4-119 S-K43 RPW Lewis Huntington 39.002045 -80.596098 Pipeline ROW 4-121 S-K38 NRPW Lewis Huntington 38.992357 -80.592929 Pipeline ROW 4-123 W-I16 NRPWW Lewis Huntington 38.964758 -80.590881 Pipeline ROW 4-129 W-I21 NRPWW Lewis Huntington 38.964195 -80.590961 Pipeline ROW 4-129 W-I20 NRPWW Lewis Huntington 38.962362 -80.590607 Pipeline ROW 4-129 W-I17 NRPWW Lewis Huntington 38.962126 -80.590741 Pipeline ROW 4-129 W-H107 RPWWD Lewis Huntington 38.932901 -80.584200 Pipeline ROW 4-135 W-H96 RPWWD Lewis Huntington 38.913939 -80.571910 Pipeline ROW 4-142 S-CV3 RPW Lewis Huntington 38.913415 -80.571854 Pipeline ROW 4-142 W-H95 RPWWD Lewis Huntington 38.913311 -80.571953 Pipeline ROW 4-142 W-VV4-PEM RPWWD Lewis Huntington 38.863280 -80.525705 Pipeline ROW 4-158 S-VV9 RPW Lewis Huntington 38.863254 -80.525763 Pipeline ROW 4-158 W-VV4-PFO RPWWD Lewis Huntington 38.863238 -80.525813 Pipeline ROW 4-158 S-L51 RPW Braxton Huntington 38.839355 -80.519693 Pipeline ROW 4-161 S-J37 RPW Braxton Huntington 38.839133 -80.519716 Pipeline ROW 4-162 S-JJ1 RPW Braxton Huntington 38.786930 -80.530028 Pipeline ROW 4-172 S-I60 RPW Braxton Huntington 38.781068 -80.524577 Pipeline ROW 4-174 S-K34 RPW Braxton Huntington 38.766123 -80.520308 Pipeline ROW 4-178 S-K33 NRPW Braxton Huntington 38.765714 -80.520032 Pipeline ROW 4-178 S-H127 RPW Braxton Huntington 38.755029 -80.513692 Pipeline ROW 4-180 S-H132 RPW Braxton Huntington 38.751499 -80.514919 Pipeline ROW 4-180 S-H129 RPW Braxton Huntington 38.749321 -80.514337 Pipeline ROW 4-183 S-H131 NRPW Braxton Huntington 38.749215 -80.514370 Pipeline ROW 4-183 W-I11b NRPWW Braxton Huntington 38.708869 -80.489369 Pipeline ROW 4-194 S-E76 NRPW Webster Huntington 38.674988 -80.477360 Pipeline ROW 4-200 W-F46 RPWWN Webster Huntington 38.664132 -80.479008 Pipeline ROW 4-202 W-H79 NRPWW Webster Huntington 38.602069 -80.508493 Pipeline ROW 4-220 W-H81 NRPWW Webster Huntington 38.599491 -80.506376 Pipeline ROW 4-220

Page 2 of 4 Table 10. Completed Project Crossings Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Feature Name Water Type County USACE District Latitude1 Longitude1 Type of Impact Figure

W-H82 NRPWW Webster Huntington 38.598415 -80.505238 Pipeline ROW 4-221 W-A20-PFO NRPWW Webster Huntington 38.566923 -80.529968 Pipeline ROW 4-232 W-A20-PEM NRPWW Webster Huntington 38.566910 -80.530098 Pipeline ROW 4-232 S-O5 NRPW Webster Huntington 38.482251 -80.555499 Pipeline ROW 4-263 S-A79 RPW Webster Huntington 38.480782 -80.554682 Pipeline ROW/Temporary Access Road 4-263 S-E58 RPW Webster Huntington 38.443669 -80.551989 Pipeline ROW 4-269 S-E55 NRPW Webster Huntington 38.440270 -80.559955 Pipeline ROW 4-271 W-F26 NRPWW Webster Huntington 38.428623 -80.567054 Pipeline ROW 4-277 S-F35 RPW Webster Huntington 38.424082 -80.570710 Pipeline ROW 4-278 W-F29 RPWWD Webster Huntington 38.424050 -80.570711 Pipeline ROW 4-278 S-F34 RPW Webster Huntington 38.423988 -80.570680 Pipeline ROW 4-278 W-F28 RPWWD Webster Huntington 38.423890 -80.570659 Pipeline ROW 4-278 S-C49 NRPW Webster Huntington 38.416587 -80.577890 Pipeline ROW 4-279 S-B33 RPW Webster Huntington 38.408941 -80.589063 Pipeline ROW 4-281 S-B32-Braid RPW Webster Huntington 38.405871 -80.591069 Pipeline ROW 4-281 S-E52 RPW Webster Huntington 38.369110 -80.611761 Pipeline ROW 4-290 W-E16 NRPWW Nicholas Huntington 38.364427 -80.614459 Pipeline ROW 4-291 W-E13 RPWWN Webster Huntington 38.364017 -80.616570 Pipeline ROW 4-291 S-F21 RPW Nicholas Huntington 38.355859 -80.633328 Pipeline ROW 4-293 W-K20 RPWWD Nicholas Huntington 38.354644 -80.634586 Pipeline ROW 4-293 S-IJ59 NRPW Nicholas Huntington 38.348372 -80.641152 Pipeline ROW 4-295 W-N25 RPWWD Nicholas Huntington 38.302028 -80.674533 Pipeline ROW 4-306 W-N24 RPWWN Nicholas Huntington 38.299148 -80.675928 Pipeline ROW 4-307 W-N22 RPWWN Nicholas Huntington 38.296941 -80.676479 Pipeline ROW 4-307 W-L27 RPWWN Nicholas Huntington 38.202610 -80.718505 Pipeline ROW 4-341 S-N8a RPW Nicholas Huntington 38.162363 -80.733602 Pipeline ROW 4-355 W-VV2 RPWWD Nicholas Huntington 38.161072 -80.735000 Pipeline ROW 4-355 S-VV1 RPW Nicholas Huntington 38.161064 -80.735022 Pipeline ROW 4-355 W-N16 NRPWW Nicholas Huntington 38.157063 -80.738304 Pipeline ROW 4-356 W-H41 RPWWN Nicholas Huntington 38.127873 -80.733868 Pipeline ROW 4-362 S-J19 NRPW Greenbrier Huntington 38.028599 -80.743623 Pipeline ROW 4-382 S-I28 RPW Greenbrier Huntington 37.982078 -80.755369 Pipeline ROW 4-397 S-EF38 RPW Greenbrier Huntington 37.963259 -80.733162 Pipeline ROW 4-400 S-L24 RPW Greenbrier Huntington 37.963068 -80.733141 Pipeline ROW 4-400 S-M5 NRPW Summers Huntington 37.792243 -80.728802 Pipeline ROW 4-433 S-I13 RPW Summers Huntington 37.782534 -80.719085 Pipeline ROW 4-437 S-I14 RPW Summers Huntington 37.781099 -80.719318 Pipeline ROW 4-437 S-I15 RPW Summers Huntington 37.779878 -80.720470 Pipeline ROW 4-437 S-I16 RPW Summers Huntington 37.779381 -80.721388 Pipeline ROW 4-440 W-EF36 RPWWN Summers Huntington 37.675423 -80.732001 Pipeline ROW 4-465 S-G47 NRPW Summers Huntington 37.654112 -80.702579 Pipeline ROW 4-471

Page 3 of 4 Table 10. Completed Project Crossings Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Feature Name Water Type County USACE District Latitude1 Longitude1 Type of Impact Figure

W-G7 NRPWW Summers Huntington 37.654106 -80.702592 Pipeline ROW 4-471 S-G52 NRPW Monroe Huntington 37.627537 -80.695593 Pipeline ROW 4-479 S-G49 RPW Monroe Huntington 37.627381 -80.695679 Pipeline ROW 4-479 S-G48 RPW Monroe Huntington 37.627308 -80.695759 Pipeline ROW 4-479 S-H61 RPW Monroe Huntington 37.618426 -80.699138 Pipeline ROW 4-483 S-IJ64 NRPW Monroe Huntington 37.591822 -80.705874 Pipeline ROW 4-488 S-D29 RPW Monroe Huntington 37.547394 -80.712099 Pipeline ROW 4-494 S-F18 RPW Monroe Huntington 37.536872 -80.716923 Pipeline ROW 4-496 W-NN6 RPWWN Montgomery Norfolk 37.268174 -80.316468 Pipeline ROW 4-603 S-G38 NRPW Montgomery Norfolk 37.267002 -80.312898 Pipeline ROW 4-603 S-G40 RPW Montgomery Norfolk 37.264882 -80.307302 Pipeline ROW 4-603 S-PP23 NRPW Montgomery Norfolk 37.264858 -80.307151 Pipeline ROW 4-604 S-H1 RPW Franklin Norfolk 37.127733 -80.116787 Pipeline ROW 4-661 S-G26 RPW Franklin Norfolk 37.127077 -80.111387 Pipeline ROW 4-662 S-G27 RPW Franklin Norfolk 37.126962 -80.111052 Pipeline ROW 4-662 S-II4 RPW Franklin Norfolk 37.115679 -80.060300 Pipeline ROW 4-670 S-GH7 RPW Franklin Norfolk 37.106614 -80.054219 Pipeline ROW 4-672 S-II6 NRPW Franklin Norfolk 37.092697 -79.978402 Pipeline ROW 4-685 S-IJ3 RPW Franklin Norfolk 37.092600 -80.027231 Pipeline ROW 4-677 S-GH6 RPW Franklin Norfolk 37.092397 -79.983227 Pipeline ROW 4-684 S-II12 RPW Franklin Norfolk 37.091608 -79.987839 Pipeline ROW 4-684 S-II11 RPW Franklin Norfolk 37.091564 -79.988051 Pipeline ROW 4-684 S-II8 RPW Franklin Norfolk 37.091413 -79.993944 Pipeline ROW 4-683 S-II9 RPW Franklin Norfolk 37.091382 -79.990620 Pipeline ROW 4-683 S-II7 RPW Franklin Norfolk 37.091354 -79.992013 Pipeline ROW 4-683 S-IJ4 RPW Franklin Norfolk 37.091189 -80.024366 Pipeline ROW 4-677 S-KL2 RPW Franklin Norfolk 37.090361 -79.996354 Pipeline ROW 4-682 S-GH2 RPW Franklin Norfolk 37.090153 -79.953936 Pipeline ROW 4-689 S-IJ10 RPW Franklin Norfolk 37.089179 -80.005026 Pipeline ROW 4-681 S-EF7 NRPW Franklin Norfolk 37.074664 -79.941123 Pipeline ROW 4-692 S-C16 RPW Franklin Norfolk 37.060610 -79.921179 Pipeline ROW 4-696 S-G17 NRPW Franklin Norfolk 37.005496 -79.752655 Pipeline ROW 4-726

Notes: 1 - in decimal degrees

Page 4 of 4 Table 11. Completed Station and Interconnect Crossings Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Permanent Stream Stream Temporary Impacts Permanent Fill Conversion Impact Mitigation Cowardin Temporary Permanent within Impacts within Feature Name Water Type County Latitude2 Longitude2 Impacts within Type of Impact Duration (Bank and/or Figure Class1 Linear Feet Linear Feet Construction Construction Construction (Discharge) ILF)3 Impact (ft) Impact (ft) Limits (acres) Limits (acres) Limits (acres) S-J63 RPW R4SB3 Wetzel 39.562824 -80.541691 100 - 0.0069 - - Mobley Interconnect Temporary - 4-1 S-ST13 RPW R4SB3 Wetzel 39.562750 -80.541814 - 152 - - 0.0105 Mobley Interconnect Permanent Foster Run 4-1 S-ST13 RPW R4SB3 Wetzel 39.562545 -80.541549 27 - 0.0019 - - Mobley Interconnect Temporary - 4-1 S-ST14 NRPW R6 Wetzel 39.562629 -80.541666 - 102 - - 0.0047 Mobley Interconnect Permanent Foster Run 4-1 S-ST14 NRPW R6 Wetzel 39.562580 -80.541378 79 - 0.0036 - - Mobley Interconnect Temporary - 4-1, 4-2 S-ST10 RPW R4SB3 Wetzel 39.562384 -80.542424 - 158 - - 0.0145 Mobley Interconnect Permanent Foster Run 4-1 S-ST10 RPW R4SB3 Wetzel 39.562262 -80.542374 20 - 0.0018 - - Mobley Interconnect Temporary - 4-1 Bradshaw Compressor W-YZ8 NRPWW PEM Wetzel 39.535721 -80.525972 - - 0.0104 - - Temporary - 4-12 Station S-AA12-EPH NRPW R6 Braxton 38.723574 -80.502080 16 - 0.0014 - - Harris Compressor Station Temporary - 4-189, 4-190 S-AA15 RPW R4SB5 Braxton 38.722646 -80.505148 - 94 - - 0.0054 Harris Compressor Station Permanent Kincheloe 4-190 S-AA15 RPW R4SB5 Braxton 38.722537 -80.505181 54 - 0.0031 - - Harris Compressor Station Temporary - 4-190 Stallworth Compressor W-EE6 NRPWW PEM Fayette 37.869071 -80.759476 - - - 0.0026 Permanent ILF 4-419 - Station Stallworth Compressor W-EE7 NRPWW PEM Fayette 37.868952 -80.759689 - - - 0.0045 Permanent ILF 4-419 - Station Stallworth Compressor S-A104 NRPW R6 Fayette 37.869012 -80.757538 115 - 0.0211 - - Temporary - 4-419 Station Stallworth Compressor S-A104 NRPW R6 Fayette 37.868771 -80.757108 - 215 - 0.0395 Permanent Spanishburg 4-419 - Station Stallworth Compressor S-QR4 RPW R4SB5 Fayette 37.865963 -80.762036 - 147 - 0.0135 Permanent Spanishburg 4-420 - Station Stallworth Compressor S-QR4 RPW R4SB5 Fayette 37.865903 -80.761885 54 - 0.0050 - - Temporary - 4-420 Station

Notes: 1 - Field classification based on Cowardin et al. 1979. See wetland delineation report for more details. 2 - in decimal degrees 3 - Mitigation bank based on the location of the impact and availability of mitigation credits in the impact area. - Foster Run - Foster Run Mitigation Bank - Hayes Run - Hayes Run Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank - Spanishburg - Spanishburg Mitigation Bank - Kincheloe - Kincheloe Mitigation Bank - Beverly - Beverly Mitigation Bank

Page 1 of 1 Table 12. Stockpile Data Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Circular Sufficient Circular Stockpile Circular Stockpile Sufficient ATWS Insufficient ATWS Crossing # Winch Hill Length Winch Hill Length Stockpile Diamter Circular Stockpile Height (ft) ATWS for Insufficient ATWS for Stockpile? Diamter (ft) Height (ft) for Stockpile? for Stockpile? (ft) Stockpile?

A-001 648.0735408 65.21127097 21.73709032 0 1 - 56.09073311 18.69691104 N/A N/A

A-002 - 50.13970461 16.71323487 N/A N/A - 56.09073311 18.69691104 N/A N/A

A-003 - 50.13970461 16.71323487 N/A N/A 931.9286075 72.31396743 24.10465581 0 1

A-004 824.2674178 68.94554682 22.98184894 1.000000 0.000000 833.1792987 64.20786107 21.40262036 0 1

A-005 - 63.17206928 21.05735643 N/A N/A 1432.448015 80.24963331 26.74987777 0 1

A-006 1036.147081 69.81836792 23.27278931 0.000000 1.000000 1267.509922 60.99196229 20.3306541 1 0

A-007 42.13949799 73.88650045 24.62883348 0 1 128.9563189 56.09073311 18.69691104 0 1

A-008 629.3053894 67.13034075 22.37678025 1 0 - 68.94554682 22.98184894 N/A N/A

A-009 279.4044259 64.20786107 21.40262036 0 1 349.5614124 42.2894647 14.09648823 0 1

A-010/011 701.1674341 79.59181985 26.53060662 0.000000 1.000000 710.612060 68.05004875 22.68334958 1 0

A-012 - 57.39563399 19.131878 N/A N/A 375.401751 71.50138216 23.83379405 0 1

A-012-A - - - N/A N/A - - - N/A N/A

A-013 - 59.8408947 19.9469649 N/A N/A - 54.72211677 18.24070559 N/A N/A

A-014 - 59.8408947 19.9469649 N/A N/A 807.690376 70.66989535 23.55663178 0 1

A-015 412.2423994 72.31396743 24.10465581 1.000000 0.000000 - 72.31396743 24.10465581 N/A NA

A-016 420.7454384 68.94554682 22.98184894 0.000000 1.000000 452.792859 70.66989535 23.55663178 0 1

A-017 644.9619683 53.28138676 17.76046225 0 1 38.95613272 66.18471703 22.06157234 0 1

A-018 341.0222842 72.31396743 24.10465581 0 1 - 56.09073311 18.69691104 N/A N/A

A-019A - 51.75822007 17.25274002 N/A N/A - 74.64827065 24.88275688 N/A N/A

A-019B - 0 0 N/A N/A - 0 0 N/A N/A

B-001 0 76.12683704 25.37561235 N/A N/A - 54.72211677 18.24070559 N/A N/A

B-001A - 54.72211677 18.24070559 N/A N/A 667.392566 68.94554682 22.98184894 0 1

B-002 226.9958785 63.17206928 21.05735643 1.000000 0.000000 290.742509 60.99196229 20.3306541 0 1

B-003 1016.5249 64.20786107 21.40262036 0.000000 1.000000 810.997938 71.50138216 23.83379405 0 1

B-004 - 50.13970461 16.71323487 NA NA 819.308002 68.94554682 22.98184894 0 1

B-005 496.3266579 77.55009707 25.85003236 0.000000 1.000000 - 57.39563399 19.131878 NA NA

B-006 199.3395211 72.31396743 24.10465581 0 1 220.1953161 48.40935255 16.13645085 1 0

B-007 833.793337 68.05004875 22.68334958 0 1 - 46.54557861 15.51519287 NA NA

B-008 - 57.39563399 19.131878 NA NA - 76.12683704 25.37561235 NA NA

B-009 - 60.99196229 20.3306541 NA NA - 62.10114935 20.70038312 NA NA

B-010 340.941266 63.17206928 21.05735643 0 1 - 75.39480288 25.13160096 NA NA

B-011 - 50.13970461 16.71323487 NA NA 661.2173955 64.20786107 21.40262036 0 1

B-012 461.686456 64.20786107 21.40262036 1.000000 0.000000 - 59.8408947 19.9469649 NA NA

B-013 337.0232259 68.94554682 22.98184894 0.000000 1.000000 566.554914 67.13034075 22.37678025 0 1

B-014A 519.8769778 70.66989535 23.55663178 0.000000 1.000000 21.633390 71.50138216 23.83379405 0 1

B-014B - 48.40935255 16.13645085 NA NA 598.928928 67.13034075 22.37678025 0 1

B-015A - 67.13034075 22.37678025 NA NA 873.233841 63.17206928 21.05735643 0 1

B-015B - 63.17206928 21.05735643 NA NA - 68.94554682 22.98184894 NA NA

1 of 12 Table 12. Stockpile Data Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Circular Sufficient Circular Stockpile Circular Stockpile Sufficient ATWS Insufficient ATWS Crossing # Winch Hill Length Winch Hill Length Stockpile Diamter Circular Stockpile Height (ft) ATWS for Insufficient ATWS for Stockpile? Diamter (ft) Height (ft) for Stockpile? for Stockpile? (ft) Stockpile?

B-016 - 57.39563399 19.131878 NA NA 781.942453 62.10114935 20.70038312 0 1

B-017 - 60.99196229 20.3306541 NA NA 439.449446 68.94554682 22.98184894 0 1

C-001 189.1477369 57.39563399 19.131878 0.000000 1.000000 - 57.39563399 19.131878 NA NA

C-002 - 57.39563399 19.131878 NA NA 419.842386 67.13034075 22.37678025 0 1

C-003 581.9953134 77.55009707 25.85003236 0.000000 1.000000 609.001811 68.05004875 22.68334958 0 1

C-004 437.2749375 59.8408947 19.9469649 0.000000 1.000000 886.177271 78.9229494 26.3076498 0 1

C-005 431.1385109 80.89683573 27 0.000000 1.000000 9.83897496 75.39480288 25.13160096 0 1

C-006 - 84.5789294 28 NA NA 413.0576727 83.38751817 27.79583939 0 1

C-007 496.3649923 78 26 0.000000 1.000000 571.3432514 89.03848874 29.67949625 0 1

C-008 542.4933143 88 29 0.000000 1.000000 616.9986733 57.39563399 19.131878 0 1

C-009 - 63 21 NA NA 51.54151384 72.31396743 24.10465581 1 0

C-010 689.776273 80.89683573 27 0.000000 1.000000 - 63.17206928 21.05735643 NA NA

C-011 200.8592705 73.88650045 25 0.000000 1.000000 - 67.13034075 22.37678025 NA NA

C-012 - 51.75822007 17 NA NA 333.5128391 90.08609648 30.02869883 0 1

C-013A 459.941965 64 21 0.000000 1.000000 - 62.10114935 20.70038312 NA NA

C-013B - 62 21 NA NA - 63.17206928 21.05735643 NA NA

C-014 - 52 17 NA NA - 57.39563399 19.131878 NA NA

C-015 - 71 24 NA NA 396.321804 76.12683704 25.37561235 0 1

C-018 10.51093413 66 22 0.000000 1.000000 - 59.8408947 19.9469649 NA NA

C-019 - 52 17 NA NA 295.7400168 57.39563399 19.131878 0 1

C-020 53.49763466 64 21 0.000000 1.000000 20.28515333 68.05004875 22.68334958 0 1

C-021 - 60 20 NA NA 284.1338307 70.66989535 23.55663178 0 1

C-022 63.16090307 80.89683573 27 1.000000 0.000000 - 80.89683573 26.96561191 NA NA

C-023 - 60.99196229 20 NA NA - 62.10114935 20.70038312 NA NA

C-024 - 56.09073311 19 NA NA 10.29497818 59.8408947 19.9469649 0 1

C-025 - 59.8408947 20 NA NA - 69.81836792 23.27278931 NA NA

C-026 368.5213604 51.75822007 17 0.000000 1.000000 30.00681715 66.18471703 22.06157234 0 1

C-027 - 44.51924437 15 NA NA - 57.39563399 19.131878 NA NA

C-028 - 65.21127097 22 NA NA - 46.54557861 15.51519287 NA NA

C-029 1052.004627 58.64375427 20 0.000000 1.000000 1902.72614 58.64375427 19.54791809 0 1

C-030 866.1420858 80.89683573 27 0.000000 1.000000 - 62.1 20.3 NA NA

C-031 87.09290124 59.8408947 20 0.000000 1.000000 1190.164103 90.60088535 30.20029512 0 1

C-032 1371.314802 71.50138216 24 0.000000 1.000000 - 51.75822007 17.25274002 NA NA

C-033 - 51.75822007 17 NA NA - 53.28138676 17.76046225 NA NA

C-034 - 57.39563399 19.131878 NA NA - 60.99196229 20.3306541 NA NA

C-035 - 53.28138676 17.76046225 NA NA - 58.64375427 19.54791809 NA NA

C-036 20.92355536 62.10114935 20.70038312 0.000000 1.000000 288.3971675 62.10114935 20.70038312 0 1

C-037 1103.358713 65.21127097 21.73709032 1.000000 0.000000 - 54.72211677 18.24070559 NA NA

2 of 12 Table 12. Stockpile Data Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Circular Sufficient Circular Stockpile Circular Stockpile Sufficient ATWS Insufficient ATWS Crossing # Winch Hill Length Winch Hill Length Stockpile Diamter Circular Stockpile Height (ft) ATWS for Insufficient ATWS for Stockpile? Diamter (ft) Height (ft) for Stockpile? for Stockpile? (ft) Stockpile?

C-038 - 57 19 54.43377629 72.31396743 24.10465581 0 1

C-039 1723.078308 68 23 0.000000 1.000000 - 60.99196229 20.3306541 NA NA

D-001 10.26977918 68 23 0.000000 1.000000 501.8387138 70.66989535 23.55663178 0 1

D-002 - 61 20 NA NA - 68.1 22.7 NA NA

D-003 150.4686437 66 22 0.000000 1.000000 20.5254737 65.21127097 21.73709032 0 1

D-004 - 56 19 NA NA 188.3445527 60.99196229 20.3306541 0 1

D-005 - 62 21 NA NA 262.2667789 68.05004875 22.68334958 0 1

D-006 197.493395 68 23 0.000000 1.000000 - 65.21127097 21.73709032 NA NA

D-007 - 62 21 NA NA 136.2518779 63.17206928 21.05735643 0 1

D-008 - 59 20 NA NA 73.96019343 63.17206928 21.05735643 0 1

D-009 - - - NA NA - - - NA NA

D-010 - 60 20 NA NA 371.2391795 67.1 22.4 0 1

D-011 - 56.09073311 19 NA NA - 51.75822007 17.25274002 NA NA

D-012 - 57.39563399 19 NA NA - 62.10114935 20.70038312 NA NA

D-013 - 50 17 NA NA 32.03366801 56.09073311 18.69691104 1 0

D-014 - 66 22 NA NA 92.44936309 68.1 22.7 0 1

D-015 - 53.28138676 18 NA NA - 60.99196229 20.3306541 NA NA

D-016 53.16690922 75 25 0.000000 1.000000 118.630859 73.88650045 24.62883348 0 1

D-017 - 65.21127097 22 NA NA - 60.99196229 20.3306541 NA NA

D-018 10.42975684 65.21127097 22 0.000000 1.000000 73.81988871 64.20786107 21.40262036 0 1

D-019 - 59.8408947 20 NA NA - 58.64375427 19.54791809 NA NA

D-020 - 59.8408947 20 NA NA - 56.09073311 18.69691104 NA NA

D-021 - 50.13970461 17 NA NA - 54.72211677 18.24070559 NA NA

D-022 10.30086159 62.10114935 21 0.000000 1.000000 - 64.20786107 21.40262036 NA NA

D-023 - 56.09073311 19 NA NA 21.06860866 58.64375427 19.54791809 0 1

D-024 - 56.09073311 19 NA NA - 53.28138676 17.76046225 NA NA

D-025 - 54.72211677 18 NA NA - 60.99196229 20.3306541 NA NA

D-026 - 56.09073311 19 NA NA - 58.64375427 19.54791809 NA NA

D-027 - 62.10114935 21 NA NA - 59.8408947 19.9469649 NA NA

D-028 19.84544893 60.99196229 20 0.000000 1.000000 10.28659667 63.17206928 21.05735643 1 0

D-029 50.08396706 60.99196229 20 0.000000 1.000000 - 54.72211677 18.24070559 NA NA

D-030 - 51.75822007 17 NA NA - 63.17206928 21.05735643 NA NA

D-031 10.80936687 59.8408947 20 0.000000 1.000000 - 54.72211677 18.24070559 NA NA

D-032 - 56.09073311 19 NA NA 440.7167045 73.88650045 24.62883348 0 1

D-033 - #DIV/0! #DIV/0! NA NA - #DIV/0! #DIV/0! NA NA

D-034 - 57.39563399 19 NA NA 132.3248629 60.99196229 20.3306541 0 1

D-035 - 59.8408947 20 NA NA - 56.09073311 18.69691104 NA NA

D-036 - 57.39563399 19 NA NA - 59.8408947 19.9469649 NA NA

3 of 12 Table 12. Stockpile Data Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Circular Sufficient Circular Stockpile Circular Stockpile Sufficient ATWS Insufficient ATWS Crossing # Winch Hill Length Winch Hill Length Stockpile Diamter Circular Stockpile Height (ft) ATWS for Insufficient ATWS for Stockpile? Diamter (ft) Height (ft) for Stockpile? for Stockpile? (ft) Stockpile?

D-037 - 58.64375427 20 NA NA - 56.09073311 18.69691104 NA NA

D-038 10.13984033 58.64375427 20 0.000000 1.000000 - 54.72211677 18.24070559 NA NA

D-039 - 55 18 NA NA - 54.72211677 18.24070559 NA NA

D-040 - 55 18 NA NA 41.38331168 54.72211677 18.24070559 0 1

D-041 216.1 85 28 1.000000 0.000000 1732.5 85.16225079 28.38741693 1 0

D-042 - 57 19 NA NA 306.2503416 65.21127097 21.73709032 0 1

D-043 - 61 20 NA NA - 59.8408947 19.9469649 NA NA

D-044 - 59.8408947 20 NA NA - 58.64375427 19.54791809 NA NA

D-045 - 54.72211677 18 NA NA - 57.39563399 19.131878 NA NA

D-046 - 58.64375427 20 NA NA - 60.99196229 20.3306541 NA NA

D-047 - 56.09073311 19 NA NA - 60.99196229 20.3306541 NA NA

D-048 - 54.72211677 18 NA NA - 56.09073311 18.69691104 NA NA

D-049 - 58.64375427 20 NA NA - 53.28138676 17.76046225 NA NA

D-050 - 59.8408947 20 NA NA 643.7962564 82.16105298 27.38701766 0 1

D-051 20.65610872 68.94554682 23 0.000000 1.000000 20.53025499 67.13034075 22.37678025 0 1

D-052 10.37387014 59.8408947 20 0.000000 1.000000 - 56.09073311 18.69691104 NA NA

D-053 - 60.99196229 20 NA NA - 59.8408947 19.9469649 NA NA

D-054 - 64.20786107 21 NA NA 20.13972763 71.50138216 23.83379405 0 1

D-055 31.82920068 58.64375427 20 1.000000 0.000000 - 57.39563399 19.131878 NA NA

D-056 436.3066857 76.12683704 25 1.000000 0.000000 278.3866051 76.12683704 25.37561235 0 1

D-057 10.99596953 56.09073311 19 1.000000 0.000000 104.4501024 63.17206928 21.05735643 0 1

D-058 488.7 53.28138676 18 1.000000 0.000000 - 53.28138676 17.76046225 NA NA

D-059 488.7 68.94554682 23 1.000000 0.000000 839.6 67.13034075 22.37678025 0 1

D-060 - - - NA NA - - - NA NA

D-061 - 42.2894647 14 0.000000 1.000000 - 60.99196229 20.3306541 0 1

E-001 - 57.39563399 19 NA NA 122.4443735 68.05004875 22.68334958 0 1

E-002 - 57.39563399 19 NA NA 281.5552611 66.18471703 22.06157234 0 1

E-003 - 62.10114935 21 NA NA 30.8078404 62.10114935 20.70038312 0 1

E-004 - 59.8408947 20 NA NA - 64.20786107 21.40262036 NA NA

E-005 - 57.39563399 19 NA NA 342.2383754 62.10114935 20.70038312 0 1

E-006 - 59.8408947 20 NA NA - 62.10114935 20.70038312 NA NA

E-008 - 51.75822007 17 NA NA - 54.72211677 18.24070559 NA NA

E-009 - 59.8408947 20 NA NA - 54.72211677 18.24070559 NA NA

E-010 - 51.75822007 17 NA NA - 58.64375427 19.54791809 NA NA

E-011 - 55 18 NA NA - 56.09073311 18.69691104 NA NA

E-012 327.9 59.8 20 0.000000 1.000000 0 76.1 25.1 NA NA

E-013 - 64.20786107 21 NA NA 10.35934699 58.64375427 19.54791809 0 1

E-014 - 58.64375427 20 NA NA 10.22327676 57.39563399 19.131878 0 1

4 of 12 Table 12. Stockpile Data Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Circular Sufficient Circular Stockpile Circular Stockpile Sufficient ATWS Insufficient ATWS Crossing # Winch Hill Length Winch Hill Length Stockpile Diamter Circular Stockpile Height (ft) ATWS for Insufficient ATWS for Stockpile? Diamter (ft) Height (ft) for Stockpile? for Stockpile? (ft) Stockpile?

E-015 - 54.72211677 18 NA NA - 57.39563399 19.131878 NA NA

E-016 360.4489168 66.18471703 22 1.000000 0.000000 723.8255562 51.75822007 17.25274002 0 1

E-017 - 53.28138676 18 NA NA - 68.94554682 22.98184894 NA NA

E-018 - 57.39563399 19 NA NA - 64.20786107 21.40262036 NA NA

E-019 - 54.72211677 18 NA NA - 53.28138676 17.76046225 NA NA

E-020 1723.428532 54.72211677 18 1.000000 0.000000 - 54.72211677 18.24070559 NA NA

E-021 764.7399073 50.13970461 17 0.000000 1.000000 332.501481 64.20786107 21.40262036 0 1

E-022 - 58.64375427 20 - 64.20786107 21.40262036 NA NA

E-023 249.0861664 64.20786107 21 0.000000 1.000000 122.3090262 65.21127097 21.73709032 1 0

F-001 - 57 19 NA NA 91.63723849 50.13970461 16.71323487 1 0

F-002 - 70.66989535 24 NA NA 185.0748875 74.64827065 24.88275688 0 1

F-003 51.75050029 63.17206928 21 0.000000 1.000000 42.50839173 65.21127097 21.73709032 1 0

F-004 188.7969837 66.18471703 22 0.000000 1.000000 371.2914268 70.66989535 23.55663178 0 1

F-004A - 57.39563399 19 NA NA - 76.84505716 25.61501905 NA NA

F-005 - 73.10869005 24 NA NA - 63.17206928 21.05735643 NA NA

F-006 50.95296114 66.18471703 22 0.000000 1.000000 20.65471841 73.88650045 24.62883348 0 1

F-007 - 58.64375427 20 NA NA - 60.99196229 20.3306541 NA NA

F-008 - 50.13970461 17 NA NA 20.877686 60.99196229 20.3306541 1 0

F-009 - 53.28138676 18 NA NA 418.6439385 66.18471703 22.06157234 1 0

F-010 1537.632763 67.13034075 22 0.000000 1.000000 - 48.40935255 16.13645085 NA NA

F-011 1200.042613 63.17206928 21 0.000000 1.000000 105.3246936 76.12683704 25.37561235 0 1

F-011A - 64.20786107 21 NA NA 735.2510526 68.05004875 22.68334958 0 1

F-012 - 62.10114935 21 NA NA 9.941491887 62.10114935 20.70038312 0 1

F-013 251.7425715 62.10114935 21 0.000000 1.000000 - 59.8408947 19.9469649 NA NA

F-014 - 56.09073311 19 NA NA - 56.09073311 18.69691104 NA NA

F-015 - 57.39563399 19 NA NA - 56.09073311 18.69691104 NA NA

F-016 - 57.39563399 19 NA NA - 53.28138676 17.76046225 NA NA

F-017 - 57 19 NA NA - 57.39563399 19.131878 NA NA

F-018 - 68.94554682 23 NA NA - 73.10869005 24.36956335 NA NA

F-019 - 0 0 NA NA - 0 0 NA NA

F-020 - 64.20786107 21 NA NA - 48.40935255 16.13645085 NA NA

F-021 - 46.54557861 16 NA NA - 44.51924437 14.83974812 NA NA

F-022 - 53.28138676 18 NA NA - 58.64375427 19.54791809 NA NA

F-023 52.64652491 67.13034075 22 0.000000 1.000000 292.7475946 68.05004875 22.68334958 0 1

F-024 104.6256186 66.18471703 22 0.000000 1.000000 - 63.17206928 21.05735643 NA NA

F-025 145.8680966 67.13034075 22 0.000000 1.000000 51.73846509 65.21127097 21.73709032 0 1

F-026 - 60.99196229 20 NA NA 239.7555521 62.10114935 20.70038312 0 1

F-027 172.6850198 54.72211677 18 0.000000 1.000000 - 60.99196229 20.3306541 NA NA

5 of 12 Table 12. Stockpile Data Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Circular Sufficient Circular Stockpile Circular Stockpile Sufficient ATWS Insufficient ATWS Crossing # Winch Hill Length Winch Hill Length Stockpile Diamter Circular Stockpile Height (ft) ATWS for Insufficient ATWS for Stockpile? Diamter (ft) Height (ft) for Stockpile? for Stockpile? (ft) Stockpile?

F-028 10.27275804 59.8408947 20 1.000000 0.000000 227.5106275 57.39563399 19.131878 0 1

F-029-030 - 50.13970461 17 NA NA - 57.39563399 19.131878 NA NA

F-031 75.0424989 58.64375427 20 1.000000 0.000000 98.66862869 68.94554682 22.98184894 0 1

F-032 74.19746208 58.64375427 20 1.000000 0.000000 - 58.64375427 19.54791809 NA NA

F-033 - 0 0 NA NA - 0 0 NA NA

F-034 10.21281895 64.20786107 21 0.000000 1.000000 - 59.8408947 19.9469649 NA NA

F-035 30.9278228 59.8408947 20 0.000000 1.000000 191.1850921 57.39563399 19.131878 0 1

F-036 535.9394247 68.05004875 23 0.000000 1.000000 - 65.21127097 21.73709032 NA NA

F-037 10.41799494 70.66989535 24 0.000000 1.000000 253.6466524 69.81836792 23.27278931 0 1

F-038 - 63.17206928 21 NA NA - 62.10114935 20.70038312 NA NA

F-039 72.89490454 59.8408947 20 0.000000 1.000000 - 58.64375427 19.54791809 NA NA

F-040 - 57.39563399 19 NA NA 311.8781149 68.05004875 22.68334958 0 1

F-041 342.0778846 67.13034075 22 0.000000 1.000000 - 54.72211677 18.24070559 NA NA

F-042 - 59.8408947 20 NA NA - 54.72211677 18.24070559 NA NA

F-043 210.1506752 66.18471703 22 0.000000 1.000000 - 63.17206928 21.05735643 NA NA

F-044 - 53.28138676 18 NA NA 295.2106559 54.72211677 18.24070559 0 1

F-045 9.986787889 56.09073311 19 1.000000 0.000000 - 67.13034075 22.37678025 NA NA

F-046 - 53.28138676 18 NA NA 295.1226988 64.20786107 21.40262036 0 1

G-001 75.02666587 77.55009707 26 0.000000 1.000000 54.93027759 68.05004875 22.68334958 0 1

G-002 292.2420099 67.13034075 22 0.000000 1.000000 331.4421024 64.20786107 21.40262036 0 1

G-003 84.05462577 67.13034075 22 0.000000 1.000000 63.48024372 64.20786107 21.40262036 0 1

G-004 65.84814209 0 0 0.000000 1.000000 - 0 0

G-005 103.9225529 71.50138216 24 0.000000 1.000000 109.7483042 68.94554682 22.98184894 0 1

G-006 - 48.40935255 16 NA NA 607.3642392 65.21127097 21.73709032 0 1

G-007 - 67.13034075 22 NA NA 288.8653507 68.94554682 22.98184894 0 1

G-008 220.1304947 59.8408947 20 0.000000 1.000000 - 56.09073311 18.69691104 NA NA

G-009 607.7207033 67.1 22 0.000000 1.000000 158.038597 67.1 22.4 0 1

G-010 - 57.39563399 19 NA NA - 50.13970461 16.71323487 NA NA

G-011 21.4910936 65.21127097 22 0.000000 1.000000 19.20579743 57.39563399 19.131878 0 1

G-012 - 58.64375427 20 NA NA - 50.13970461 16.71323487 NA NA

G-013 - 58.64375427 20 NA NA - 65.21127097 21.73709032 NA NA

G-014 291.8842979 53.28138676 18 0.000000 1.000000 288.5778023 51.75822007 17.25274002 0 1

G-015A - 68.94554682 23 NA NA 388.3303968 62.10114935 20.70038312 0 1

G-015B - 62.10114935 21 NA NA - 64.20786107 21.40262036 NA NA

G-016 675.4287985 62.10114935 21 0.000000 1.000000 975.1442417 76.12683704 25.37561235 0 1

G-017 328.010848 51.75822007 17 0.000000 1.000000 33.0245763 73.10869005 24.36956335 1 0

G-019A - 71.50138216 24 NA NA 450.1064571 67.13034075 22.37678025 1 0

G-019B - 56.09073311 19 NA NA - 58.64375427 19.54791809 NA NA

6 of 12 Table 12. Stockpile Data Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Circular Sufficient Circular Stockpile Circular Stockpile Sufficient ATWS Insufficient ATWS Crossing # Winch Hill Length Winch Hill Length Stockpile Diamter Circular Stockpile Height (ft) ATWS for Insufficient ATWS for Stockpile? Diamter (ft) Height (ft) for Stockpile? for Stockpile? (ft) Stockpile?

G-020 400.0444163 72.31396743 24 0.000000 1.000000 31.62517194 51.75822007 17.25274002 0 1

G-020A - 57.4 19 NA NA 30.7 57.4 19.1 0 1

G-022 537.2662353 63.17206928 21 0.000000 1.000000 176.6695511 69.81836792 23.27278931 0 1

G-023 371.8399527 0 0 0.000000 1.000000 - 0 0 NA NA

G-024 702.0265849 64.2 21 0.000000 1.000000 597.4708955 68.9 23 0 1

G-025 348.9127276 58.64375427 20 0.000000 1.000000 - 54.72211677 18.24070559 NA NA

G-026 275.6151439 59.8408947 20 0.000000 1.000000 - 50.13970461 16.71323487 NA NA

G-027 42.64957094 59.8408947 20 0.000000 1.000000 - 65.21127097 21.73709032 NA NA

G-028 - 53.28138676 18 NA NA 102.1437368 57.39563399 19.131878 0 1

G-029 - 57.39563399 19 NA NA - 60.99196229 20.3306541 NA NA

G-030 - 58.64375427 20 NA NA 72.87419313 54.72211677 18.24070559 0 1

G-031 - 53.28138676 18 NA NA - 54.72211677 18.24070559 N/A N/A

G-032 - 50.13970461 17 NA NA - 54.72211677 18.24070559 N/A N/A

G-033 - 51.75822007 17 NA NA - 50.13970461 16.71323487 N/A N/A

G-034 823.8114842 62.10114935 21 0.000000 1.000000 52.39406335 42.2894647 14.09648823 0 1

G-035 448.6640173 62.10114935 21 0.000000 1.000000 - 50.13970461 16.71323487 N/A N/A

G-036 - 59.8408947 20 NA NA - 50.13970461 16.71323487 N/A N/A

G-037 - 51.75822007 17 NA NA - 50.13970461 16.71323487 N/A N/A

G-038 - 54.72211677 18 NA NA 20.89606522 53.28138676 17.76046225 0 1

G-039 21.16198171 60.99196229 20 0.000000 1.000000 216.1778148 68.94554682 22.98184894 0 1

G-040 286.6621311 66.18471703 22 0.000000 1.000000 119.2031553 56.09073311 18.69691104 0 1

G-041 - 59.8408947 20 N/A N/A - 56.09073311 18.69691104 N/A N/A

G-042 559.8181262 63.17206928 21 0.000000 1.000000 - 50.13970461 16.71323487 N/A N/A

G-043 - 56.09073311 19 N/A N/A 293.4919505 54.72211677 18.24070559 0 1

G-044 178.4684484 56.09073311 19 0.000000 1.000000 55.36656043 63.17206928 21.05735643 0 1

H-001 482.3385328 72.31396743 24 0.000000 1.000000 1575.719976 66.18471703 22.06157234 0 1

H-002 73.78655998 66.18471703 22 0.000000 1.000000 - 68.94554682 22.98184894 N/A N/A

H-003 243.1236541 74.64827065 25 0.000000 1.000000 - 44.51924437 14.83974812 N/A N/A

H-004 33.11100731 69.81836792 23 0.000000 1.000000 - 58.64375427 19.54791809 N/A N/A

H-005 32.7269996 64.20786107 21 0.000000 1.000000 - 57.39563399 19.131878 N/A N/A

H-006 - 70.66989535 24 N/A N/A - 57.39563399 19.131878 N/A N/A

H-007 - 54.72211677 18 N/A N/A - 64.20786107 21.40262036 N/A N/A

H-008 - 60.99196229 20 N/A N/A - 46.54557861 15.51519287 N/A N/A

H-009 - 50.13970461 17 N/A N/A - 51.75822007 17.25274002 N/A N/A

H-010 - 46.54557861 16 N/A N/A - 56.09073311 18.69691104 N/A N/A

H-011 - 0 0 N/A N/A - 0 0 N/A N/A

H-012 - 53.28138676 18 N/A N/A - 60.99196229 20.3306541 N/A N/A

H-013 52.22573335 73.88650045 25 0.000000 1.000000 - 62.10114935 20.70038312 N/A N/A

7 of 12 Table 12. Stockpile Data Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Circular Sufficient Circular Stockpile Circular Stockpile Sufficient ATWS Insufficient ATWS Crossing # Winch Hill Length Winch Hill Length Stockpile Diamter Circular Stockpile Height (ft) ATWS for Insufficient ATWS for Stockpile? Diamter (ft) Height (ft) for Stockpile? for Stockpile? (ft) Stockpile?

H-014 21.09244586 70.66989535 24 0.000000 1.000000 21.03786133 58.64375427 19.54791809 0 1

H-015 21.17023201 68.05004875 23 0.000000 1.000000 - 58.64375427 19.54791809 N/A N/A

H-016 - 44.51924437 15 N/A N/A 919.3129257 63.17206928 21.05735643 1 0

H-017 281.9103857 68.05004875 23 0.000000 1.000000 63.0658065 73.10869005 24.36956335 0 1

H-018 - 68.05004875 23 N/A N/A 10.59441264 68.94554682 22.98184894 0 1

H-019 - 73.10869005 24 N/A N/A - 65.21127097 21.73709032 N/A N/A

H-020 - 53.28138676 18 N/A N/A 73.70907355 57.39563399 19.131878 1 0

H-021 - 51.75822007 17 N/A N/A - 50.13970461 16.71323487 N/A N/A

H-022 - 53.28138676 18 N/A N/A - 51.75822007 17.25274002 N/A N/A

H-023 646.559196 73.10869005 24 0.000000 1.000000 429.0033177 75.39480288 25.13160096 0 1

H-024 578.3835931 72.31396743 24 0.000000 1.000000 768.0706449 72.31396743 24.10465581 0 1

H-025 131.4828983 57.39563399 19 0.000000 1.000000 2582.309992 56.09073311 18.69691104 0 1

H-026 1599.314435 78.9229494 26 1.000000 0.000000 2681.363693 85.73768886 28.57922962 0 1

H-027 127.6825367 72.31396743 24 0.000000 1.000000 669.8877221 69.81836792 23.27278931 0 1

H-028 336.4706688 78.9229494 26 0.000000 1.000000 507.507175 71.50138216 23.83379405 0 1

H-029 559.5016732 60.99196229 20 0.000000 1.000000 280.4118993 68.94554682 22.98184894 0 1

H-030 - 67.13034075 22 N/A N/A - 56.09073311 18.69691104 N/A N/A

H-031 - 60.99196229 20 N/A N/A - 64.20786107 21.40262036 N/A N/A

H-032 - 59.8408947 20 N/A N/A 211.6243052 62.10114935 20.70038312 0 1

H-033 520.7650421 57.39563399 19 0.000000 1.000000 - 56.09073311 18.69691104 N/A N/A

H-034 - - - N/A N/A - - - N/A N/A

H-035 - 56.09073311 19 N/A N/A - 48.40935255 16.13645085 N/A N/A

H-036 - 0 0 N/A N/A - 0 0 N/A N/A

H-038 - 0 0 N/A N/A - 0 0 N/A N/A

H-039 - 0 0 N/A N/A - 0 0 N/A N/A

H-040 - 54.72211677 18 N/A N/A 10.4223572 59.8408947 19.9469649 0 1

H-041 - 57.39563399 19 N/A N/A - 46.54557861 15.51519287 N/A N/A

H-042 - 58.64375427 20 N/A N/A - 62.10114935 20.70038312 N/A N/A

H-043 - 62.10114935 21 N/A N/A 339.7922665 64.20786107 21.40262036 0 1

H-044 - 60.99196229 20 N/A N/A 84.26264558 59.8408947 19.9469649 0 1

H-045 230.2737223 64.20786107 21 0.000000 1.000000 31.54727385 65.21127097 21.73709032 0 1

H-046 - 66.18471703 22 N/A N/A 42.95662208 60.99196229 20.3306541 0 1

H-047A - 54.72211677 18 N/A N/A - 53.28138676 17.76046225 N/A N/A

H-047B - 53.28138676 18 N/A N/A - 50.13970461 16.71323487 N/A N/A

H-048A - 50.13970461 17 N/A N/A - 51.75822007 17.25274002 N/A N/A

H-048B - 58.64375427 20 N/A N/A - 62.10114935 20.70038312 N/A N/A

H-051 115.5690628 60.99196229 20 0.000000 1.000000 130.3549912 68.94554682 22.98184894 0 1

H-052 728.9872707 57.39563399 19 0.000000 1.000000 - 51.75822007 17.25274002 N/A N/A

8 of 12 Table 12. Stockpile Data Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Circular Sufficient Circular Stockpile Circular Stockpile Sufficient ATWS Insufficient ATWS Crossing # Winch Hill Length Winch Hill Length Stockpile Diamter Circular Stockpile Height (ft) ATWS for Insufficient ATWS for Stockpile? Diamter (ft) Height (ft) for Stockpile? for Stockpile? (ft) Stockpile?

H-053 83.1233436 64.20786107 21 0.000000 1.000000 - 56.09073311 18.69691104 N/A N/A

H-054 - 56.09073311 19 N/A N/A 51.38751611 60.99196229 20.3306541 0 1

H-055 - 56.09073311 19 N/A N/A 585.4435098 68.94554682 22.98184894 0 1

H-056 147.9565609 62 21 0.000000 1.000000 31.29012308 59.8408947 19.9469649 0 1

H-057 108.5331993 65 22 0.000000 1.000000 92.12879866 73.10869005 24.36956335 0 1

H-058 231.1016319 62.10114935 21 0.000000 1.000000 61.19944249 67.13034075 22.37678025 0 1

H-059 - 66.18471703 22 N/A N/A 61.55900619 70.66989535 23.55663178 0 1

H-060 - 56.09073311 19 N/A N/A - 54.72211677 18.24070559 N/A N/A

H-061 - 58.64375427 20 N/A N/A 64.11809583 65.21127097 21.73709032 0 1

H-062 10.451915 64.20786107 21 0.000000 1.000000 136.3245769 62.10114935 20.70038312 0 1

H-063 927.7947639 76.12683704 25 0.000000 1.000000 - 57.39563399 19.131878 N/A N/A

I-001 - 58.64375427 20 N/A N/A - 57.39563399 19.131878 N/A N/A

I-001A - 54.7 18 N/A N/A 30.7 54.7 18.2 0 1

I-002 - 54.72211677 18 N/A N/A - 54.72211677 18.24070559 N/A N/A

I-003 - 56.09073311 19 N/A N/A - 56.09073311 18.69691104 N/A N/A

I-004 - 50.13970461 17 N/A N/A - 62.10114935 20.70038312 N/A N/A

I-005A - 63.17206928 21 N/A N/A - 57.39563399 19.131878 N/A N/A

I-005B - 57.39563399 19 N/A N/A - 63.17206928 21.05735643 N/A N/A

I-006 - 67.13034075 22 N/A N/A 62.13050383 71.50138216 23.83379405 0 1

I-007 123.8872405 57.39563399 19 0.000000 1.000000 - 58.64375427 19.54791809 N/A N/A

I-008 - 53.28138676 18 N/A N/A - 60.99196229 20.3306541 N/A N/A

I-009 - 58.64375427 20 N/A N/A 30.30546063 62.10114935 20.70038312 0 1

I-010 86.71105113 59.8408947 20 0.000000 1.000000 30.44602619 67.13034075 22.37678025 0 1

I-011 - 56.09073311 19 N/A N/A - 60.99196229 20.3306541 N/A N/A

I-012 113.1505997 64.20786107 21 0.000000 1.000000 49.57787331 58.64375427 19.54791809 0 1

I-013 52.52073234 70.66989535 24 0.000000 1.000000 - 59.8408947 19.9469649 N/A N/A

I-014 - 60.99196229 20 N/A N/A - 57.39563399 19.131878 N/A N/A

I-015 - 62.10114935 21 N/A N/A - 63.17206928 21.05735643 N/A N/A

I-016 - 51.75822007 17 N/A N/A - 50.13970461 16.71323487 N/A N/A

I-017 - 51.75822007 17 N/A N/A 121.593775 76.84505716 25.61501905 0 1

I-018 - 62.10114935 21 N/A N/A - 63.17206928 21.05735643 N/A N/A

I-019 - 58.64375427 20 N/A N/A - 58.64375427 19.54791809 N/A N/A

I-020 105.9803852 56.09073311 19 0.000000 1.000000 - 54.72211677 18.24070559 N/A N/A

I-021 - 57.39563399 19 N/A N/A 32.2640318 56.09073311 18.69691104 1 0

I-022 - 68.05004875 23 N/A N/A - 68.05004875 22.68334958 N/A N/A

I-023 84.58081951 68.05004875 23 0.000000 1.000000 - 56.09073311 18.69691104 N/A N/A

I-024 - 57.39563399 19 N/A N/A - 65.21127097 21.73709032 N/A N/A

I-025 52.37199107 59.8408947 20 0.000000 1.000000 - 58.64375427 19.54791809 N/A N/A

9 of 12 Table 12. Stockpile Data Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Circular Sufficient Circular Stockpile Circular Stockpile Sufficient ATWS Insufficient ATWS Crossing # Winch Hill Length Winch Hill Length Stockpile Diamter Circular Stockpile Height (ft) ATWS for Insufficient ATWS for Stockpile? Diamter (ft) Height (ft) for Stockpile? for Stockpile? (ft) Stockpile?

I-026 - 65.21127097 22 N/A N/A - 60.99196229 20.3306541 N/A N/A

I-027 83.14213958 68.05004875 23 0.000000 1.000000 10.29212948 67.13034075 22.37678025 0 1

I-028 - 58.64375427 20 N/A N/A 31.37926951 64.20786107 21.40262036 0 1

I-029 105.1549987 63.17206928 21 0.000000 1.000000 - 59.8408947 19.9469649 N/A N/A

I-030 - 60.99196229 20 N/A N/A - 50.13970461 16.71323487 N/A N/A

I-031 - 59.8408947 20 N/A N/A - 56.09073311 18.69691104 N/A N/A

I-032 - 74.64827065 25 N/A N/A - 78.24254529 26.08084843 N/A N/A

I-033 19.9756151 65 22 0.000000 1.000000 - 69.81836792 23.27278931 N/A N/A

I-034 - 51.75822007 17 N/A N/A - 59.8408947 19.9469649 N/A N/A

I-035 234.3647355 78.24254529 26 0.000000 1.000000 - 65.21127097 21.73709032 N/A N/A

I-036 - 68.05004875 23 N/A N/A 100.1116958 74.64827065 24.88275688 0 1

I-037 62.14396445 67.13034075 22 0.000000 1.000000 - 64.20786107 21.40262036 N/A N/A

I-038 - 46.54557861 16 N/A N/A - 56.09073311 18.69691104 N/A N/A

I-039 - 58.64375427 20 N/A N/A - 56.09073311 18.69691104 N/A N/A

I-040 - 51.75822007 17 N/A N/A - 57.39563399 19.131878 N/A N/A

I-041 - 59.8408947 20 N/A N/A - 62.10114935 20.70038312 N/A N/A

I-042 - 60.99196229 20 N/A N/A - 53.28138676 17.76046225 N/A N/A

I-043A - 56.09073311 19 N/A N/A - 58.64375427 19.54791809 N/A N/A

I-043B - 57.39563399 19 N/A N/A - 56.09073311 18.69691104 N/A N/A

I-044A - 59.8408947 20 N/A N/A - 54.72211677 18.24070559 N/A N/A

I-044B - 54.72211677 18 N/A N/A - 63.17206928 21.05735643 N/A N/A

I-045 - 62.10114935 21 N/A N/A - 59.8408947 19.9469649 N/A N/A

I-046 - 50.13970461 17 N/A N/A - 60.99196229 20.3306541 N/A N/A

I-047 - 62.10114935 21 N/A N/A 86.86822634 71.50138216 23.83379405 0 1

I-048 92.76353923 56.09073311 19 1.000000 0.000000 42.26864746 54.72211677 18.24070559 0 1

I-049 - 57 19 N/A N/A 10.44997822 56.09073311 18.69691104 0 1

I-050 - 59.8408947 20 N/A N/A - 51.75822007 17.25274002 N/A N/A

I-051 - 58.64375427 20 N/A N/A 31.59121371 54.72211677 18.24070559 1 0

I-052 - 54.72211677 18 N/A N/A - 63.17206928 21.05735643 N/A N/A

I-053 - 64.2 21 N/A N/A - 59.8 19.9 N/A N/A

I-054 31.42172249 59.8408947 20 0.000000 1.000000 - 67.13034075 22.37678025 N/A N/A

I-055 - 67.13034075 22 N/A N/A 10.46342136 58.64375427 19.54791809 0 1

I-056 - 56.09073311 19 N/A N/A 32.04915612 60.99196229 20.3306541 0 1

I-057 73.56892001 63.17206928 21 0.000000 1.000000 - 58.64375427 19.54791809 N/A N/A

I-058 - 66.18471703 22 N/A N/A - 56.09073311 18.69691104 N/A N/A

I-059 - 63.17206928 21 N/A N/A - 54.72211677 18.24070559 N/A N/A

I-060A 52.18785402 69.81836792 23 1.000000 0.000000 - 57.39563399 19.131878 N/A N/A

I-060B - 57.39563399 19 N/A N/A - 73.88650045 24.62883348 N/A N/A

10 of 12 Table 12. Stockpile Data Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Circular Sufficient Circular Stockpile Circular Stockpile Sufficient ATWS Insufficient ATWS Crossing # Winch Hill Length Winch Hill Length Stockpile Diamter Circular Stockpile Height (ft) ATWS for Insufficient ATWS for Stockpile? Diamter (ft) Height (ft) for Stockpile? for Stockpile? (ft) Stockpile?

I-061A - 57.39563399 19 N/A N/A - 56.09073311 18.69691104 N/A N/A

I-061B - 65.21127097 22 N/A N/A - 53.28138676 17.76046225 N/A N/A

I-062 - 71.50138216 24 N/A N/A - 51.75822007 17.25274002 N/A N/A

I-063 - 66.18471703 22 N/A N/A - 56.09073311 18.69691104 N/A N/A

I-064 - 58.64375427 20 N/A N/A 31.22066004 62.10114935 20.70038312 0 1

I-065 - 65.21127097 22 N/A N/A - 65.21127097 21.73709032 N/A N/A

I-066 - 62.10114935 21 N/A N/A - 63.17206928 21.05735643 N/A N/A

I-067 - 59.8408947 20 N/A N/A - 58.64375427 19.54791809 N/A N/A

I-068 - - - N/A N/A - - - N/A N/A

I-069A - 58.64375427 20 N/A N/A - 58.64375427 19.54791809 N/A N/A

I-069B - 58.64375427 20 N/A N/A - 65.21127097 21.73709032 N/A N/A

I-070 - 64.20786107 21 N/A N/A - 62.10114935 20.70038312 N/A N/A

I-071 - 63.17206928 21 N/A N/A - 65.21127097 21.73709032 N/A N/A

I-072 10.54036258 68.94554682 23 0.000000 1.000000 - 62.10114935 20.70038312 N/A N/A

I-073 90.88557043 54.72211677 18 1.000000 0.000000 - 56.09073311 18.69691104 N/A N/A

I-074 - 67.13034075 22 N/A N/A - 58.64375427 19.54791809 N/A N/A

I-075 10.47037167 68.94554682 23 1.000000 0.000000 - 63.17206928 21.05735643 N/A N/A

I-076 - 59.8408947 20 N/A N/A 107.2410954 65.21127097 21.73709032 0 1

I-077 - 58.64375427 20 N/A N/A 20.97597338 62.10114935 20.70038312 0 1

I-078 - 56.09073311 19 N/A N/A - 53.28138676 17.76046225 N/A N/A

I-079 - 50.13970461 16.71323487 N/A N/A 10.45115423 72.31396743 24.10465581 0 1

I-080 - 54.72211677 18.24070559 N/A N/A 96.19671816 58.64375427 19.54791809 0 1

I-081 - 63.17206928 21.05735643 N/A N/A - 66.18471703 22.06157234 N/A N/A

I-082 - 68.05004875 22.68334958 N/A N/A - 59.8408947 19.9469649 N/A N/A

I-083 - 59.8408947 19.9469649 N/A N/A 10.39902371 53.28138676 17.76046225 0 1

I-084A - 58.64375427 19.54791809 N/A N/A - 57.39563399 19.131878 N/A N/A

I-084B - 57.39563399 19.131878 N/A N/A - 62.10114935 20.70038312 N/A N/A

I-085 - 59.8408947 19.9469649 N/A N/A - 56.09073311 18.69691104 N/A N/A

I-086 - 59.8 19.9 N/A N/A 96.26928831 58.6 19.5 0 1

I-087 114.6015115 57.39563399 19.131878 0.000000 1.000000 52.22830577 64.20786107 21.40262036 0 1

I-088 20.99440341 70.66989535 23.55663178 0.000000 1.000000 - 68.05004875 22.68334958 N/A N/A

I-089 - 65.21127097 21.73709032 N/A N/A - 69.81836792 23.27278931 N/A N/A

I-090 - 59.8408947 19.9469649 N/A N/A - 63.17206928 21.05735643 N/A N/A

I-091 - 68.94554682 22.98184894 N/A N/A - 54.72211677 18.24070559 N/A N/A

I-092 - 58.64375427 19.54791809 N/A N/A - 59.8408947 19.9469649 N/A N/A

I-093 - 54.72211677 18.24070559 N/A N/A - 56.09073311 18.69691104 N/A N/A

I-094 - 63.17206928 21.05735643 N/A N/A - 60.99196229 20.3306541 N/A N/A

I-095 - 57.39563399 19.131878 N/A N/A - 58.64375427 19.54791809 N/A N/A

11 of 12 Table 12. Stockpile Data Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Circular Sufficient Circular Stockpile Circular Stockpile Sufficient ATWS Insufficient ATWS Crossing # Winch Hill Length Winch Hill Length Stockpile Diamter Circular Stockpile Height (ft) ATWS for Insufficient ATWS for Stockpile? Diamter (ft) Height (ft) for Stockpile? for Stockpile? (ft) Stockpile?

I-096 - 57.39563399 19.131878 N/A N/A - 54.72211677 18.24070559 N/A N/A

I-097 10.43618275 53.28138676 17.76046225 0.000000 1.000000 - 56.09073311 18.69691104 N/A N/A

I-098 20.83397652 68.94554682 22.98184894 0.000000 1.000000 - 63.17206928 21.05735643 N/A N/A

I-099 21.24312039 66.18471703 22.06157234 0.000000 1.000000 - 66.18471703 22.06157234 N/A N/A

I-100 - 60.99196229 20.3306541 - 65.21127097 21.73709032 N/A N/A

I-101A 51.63431106 56.09073311 18.69691104 0.000000 1.000000 - 54.72211677 18.24070559 0 1

I-101B - 54.72211677 18.24070559 N/A N/A 31.75318223 70.66989535 23.55663178 N/A N/A

I-102 - 59.8408947 19.9469649 N/A N/A - 66.18471703 22.06157234 N/A N/A

I-103 - 42.2894647 14.09648823 N/A N/A - 51.75822007 17.25274002 N/A N/A

I-104 - 59.8408947 19.9469649 N/A N/A - 57.39563399 19.131878 N/A N/A

I-105 - 59.8408947 19.9469649 N/A N/A - 58.64375427 19.54791809 N/A N/A

I-106A - 58.64375427 19.54791809 N/A N/A - 54.72211677 18.24070559 N/A N/A

I-106B - 65.21127097 21.73709032 N/A N/A - 58.64375427 19.54791809 N/A N/A

I-107 - 50.13970461 16.71323487 N/A N/A - 56.09073311 18.69691104 N/A N/A

I-108 - 69.81836792 23.27278931 N/A N/A - 69.81836792 23.27278931 N/A N/A

I-109 - 58.64375427 19.54791809 N/A N/A - 67.13034075 22.37678025 N/A N/A

I-110 - 58.64375427 19.54791809 N/A N/A - 60.99196229 20.3306541 N/A N/A

I-111 - 59.8408947 19.9469649 N/A N/A - 51.75822007 17.25274002 N/A N/A

I-111A - 56.09073311 18.69691104 N/A N/A - 54.72211677 18.24070559 N/A N/A

I-112 - 51.75822007 17.25274002 N/A N/A - 54.72211677 18.24070559 N/A N/A

I-113 - 67.13034075 22.37678025 N/A N/A - 68.94554682 22.98184894 N/A N/A

I-114 - 58.64375427 19.54791809 N/A N/A 10.50763792 58.64375427 19.54791809 1 0

I-115 - 57.39563399 19.131878 N/A N/A - 56.09073311 18.69691104 N/A N/A

I-116 - 56.09073311 18.69691104 N/A N/A - 51.75822007 17.25274002 N/A N/A

I-117 - 56.09073311 18.69691104 N/A N/A - 57.39563399 19.131878 N/A N/A

I-118 - 0 0 N/A N/A - 0 0 N/A N/A

I-119 10.47473588 64.20786107 21.40262036 0.000000 1.000000 10.49996603 62.10114935 20.70038312 0 1

I-120 - 68.05004875 22.68334958 N/A N/A - 64.20786107 21.40262036 N/A N/A

I-121 - 60.99196229 20.3306541 N/A N/A - 59.8408947 19.9469649 N/A N/A

I-122 - 56.09073311 18.69691104 N/A N/A - 57.39563399 19.131878 N/A N/A

I-123 - 63.17206928 21.05735643 N/A N/A - 57.39563399 19.131878 N/A N/A

I-124 - 53.28138676 17.76046225 N/A N/A 29.74688886 51.75822007 17.25274002 0 1

12 of 12 Table 13. Dry-Ditch Open-Cut Crossing Method Cost Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Stream Crossing Unit Costs Stream Crossing Type

Cost per Foot

Open-Cut Method (width ≤10') $3,500.00

Open-Cut Method (10'< width ≤20') $3,600.00

Open-Cut Method (21'< width ≤30') $3,650.00

Open-Cut Method (width > 30') $4,200.00

Wetland/Buffer $700.00

1 of 1 Table 14. Bore Crossing Method Cost Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Pit Setup <20' ($/ft)1 $4,567

Pit Setup 20' to 30' ($/ft) $9,135

Pit Setup 30' to 40' ($/ft) $18,269

Pit Setup ≥40' ($/ft) $54,545

Conventional Bore ($/ft) $2,838

Guided Conventional Bore ($/ft) $1,484

DirectPipe ($/ft) $8,000

MTBM ($/ft) $10,000

Notes: 1 Based on 2019 average actual cost for bores in 2019. Includes entry and receiving pits.

1 of 1 Table 15. Crossing Method Determination Summary Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Evaluation Factors Sufficient USACE Crossing Methods Maximum Proposed Crossing # Waterbody Maximum Steep Maximum Winch Karst Terrain Stockpile Crossing Method Decision Rationale District Evaluated Crossing Length Pit Depth Deep Stream Average Slope Total Cost ($) Crossing Method Slope (%) Hill Length (feet) Present Storage (%) Available

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 69 - N 106 51 648 N N $178,577 This crossing is situated on a long and steep slope on one side that would create logistically difficult construction conditions and Huntington A-001 W-A1a, S-A1a Dry-Ditch Open-Cut provide insufficient area for a bore pit spoils. Additionally, the presence of existing utilities and a completed road crossing do not allow sufficient workspace for excavation of a bore pit and operation of conventional boring or tunneling equipment. Conventional Bore 69 28 N 106 51 648 N N $451,592

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 47 - N 71 49 932 N N $64,909 This crossing is situated on a long and steep slope on one side that would involve logistically difficult construction conditions and Huntington A-003 S-A3a Dry-Ditch Open-Cut provide insufficient area for a bore pit spoils. Furthermore, the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 47 34 N 71 49 932 N N $754,544

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 203 - N 59 44 1432 N N $188,752 This one foot wide stream is situated on a long and steep slope that would involve logistically difficult construction conditions and would require an excessively deep bore pit for a trenchless crossing. An already completed stream crossing is located near this Huntington A-005 S-A124 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut resource which further reduces the available work space and creates an insufficient area for a bore pit soil stockpile. Furthermore, the time to complete a trenchless crossing is nearly four times as long and the cost to bore is unreasonably high Conventional Bore 203 48 N 59 44 1432 N N $3,194,292 relative to the proposed construction method.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 95 - N 74 62 1268 N N $90,372 This crossing is located in a valley that has long and steep slopes on both sides which would require a technically and logistically W-A27-PFO, W- challenging winching system. In addition, the deep bore pits would require additional areas to stockpile soils which may require Huntington A-006 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut A27-PEM, S-A118 additional tree clearing in known use Indiana Bat habitat. Furthermore, the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 95 36 N 74 62 1268 N N $927,306

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 85 - N 36 20 629 N Y $102,339

S-A120, S-A119, W- There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Huntington A-008 Conventional Bore A34 methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method.

Conventional Bore 85 29 N 36 20 629 N Y $506,135

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 40 - N 57 47 350 N N $28,000 This small wetland is located on a steep slope would create logistically difficult construction conditions on both sides of the Pittsburgh A-009 W-B1a Dry-Ditch Open-Cut crossing and provide insufficient room for the spoils from the excessively deep bore pits. The bore duration is estimated to be twice as long and the cost to avoid the temporary impacts is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 40 49 N 57 47 350 N N $2,786,247

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 243 - N 58 47 711 N N $198,323 This crossing is located on a long and steep slope on one side that would create logistically difficult construction conditions and S-B2a, W-A40, S- would require an excessively deep bore pit for a trenchless crossing. Furthermore, the estimated time to complete a trenchless Pittsburgh A-010/011 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut B3a crossing is nearly five times as long and the cost to avoid the temporary impacts is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 243 49 N 58 47 711 N N $3,362,357

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 96 - N 79 59 375 N N $114,692 This crossing is located at the base of a steep slope that would involve logistically difficult construction conditions and would S-A11a, S-A11a- require an excessively deep bore pit for a trenchless crossing. Furthermore, the estimated time to complete a trenchless crossing Pittsburgh A-012 Braid-1, S-A11a- Dry-Ditch Open-Cut is nearly four times as long and the cost to avoid the temporary impacts is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction Braid-2 method. Conventional Bore 96 43 N 79 59 375 N N $2,617,901

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 30 - N 38 7 0 N Y $21,000 This narrow wetland (less than five feet wide at the pipeline crossing) would be excessively expensive to complete as a trenchless Pittsburgh A-013 W-UU3 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut bore. In addition, the bore pits are of such depth (nearly 40-feet) that benching would be required, thereby increasing the amount of spoils created at the crossing and reducing the amount of available workspace. Conventional Bore 30 17 N 38 7 0 N Y $162,784

Page 1 of 49 Table 15. Crossing Method Determination Summary Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Evaluation Factors Sufficient USACE Crossing Methods Maximum Proposed Crossing # Waterbody Maximum Steep Maximum Winch Karst Terrain Stockpile Crossing Method Decision Rationale District Evaluated Crossing Length Pit Depth Deep Stream Average Slope Total Cost ($) Crossing Method Slope (%) Hill Length (feet) Present Storage (%) Available

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 73 - N 55 45 808 N N $264,165

This crossing is located adjacent to long and steep slope that would involve logistically difficult construction conditions, an Pittsburgh A-014 S-UU3 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut extensive equipment winching system, and an excessively deep bore pit for a trenchless crossing.

Conventional Bore 73 36 N 55 45 808 N N $864,870

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 190 - N 48 32 412 N Y $148,124 This crossing is located on long and steep slope that would involve logistically difficult construction conditions, an extensive equipment winching system, and an excessively deep bore pit (37') that would require benching for a trenchless crossing. Pittsburgh A-015 S-UU5, W-UU4 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut Furthermore, the estimated time to complete a trenchless crossing is nearly twice as long and the cost to avoid the temporary impacts is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 190 37 N 48 32 412 N Y $1,215,184

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 286 - N 58 36 453 N N $222,731 This crossing is located in a valley that has long and steep slopes on both sides which would require an extensive equipment W-K43, S-K73, S- winching system. In addition, the deep bore pits would require benching, which increases the total volume of material to be Pittsburgh A-016 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut K74, S-K75, W-K44 excavated. The lack of sufficient space to stockpile the material further complicates a trenchless crossing. The estimated time to complete a trenchless crossing is nearly double and the cost is excessively expensive. Conventional Bore 286 36 N 58 36 453 N N $1,469,361

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 38 - N 70 35 645 N N $41,532 This crossing is located adjacent to a long and steep slope that would involve logistically difficult construction conditions, a Huntington A-017 W-K45, S-K77 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut winching system that is beyond standard procedures and a deep bore pit for a trenchless crossing. Furthermore, the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 38 28 N 70 35 645 N N $363,615

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 36 - N 77 51 341 N N $60,206 This crossing is located adjacent to a steep slope that would involve logistically difficult construction conditions, an extensive winching system and a deep bore pit for a trenchless crossing. In addition, the excessively deep bore pits (nearly 40 feet) would Huntington A-018 S-K67 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut create a large volume of material to be excavated and stockpile. The lack of sufficient space to stockpile the material further complicates a trenchless crossing. The estimated time to complete a trenchless crossing is more than double and the cost is Conventional Bore 36 39 N 77 51 341 N N $814,673 unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 37 - N 64 49 148 N Y $55,234 This crossing is located adjacent to a steep slope that would involve logistically difficult construction conditions and a deep bore pit for a trenchless crossing. In addition, the excessively deep bore pits (over 40 feet) would create a large volume of material to Huntington A-019A S-K65 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut be excavated and stockpiled. The lack of sufficient space to stockpile the material further complicates a trenchless crossing. The estimated time to complete a trenchless crossing is more than four times longer than an open cut and the cost is unreasonably Conventional Bore 37 41 N 64 49 148 N Y $2,341,369 high relative to the proposed construction method.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 238 - N 73 33 0 N Y $194,600 The estimated time to complete a trenchless crossing is nearly three times and the cost is excessively expensive. In addition, the S-A110/K62, W- Huntington B-001 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut bore pits are nearly 40-feet deep which requires benching, trench shoring, and sufficient room to create the bench and store the A23, S-A109 stockpiled material. Conventional Bore 238 39 N 73 33 0 N Y $1,387,946

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 38 - N 75 58 667 N N $77,982 This crossing is located adjacent to a long and steep slope on one side that would involve logistically difficult construction conditions, an extensive winching system and a deep bore pit for a trenchless crossing. The proximity of adjacent resources Huntington B-001A S-A111 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut reduces the available amount of room to store the excavated material. Furthermore, the time to complete the trenchless crossing is more than double and the cost to avoid the temporary impacts is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction Conventional Bore 38 37 N 75 58 667 N N $783,810 method.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 223 - N 43 29 291 N N $228,434 The pipeline is already installed through a portion of the wetland at this crossing. The layout of a conventional bore would require W-J40, S-K82, S- Pittsburgh B-002 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut excavation of a bore pit unacceptably close to the installed pipe. Boring also would not avoid or minimize impacts to the resources K94 because it would require excavation of a bore pit within the wetland. Conventional Bore 223 25 N 43 29 291 N N $861,237

Page 2 of 49 Table 15. Crossing Method Determination Summary Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Evaluation Factors Sufficient USACE Crossing Methods Maximum Proposed Crossing # Waterbody Maximum Steep Maximum Winch Karst Terrain Stockpile Crossing Method Decision Rationale District Evaluated Crossing Length Pit Depth Deep Stream Average Slope Total Cost ($) Crossing Method Slope (%) Hill Length (feet) Present Storage (%) Available

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 46 - N 70 44 1017 N N $50,537 This stream is approximately five feet wide where the pipeline crosses. It is located a steep valley, with extremely long slopes that would create logistically difficult construction conditions, require extensive winching systems, and bore pits would be Pittsburgh B-003 S-J44 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut approximately 40 feet deep. The lack of sufficient space to stockpile the material further complicates a trenchless crossing. The estimated time to complete a trenchless crossing is three times longer than an open cut and the cost is excessively expensive. Conventional Bore 46 39 N 70 44 1017 N N $843,053

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 117 - N 75 57 496 N N $81,900 This crossing is located adjacent to a long and steep slope that would involve logistically difficult construction conditions, an extensive winching system and a deep bore pit (48-feet) for a trenchless crossing. In addition, the excessively deep bore pits Huntington B-005 W-K33-PEM Dry-Ditch Open-Cut would create a large volume of material to be excavated and stockpiled. The lack of sufficient space to stockpile the material further complicates a trenchless crossing. Furthermore, the cost to avoid the temporary impacts is unreasonably high relative to Conventional Bore 117 48 N 75 57 496 N N $2,950,226 the proposed construction method.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 96 - N 62 55 220 N N $67,200 This crossing is situated on a steep slope that would involve logistically difficult construction conditions, deep bore pits (nearly 40- feet), and provide insufficient area for a bore pit soil stockpile. Furthermore, the time to complete the trenchless crossing is Pittsburgh B-006 W-K31 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut nearly double of an open cut and the cost to avoid the temporary impacts is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 96 39 N 62 55 220 N N $984,952

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 143 - N 56 21 417 N N $100,100 This crossing is situated on a long and steep slope that would involve logistically difficult construction conditions, extensive winching systems, deep bore pits, and provides insufficient area for a bore pit soil stockpile. Furthermore, the time to complete Pittsburgh B-007 W-B46 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut the trenchless crossing is double of an open cut and the cost to avoid the temporary impacts is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 143 30 N 56 21 417 N N $953,913

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 45 - N 32 20 0 N Y $78,375 The trenchless crossing would require bore pits that are 39-feet deep, which minimizes the available area to complete an efficient Pittsburgh B-008 S-H180 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut crossing. Furthermore, the time to complete the trenchless crossing is more than double of an open cut and the cost to avoid the temporary impacts is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 45 39 N 32 20 0 N Y $840,215

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 260 - N 9 4 0 N Y $182,000 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to 0.02 acre of PEM. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a 20 feet deep bore pit - possibly requiring the operator to work from a shallow bench within the Pittsburgh B-009 W-H112 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut pit. Furthermore, the conventional bore crossing cost to avoid the temporary impacts is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method and take nearly triple the amount of time to complete. Conventional Bore 260 20 N 9 4 0 N Y $920,569

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 74 - N 100 59 341 N N $122,275 This crossing is located in a valley that has long and steep slopes on both sides which would require an extensive equipment winching system and excessively deep bore pits. The available area to store the excess material is extremely limited due to the Huntington B-010 S-I63 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut narrowed ROW and county road. Furthermore, the cost to avoid the temporary impacts is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 74 52 N 100 59 341 N N $3,046,374

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 56 - N 66 43 661 N N $39,200 This crossing is situated on a long and steep slope that would involve logistically difficult construction conditions, extensive Huntington B-011 W-I15 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut winching systems, deep bore pits, and provides insufficient area for a bore pit soil stockpile. Furthermore the cost to avoid the temporary impacts is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 56 30 N 66 43 661 N N $707,008

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 148 - N 33 14 462 N Y $187,175 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Huntington B-012 W-H103, S-H160 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 148 24 N 33 14 462 N Y $639,254

Page 3 of 49 Table 15. Crossing Method Determination Summary Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Evaluation Factors Sufficient USACE Crossing Methods Maximum Proposed Crossing # Waterbody Maximum Steep Maximum Winch Karst Terrain Stockpile Crossing Method Decision Rationale District Evaluated Crossing Length Pit Depth Deep Stream Average Slope Total Cost ($) Crossing Method Slope (%) Hill Length (feet) Present Storage (%) Available

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 42 - N 58 41 567 N N $82,922 This crossing is situated in a valley with steep slopes on both sides of the resource. The topographical constraints complicate the limits of the winching system, creating a logistically difficult construction condition and deep bore pits. In addition there is Huntington B-013 S-H153 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut insufficient area to store the bore pit stockpile in the immediate area. Furthermore the cost to avoid the temporary impacts is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 42 36 N 58 41 567 N N $776,893

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 32 - N 76 39 520 N N $85,448 This crossing is adjacent to a long and steep slope that would involve logistically difficult construction conditions, deep bore pits (nearly 40-feet), and provide insufficient area for a bore pit soil stockpile. Furthermore, the time to complete the trenchless Huntington B-014A S-H145 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut crossing is nearly five times the duration of an open cut and the cost to avoid the temporary impacts is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method Conventional Bore 32 39 N 76 39 520 N N $803,321

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 17 - N 61 55 599 N N $35,892 This small stream (less than 10-feet wide) is situated on a long and steep slope that would involve logistically difficult construction conditions, 31-feet deep bore pits, and provide insufficient area for a bore pit soil stockpile. Furthermore, the time to complete Huntington B-014B S-H165 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut the trenchless crossing is nearly six times the duration of an open cut and the cost to avoid the temporary impacts is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 17 31 N 61 55 599 N N $614,596

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 193 - N 17 6 0 N N $206,271

There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Huntington B-015A S-CD16, S-VV13 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method.

Conventional Bore 193 25 N 17 6 0 N N $776,098

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 132 - N 63 40 873 N Y $162,400 This multiple resource crossing present several factors that support an open-cut crossing. The resources are located on a steep S-VV12, W-CD16, slope that is extremely long, which would require a winching system of nearly 900-feet. In addition, the bore pits would be 35-feet Huntington B-015B Dry-Ditch Open-Cut W-VV8 deep, resulting in an excessive amount of soil, with limited area for storage. The cost to avoid the temporary impacts is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 132 35 N 63 40 873 N Y $1,014,042

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 54 - N 71 45 782 N N $90,653 Stream S-UV11 is a perennial stream located adjacent to a steep slope that is extremely long, nearly 800 feet in length with an Huntington B-016 S-UV11 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut average slope exceed 45%. The bore pits are estimated to be over 20 feet which would require benching and additional area for spoil storage. Conventional Bore 54 23 N 71 45 782 N N $363,349

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 145 - N 40 32 439 N N $179,415 This crossing is immediately adjacent to a mainline valve. Trenchless crossing methods are logistically difficult because they W-VV3-PEM, W- would require the pipe to be installed too deeply to facilitate connection to the valve site. An open cut crossing is necessary to Huntington B-017 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut VV3-PFO, S-VV2 facilitate connection to the mainline valve. Furthermore, the cost to avoid the temporary impacts is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 145 30 N 40 32 439 N N $959,589

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 42 - N 60 32 189 N N $134,876 The pipeline has already been installed under Big Knawl Road and there is a fully restored steep hill adjacent to the pipe tie-in. Trenchless methods are technically and logistically difficult for this crossing because they would require the removal of the Huntington C-001 S-L60 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut completed road bore and are not less environmentally damaging than this temporary stream impact because the steep hill adjacent to the crossing, which has been fully restored, would have to be re-disturbed to complete a bore. A minor temporary Conventional Bore 42 16 N 60 32 189 N N $192,273 impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 66 - N 57 48 420 N N $171,170 This crossing is located adjacent to a steep slope that is extremely long, approximately 420-feet in length with an average slope exceeding 45%. The bore pits are estimated to be nearly 30 feet. These factors create logistically difficult construction Huntington C-002 S-LL1 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut conditions, complicated winching systems, and excessive spoils. Furthermore, the time to complete the trenchless crossing is nearly double the duration a. Conventional Bore 66 30 N 57 48 420 N N $735,388

Page 4 of 49 Table 15. Crossing Method Determination Summary Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Evaluation Factors Sufficient USACE Crossing Methods Maximum Proposed Crossing # Waterbody Maximum Steep Maximum Winch Karst Terrain Stockpile Crossing Method Decision Rationale District Evaluated Crossing Length Pit Depth Deep Stream Average Slope Total Cost ($) Crossing Method Slope (%) Hill Length (feet) Present Storage (%) Available

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 47 - N 79 52 609 N N $58,173 This small stream (less than 10-feet wide) is situated in a valley with long and steep slopes on both approaches. The bore pits are projected to be nearly 50-feet deep, which creates logistically difficult construction conditions and insufficient area for a bore Huntington C-003 S-QR30 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut pit soil stockpile. Furthermore, the time to complete the trenchless crossing is five times the duration and the cost to avoid the temporary impacts is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 47 50 N 79 52 609 N N $2,860,658

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 62 - N 70 57 886 N N $149,548 This stream is located in a valley with long and steep slopes on both approaches. The bore pits are projected to be nearly 50-feet Huntington C-004 S-J70 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut deep, which creates logistically difficult construction conditions and insufficient area for a bore pit soil stockpile. Furthermore, and the cost to avoid the temporary impacts is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 62 49 N 70 57 886 N N $2,848,682

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 130 - N 36 22 431 N N $115,859 This small stream (less than 10-feet wide) is located adjacent to a steep slope, creating an extremely difficult construction procedure due to the winching requirements, bore pit depths (nearly 50-feet deep), and lack of sufficient work space. Huntington C-005 S-H123 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut Furthermore, the time to complete the trenchless crossing is nearly four times the duration of an open cut and the cost to avoid the temporary impacts is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 130 48 N 36 22 431 N N $2,987,120

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 135 - N 63 37 413 N N $119,359 These resources are located adjacent to a long and steep slopes. The bore pits are projected to be over 50-feet deep and the winch hill length is greater than 400 feet, which creates logistically difficult construction conditions and insufficient area for a bore Huntington C-006 W-H90, S-H123 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut pit soil stockpile. Furthermore, the cost to avoid the temporary impacts is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method and the construction time is greater than six times an open cut. Conventional Bore 135 54 N 63 37 413 N N $3,328,582

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 146 - N 87 66 571 N N $159,225 This stream is located in a valley with steep slopes on both approaches. The steep slopes, extremely deep bore pits (67-feet), extreme winch hill conditions and lack of sufficient work space create a situation that is conducive to an open cut. Furthermore, Huntington C-007 S-H117 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut the time to complete the trenchless crossing is nearly three times the duration of an open cut and the cost to avoid the temporary impacts is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 146 67 N 87 66 571 N N $4,068,891

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 95 - N 47 40 617 N N $119,663 This stream is located in a valley with steep slopes on both approaches. The steep slopes, extremely deep bore pits (65-feet), extreme winch hill conditions and lack of sufficient work space create a situation that is conducive to an open cut. Furthermore, Huntington C-008 S-L46 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut the time to complete the trenchless crossing is more than double the duration of an open cut and the cost to avoid the temporary impacts is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 95 65 N 47 40 617 N N $3,815,063

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 57 - N 38 27 52 N Y $75,133 Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a deep bore pit - creating excessive spoil piles, Huntington C-009 S-L44 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut with limited area for storage. Furthermore, the cost to avoid the temporary impacts is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 57 36 N 38 27 52 N Y $819,463

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 78 - N 51 34 690 N N $160,343 This stream is located on a steep slope. The steep slope, extremely deep bore pits (49-feet), extreme winch hill conditions and Huntington C-010 S-I57 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut lack of sufficient work space create a situation that is conducive to an open cut. Furthermore, the cost to avoid the temporary impacts is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 78 49 N 51 34 690 N N $2,894,090

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 80 - N 43 38 201 N N $75,460 This small stream (less than 10-feet wide) is located on a steep slope, creating an extremely difficult construction procedure due to bore pit depths (nearly 40-feet deep), steep slopes, and lack of sufficient work space. Furthermore, the time to complete the Huntington C-011 S-A96/A103 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut trenchless crossing is nearly three times the duration of an open cut and the cost to avoid the temporary impacts is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 80 37 N 43 38 201 N N $903,006

Page 5 of 49 Table 15. Crossing Method Determination Summary Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Evaluation Factors Sufficient USACE Crossing Methods Maximum Proposed Crossing # Waterbody Maximum Steep Maximum Winch Karst Terrain Stockpile Crossing Method Decision Rationale District Evaluated Crossing Length Pit Depth Deep Stream Average Slope Total Cost ($) Crossing Method Slope (%) Hill Length (feet) Present Storage (%) Available

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 121 - N 41 35 334 N N $133,056 These small streams are less than 10-feet wide and are located on a steep slope, creating an extremely difficult construction procedure due to bore pit depths (64-feet deep), steep slopes, and lack of sufficient work space. Furthermore, the time to Huntington C-012 S-A97, S-A98 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut complete the trenchless crossing is nearly 5 times the duration of an open cut and the cost to avoid the temporary impacts is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 121 64 N 41 35 334 N N $3,834,305

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 124 - Y 42 22 460 N N $366,800 There are multiple complicating factors at this crossing location that necessitated the development of a unique solution. The Left Fork Holly River at this location is both wide and deep, and it is bounded on one side by a steep slope. Dealing with high water Huntington C-013A S-A100 Conventional Bore and unfavorable flow conditions, combined with the need to use winched equipment on one side of the river, make an open cut crossing at this location extraordinarily challenging. Mountain Valley’s engineering and construction staff developed a plan to Conventional Bore 124 24 Y 42 22 460 N N $571,142 complete this crossing with a conventional bore.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 84 - N 27 7 0 N Y $340,499 The stream is located next to a steep slope and would require a bore pit exceeding 20 feet which creates excessive spoils in a limited area for storage. The duration of the trenchless crossing is nearly three times longer than the open-cut process, thereby Huntington C-013B S-E78/E82/R1 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut increasing the noise, aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby persons. Reducing the time at the crossing and permanently stabilizing this area will reduce the potential for sedimentation and erosion along the hillside. Conventional Bore 84 21 N 27 7 0 N Y $430,219

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 220 - N 50 30 396 N N $168,097 The open cut method would result in a temporary impacts to three small UNTs to Left Fork Holly River, each less than three feet wide. Avoiding/minimizing these minor impacts through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit of nearly 40 S-KK2, S-KK3b, S- Huntington C-015 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut feet on the edge of a steep slope, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the KK4b space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. The construction time for the bore is estimated to be five times as long as the open Conventional Bore 220 38 N 50 30 396 N N $1,318,593 cut and the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 92 - N 42 24 11 N N $165,892 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Huntington C-018 S-F40 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 92 29 N 42 24 11 N N $526,000

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 51 - N 60 26 296 N N $35,700 Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require an extensive winching system on a long steep Huntington C-019 W-KK3 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut slope in an already reduced area of work. In addition the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 51 16 N 60 26 296 N N $217,815

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 74 - N 45 28 53 N N $100,144 A trenchless crossing on this hillside would require bore pits that are greater than thirty feet deep, which necessitates the use of a Huntington C-020 S-F43 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut bench and interim ramp to access the bore pit. The construction time for the bore is nearly twice as long as the open cut and the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 74 32 N 45 28 53 N N $794,631

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 147 - N 62 45 284 N N $426,366 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact Right Fork Holly River. Avoiding/minimizing these minor impacts through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit of nearly 30 feet on the edge of a long steep slope and the excavation Huntington C-021 S-E67 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut of an interim ramp/bench. The additional equipment and excess spoil materials will greatly limit the available space in a work area that has already been minimized. The construction time for the bore is nearly three times as long as the open cut. Conventional Bore 147 34 N 62 45 284 N N $1,038,342

The Elk River will be crossed using Microtunnel trenchless methodology. While Mountain Valley will typically avoid crossings with Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 296 - Y 47 12 63 N Y $860,247 bore pits of this depth, several logistical constraints complicate the open cut methodology. There are numerous large boulders within the proposed crossing - removing and restoring these to preconstruction contours would be extremely difficult to Guided Huntington C-022 S-E68 accomplish. In addition, the stream depth complicates the constructability since a larger instream diversion would be required Conventional Bore thereby reducing the available space in a work area that has already been minimized. The Elk River is also classified by the Guided Conventional 296 49 Y 47 12 63 N Y $3,112,112 WVDNR as Group 1 mussel stream. While mussel survey and relocation efforts were completed in 2019, completing a trenchless Bore crossing will further minimize any potential impacts to mussel species.

Page 6 of 49 Table 15. Crossing Method Determination Summary Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Evaluation Factors Sufficient USACE Crossing Methods Maximum Proposed Crossing # Waterbody Maximum Steep Maximum Winch Karst Terrain Stockpile Crossing Method Decision Rationale District Evaluated Crossing Length Pit Depth Deep Stream Average Slope Total Cost ($) Crossing Method Slope (%) Hill Length (feet) Present Storage (%) Available

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 84 - N 26 18 0 N Y $66,476 This small UNT to the Elk River (less than five feet wide) would require a bore pit that is a minimum of 20 feet deep. Due to this depth, it is likely that the use of a bench and interim access ramp would be required which would create a large volume of material Huntington C-023 S-E71 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut to be excavated and stockpile. The lack of sufficient space to stockpile the material further complicates a trenchless crossing. Furthermore, the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 84 20 N 26 18 0 N Y $421,084

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 272 - N 36 12 10 N N $221,802 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available S-H111, S-H114, S- Huntington C-024 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact H112 associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 272 18 N 36 12 10 N N $854,144

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 53 - N 14 9 0 N Y $82,656 This UNT to the Elk River is located in an area that would require a bore pit depth of nearly 30 feet. The excavation to this depth would require the use of a bench and interim access ramp would be required which would create a large volume of material to be Huntington C-025 S-H113 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut excavated and stockpile. The lack of sufficient space to stockpile the material in a work area that has already been minimized further complicates a trenchless crossing. Furthermore, the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed Conventional Bore 53 29 N 14 9 0 N Y $415,319 construction method.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 45 - N 59 47 369 N N $31,500 Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit, with an excavator Huntington C-026 W-H75 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut operating from a bench within the pit, at the edge of a steep slope. Furthermore, the cost to avoid the temporary impacts is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 45 29 N 59 47 369 N N $392,615

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 78 - N 13 9 0 N Y $54,600

The open cut method would result in a temporary impact of approximately 0.001 acre of a PEM wetland. Avoiding/minimizing this Huntington C-027 W-H86 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut minor impact through a conventional bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method.

Conventional Bore 78 16 N 13 9 0 N Y $294,440

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 267 - N 12 9 0 N Y $251,373 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Huntington C-028 S-H110 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 267 22 N 12 9 0 N Y $958,705

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 78 - N 32 13 1903 N N $162,380 The stream (Houston Run) is located in a valley with extremely steep and long approaches. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a deep bore pit of nearly 20 feet at the edge of long steep slopes. The additional Huntington C-029 S-T29 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut equipment and excess spoil materials will greatly limit the available space in a work area that has already been minimized, which increases the construction difficulty. Conventional Bore 78 17 N 32 13 1903 N N $299,008

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 72 - N 56 39 866 N N $138,108 This UNT to Camp Creek is adjacent to a steep long slope . A trenchless crossing on this hillside would require bore pits that are nearly 50-feet deep which would necessitate the use of a bench and interim ramp to access the bore pit and a winching system Huntington C-030 S-A83/A91 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut that is technically and logistically difficult. The construction time for the bore is nearly three times as long as the open cut and the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 72 47 N 56 39 866 N N $2,767,971

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 120 - N 78 39 1190 N N $121,741 These two very small UNTs to Camp Creek are located on a long steep slope. Both streams are less than 10 feet wide. A trenchless crossing on this hillside would require bore pits that are over 60-feet deep which would generate a significant amount Huntington C-031 S-A93, S-A92 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut of spoils and require a significant winching system to be located on the reduced LOD. The construction time for the bore is nearly twice as long as the open cut and the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 120 63 N 78 39 1190 N N $3,776,922

Page 7 of 49 Table 15. Crossing Method Determination Summary Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Evaluation Factors Sufficient USACE Crossing Methods Maximum Proposed Crossing # Waterbody Maximum Steep Maximum Winch Karst Terrain Stockpile Crossing Method Decision Rationale District Evaluated Crossing Length Pit Depth Deep Stream Average Slope Total Cost ($) Crossing Method Slope (%) Hill Length (feet) Present Storage (%) Available

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 367 - N 57 34 1371 N N $307,728 Avoiding/minimizing these minor impacts through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit of nearly 40 feet on the edge of a very long and steep slope, thereby requiring and extensive winching system and the excavation of an interim ramp S-H108, W-H67, W- Huntington C-032 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. The excess spoils and winching system H66, S-H105 would need to be located on the already reduced LOD. The cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed Conventional Bore 367 36 N 57 34 1371 N N $1,699,237 construction method.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 45 - N 7 3 0 N Y $39,885

This crossing is immediately adjacent to a mainline valve. Trenchless crossing methods are logistically difficult due to the Huntington C-033 S-H107 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut connection to the valve site. An open cut crossing is necessary to facilitate the connection to the mainline valve.

Conventional Bore 45 13 N 7 3 0 N Y $187,085

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 172 - N 48 20 0 N Y $173,907 W-H64-PEM, W- This crossing is adjacent to a mainline valve. Trenchless crossing methods are logistically difficult because they would require the Huntington C-034 H64-PEM-2, W-H64- Dry-Ditch Open-Cut pipe to be installed too deeply to facilitate connection to the valve site. An open cut crossing is necessary to facilitate connection PSS, S-H104 to the mainline valve. Conventional Bore 172 20 N 48 20 0 N Y $670,827

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 312 - N 20 8 0 N Y $218,400 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Huntington C-035 W-H60, W-H61 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 312 16 N 20 8 0 N Y $958,528

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 101 - N 36 23 288 N N $70,700

Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a deep bore pit - creating excessive spoil piles, Huntington C-036 W-B39 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut with limited area for storage. Furthermore, the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method.

Conventional Bore 101 24 N 36 23 288 N N $505,869

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 99 - N 36 31 1103 N Y $69,300 Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a deep bore pit on an extremely long and steep slope which would create excessive spoil piles in a topographical setting that requires an extensive winching system, all while Huntington C-037 W-B31 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut being located within an already reduced LOD. Furthermore, the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 99 25 N 36 31 1103 N Y $509,328

These crossings are located along steep slopes and would require the installation of bore pits nearly 40 feet deep requiring the S-B34, S-B35, S- Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 339 - N 54 32 54 N N $345,189 excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. The bore B36, S-B37, S-B38, pits would need to be located on a steep slope that would require a logistically difficult winching process. The duration of the Huntington C-038 W-B35, S-B42, S- Dry-Ditch Open-Cut trenchless crossing is nearly five times longer than the open-cut process, thereby increasing the noise, aesthetic, and other B39b, S-B39a/B46, impacts on nearby persons. Reducing the time at the crossing and permanently stabilizing this area will reduce the potential for S-B45 Conventional Bore 339 38 N 54 32 54 N N $1,656,313 sedimentation and erosion along the hillside.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 79 - N 54 35 1723 N N $137,791 This crossing is situated on a long steep slope leading into the resource. The topographical constraints would create an extreme winching system, creating a logistically difficult construction condition and deep bore pits. In addition there is insufficient area to Huntington C-039 S-O4 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut store the bore pit stockpile in the immediate area. Furthermore, the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 79 33 N 54 35 1723 N N $827,090

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 38 - N 27 11 0 N Y $97,221 A trenchless crossing method at this location could not be completed without excavating a bore pit within a landowner’s driveway and blocking access to their home. This situation would continue for several weeks. Accordingly, a trenchless crossing of this Huntington D-002 S-F36b Dry-Ditch Open-Cut resource has been deemed logistically impracticable. Additionally, boring is not “appropriate and practicable” for this crossing of a perennial UNT to Birch River because the temporary impacts to be avoided are minor, especially when considered in light of the Conventional Bore 38 26 N 27 11 0 N Y $345,345 significant adverse impacts on the homeowner.

Page 8 of 49 Table 15. Crossing Method Determination Summary Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Evaluation Factors Sufficient USACE Crossing Methods Maximum Proposed Crossing # Waterbody Maximum Steep Maximum Winch Karst Terrain Stockpile Crossing Method Decision Rationale District Evaluated Crossing Length Pit Depth Deep Stream Average Slope Total Cost ($) Crossing Method Slope (%) Hill Length (feet) Present Storage (%) Available

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 59 - N 39 26 188 N N $74,406 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Huntington D-004 S-B32, W-B30 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 59 20 N 39 26 188 N N $350,135

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 112 - N 52 40 262 N N $103,401 This crossing is located on a slope that would require bore pits greater than 30 feet deep which would create excessive spoil Huntington D-005 W-B28, S-B29 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut piles, all while being located within an already reduced LOD. Furthermore, the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 112 34 N 52 40 262 N N $939,013

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 50 - N 35 32 197 N N $57,357 This crossing is located on a slope that would require bore pits that are 30 feet deep which would create excessive spoil piles, all Huntington D-006 S-E50, W-E21 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut while being located within an already reduced LOD. Furthermore, the time to bore the resources is nearly three times the duration of the open cut and the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 50 30 N 35 32 197 N N $689,980

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 54 - N 49 39 136 N N $60,157 This crossing is located on a slope that would require bore pits that are nearly 30 feet deep which would create excessive spoil S-E50, W-E18-PSS, piles, all while being located within an already reduced LOD. Because the pipeline ROW must remain free of woody vegetation Huntington D-007 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut W-E18-PEM to protect the pipe coating, a conversion impact is unavoidable. Furthermore, the time to bore the resources is nearly double and the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 54 26 N 49 39 136 N N $390,753

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 29 - N 44 31 74 N N $23,805 The UNT to Gauley River is approximately one foot in width, creating less than 0.01 acre of temporary impact. This crossing is located on a slope that would require bore pits that are nearly 30 feet deep which would create excessive spoil piles, all while Huntington D-008 S-E49 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut being located within an already reduced LOD. Furthermore, the time to bore the resources is nearly double and the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 29 26 N 44 31 74 N N $319,803

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 59 - N 35 27 371 N N $151,288 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Huntington D-010 S-E46 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 59 27 N 35 27 371 N N $414,078

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 174 - N 7 4 0 N Y $121,800 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available W-F12, W-F13, W- Huntington D-011 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact F15 associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 174 15 N 7 4 0 N Y $562,319

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 104 - N 8 4 0 N Y $109,699 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Huntington D-012 S-F20, W-F11 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 104 19 N 8 4 0 N Y $381,930

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 77 - N 42 26 32 N Y $53,900 This crossing is located adjacent to a slope that would require bore pits that are nearly 20 feet deep which would create excessive Huntington D-013 W-K23 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut spoil piles, all while being located within an already reduced LOD. Furthermore, the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 77 17 N 42 26 32 N Y $296,170

Page 9 of 49 Table 15. Crossing Method Determination Summary Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Evaluation Factors Sufficient USACE Crossing Methods Maximum Proposed Crossing # Waterbody Maximum Steep Maximum Winch Karst Terrain Stockpile Crossing Method Decision Rationale District Evaluated Crossing Length Pit Depth Deep Stream Average Slope Total Cost ($) Crossing Method Slope (%) Hill Length (feet) Present Storage (%) Available

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 37 - N 54 32 92 N N $38,154 The open cut would result in approximately 0.05 acre of temporary impacts to the wetland and stream system. This crossing is located adjacent to a slope that would require bore pits that are over 30 feet deep requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and Huntington D-014 S-IJ57, W-IJ51 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. Furthermore, the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method and is estimated to take twice as long. Conventional Bore 37 33 N 54 32 92 N N $707,895

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 48 - N 24 17 0 N Y $33,600 This crossing is located on a slope that would require bore pits that are nearly 20 feet deep which would create excessive spoil Huntington D-015 W-IJ50 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut piles, all while being located within an already reduced LOD. Furthermore, the time to complete the bore is nearly double and the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 48 19 N 24 17 0 N Y $223,003

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 40 - N 62 45 119 N N $48,516 The crossing of this small UNT to Rockcamp Run (less than 10 feet in width) open cut would result in less than 0.02 acre of temporary impact. This crossing is located adjacent to a steep slope that would require bore pits that are over 40 feet deep which Huntington D-016 S-IJ60 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut would create excessive spoil piles, all while being located within an already reduced LOD. Furthermore, the time to complete the bore is nearly six times the open cut method and the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction Conventional Bore 40 42 N 62 45 119 N N $2,404,428 method.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 49 - N 40 23 0 N Y $34,300 The crossing of the small PEM system would result in approximately 0.02 acre of temporary impacts. This crossing is located on a slope that would require bore pits that are over 30 feet deep which would create excessive spoil piles, all while being located Huntington D-017 W-IJ55 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut within an already reduced LOD. Furthermore, the time to complete the bore is nearly double the time of the open cut method and the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 49 32 N 40 23 0 N Y $723,681

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 18 - N 54 28 74 N N $20,473 The crossing of this small UNT to Cherry Run (less than 5 feet in width) open cut would result in less than 0.01 acre of temporary impact. This crossing is located adjacent to a steep slope that would require bore pits that are nearly 30 feet deep which would Huntington D-018 S-IJ62 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut create excessive spoil piles, all while being located within an already reduced LOD. Furthermore, the time to complete the bore is nearly double the time of the open cut method and the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction Conventional Bore 18 32 N 54 28 74 N N $635,704 method.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 47 - N 6 3 0 N Y $70,318 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Huntington D-019 S-B28, W-B27 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 47 18 N 6 3 0 N Y $215,597

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 158 - N 22 11 0 N Y $110,600 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available W-FF6-PEM, W- Huntington D-020 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact FF6-PSS associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 158 19 N 22 11 0 N Y $535,181

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 37 - N 23 11 0 N Y $25,900

The crossing of the small PEM system would result in approximately 0.04 acre of temporary impacts. Furthermore, the cost to Huntington D-021 W-FF3 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method.

Conventional Bore 37 14 N 23 11 0 N Y $168,948

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 117 - N 28 19 10 N N $207,247 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Huntington D-022 S-J32 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 117 23 N 28 19 10 N N $542,142

Page 10 of 49 Table 15. Crossing Method Determination Summary Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Evaluation Factors Sufficient USACE Crossing Methods Maximum Proposed Crossing # Waterbody Maximum Steep Maximum Winch Karst Terrain Stockpile Crossing Method Decision Rationale District Evaluated Crossing Length Pit Depth Deep Stream Average Slope Total Cost ($) Crossing Method Slope (%) Hill Length (feet) Present Storage (%) Available

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 43 - N 35 16 21 N N $51,257 The crossing of the small PEM system and UNT to Big Beaver Creek would result in less than 0.02 acre of temporary impacts. The stream is less than ten feet in width. The bore pits associated with this crossing are 20 feet deep, which may require the use Huntington D-023 S-A76, W-FF4 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut of a ramp and benching thereby creating excessive spoil piles, all while being located within an already reduced LOD. Furthermore, the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 43 20 N 35 16 21 N N $304,727

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 79 - N 16 9 0 N Y $55,300 The duration of the trenchless crossing would take longer to complete than the open-cut process, thereby increasing the noise, aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby persons. Reducing the time at the crossing and permanently stabilizing this area will Huntington D-024 W-A17 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut reduce the potential for sedimentation and erosion along the hillside. In addition, the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 79 15 N 16 9 0 N Y $292,711

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 25 - N 31 13 0 N Y $47,961 Stream S-A75 is an UNT to Big Beaver Creek and would have approximately 0.02 acre of temporary impact. The resource is located adjacent to a slope that would require a bore pit exceeding 20 feet. Bore pits of this depth require an interim ramp and Huntington D-025 S-A75 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut benching to successfully reach the required depth. The deep excavation will create an excessive amount of spoil material that will be difficult to store within the already reduced LOD. In addition, the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed Conventional Bore 25 22 N 31 13 0 N Y $271,913 construction method.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 29 - N 31 14 0 N Y $32,194 An open cut crossing would create approximately 0.007 acre of temporary impact. However the resource is located on a slope that would require a bore pit nearing 20 feet. Bore pits of this depth may require an interim ramp and benching to successfully Huntington D-026 S-A74 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut reach the required depth. The deep excavation will create an excessive amount of spoil material that will be difficult to store within the already reduced LOD. In addition, the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 29 19 N 31 14 0 N Y $169,081

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 59 - N 18 13 0 N Y $64,472 The open cut would result in approximately 0.10 acre of temporary impacts to the wetland and stream. This crossing is located on a slope requiring bore pits that are over 20 feet deep which necessitate the use of a ramp and benching, resulting in excessive Huntington D-027 S-A73, W-A15 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut spoil piles, all while being located within an already reduced LOD. Because the pipeline ROW must remain free of woody vegetation to protect the pipe coating, a conversion impact to the wetland is unavoidable. Furthermore, the cost to bore is Conventional Bore 59 23 N 18 13 0 N Y $377,539 unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 92 - N 35 25 20 N N $94,208 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available W-A14, S-A72, S- Huntington D-028 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact A71, S-A71-Braid associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 92 22 N 35 25 20 N N $462,058

Crossings D-029 and D-30 are immediately adjacent to each other and have been evaluated in concert. A trenchless crossing Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 24 - N 40 27 50 N N $37,518 method at this location could not be completed without excavating a bore pit within a landowner’s driveway and blocking access to their home. This situation would continue for several weeks. Accordingly, a trenchless crossing of these resources has been Huntington D-029 S-A67 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut deemed logistically impracticable. Additionally, boring is not “appropriate and practicable” for these crossings (a small perennial and intermittent UNT to Big Beaver Creek) because the temporary impacts to be avoided are minor, especially when considered Conventional Bore 24 23 N 40 27 50 N N $278,209 in light of the significant adverse impacts on the homeowner. Furthermore, the cost to avoid the temporary impacts is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method.

Crossings D-029 and D-30 are immediately adjacent to each other and have been evaluated in concert. A trenchless crossing Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 53 - N 30 24 0 N Y $62,886 method at this location could not be completed without excavating a bore pit within a landowner’s driveway and blocking access to their home. This situation would continue for several weeks. Accordingly, a trenchless crossing of these resources has been Huntington D-030 S-A69 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut deemed logistically impracticable. Additionally, boring is not “appropriate and practicable” for these crossings (a small perennial and intermittent UNT to Big Beaver Creek) because the temporary impacts to be avoided are minor, especially when considered Conventional Bore 53 23 N 30 24 0 N Y $360,511 in light of the significant adverse impacts on the homeowner. Furthermore, the cost to avoid the temporary impacts is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 37 - N 24 14 11 N N $40,220 The open cut would result in approximately 0.01 acre of temporary impacts to the wetland and stream. The stream is extremely small, less than five feet in width and the wetland barely enters the LOD. However, the trenchless crossing would require bore Huntington D-031 W-H53, S-H99 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut pits that are approximately 20 feet deep. Bore pits of this depth may necessitate the use of a ramp and benching, resulting in excessive spoil piles that would need to be located within an already reduced LOD. The minimized LOD is insufficient to stockpile Conventional Bore 37 20 N 24 14 11 N N $287,699 the material. Furthermore, the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method.

Page 11 of 49 Table 15. Crossing Method Determination Summary Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Evaluation Factors Sufficient USACE Crossing Methods Maximum Proposed Crossing # Waterbody Maximum Steep Maximum Winch Karst Terrain Stockpile Crossing Method Decision Rationale District Evaluated Crossing Length Pit Depth Deep Stream Average Slope Total Cost ($) Crossing Method Slope (%) Hill Length (feet) Present Storage (%) Available

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 99 - N 58 45 441 N N $321,268 The crossing of Big Beaver Creek using a trenchless method would require bore pits up to 40-feet deep. The crossing is also located adjacent to a long steep slope. The combination of deep bore pits and steep slopes would require excessive excavation, Huntington D-032 S-A65 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut the need for significant stock pile storage, and a using an extensive winching system. Furthermore, the time to complete the bore is nearly six times the open cut method and the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 99 40 N 58 45 441 N N $2,462,779

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 40 - N 39 33 132 N N $70,014 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Huntington D-034 S-N15 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 40 23 N 39 33 132 N N $323,617

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 44 - N 12 6 0 N Y $65,040 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Huntington D-035 S-N14 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 44 17 N 12 6 0 N Y $202,516

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 73 - N 26 16 0 N Y $87,745 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Huntington D-036 S-I43, W-I7 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 73 20 N 26 16 0 N Y $389,867

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 32 - N 28 19 0 N Y $52,288 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Huntington D-037 S-I44 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 32 19 N 28 19 0 N Y $177,595

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 20 - N 51 21 10 N N $33,704 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Huntington D-038 S-I45 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 20 19 N 51 21 10 N N $143,539

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 27 - N 15 12 0 N Y $24,803

Stream S-I47 is an UNT to Gauley River and is very small - less than five feet in width. The temporary impact associated with an Huntington D-039 S-I47 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut open cut is less than 0.01 acre. The cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method.

Conventional Bore 27 14 N 15 12 0 N Y $140,568

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 35 - N 33 16 41 N N $59,850 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Huntington D-040 S-I48 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 35 14 N 33 16 41 N N $163,272

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 420 - N 54 0 1732 N Y $1,389,500

Mountain Valley has committed to the USFWS that the Gauley River would be bored to prevent possible impacts to potential Huntington D-041 S-J29 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut Candy Darter habitat.

Microtunnel 420 57 N 54 0 1732 N Y $7,309,091

Page 12 of 49 Table 15. Crossing Method Determination Summary Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Evaluation Factors Sufficient USACE Crossing Methods Maximum Proposed Crossing # Waterbody Maximum Steep Maximum Winch Karst Terrain Stockpile Crossing Method Decision Rationale District Evaluated Crossing Length Pit Depth Deep Stream Average Slope Total Cost ($) Crossing Method Slope (%) Hill Length (feet) Present Storage (%) Available

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 87 - N 43 27 306 N N $78,505 The open cut would result in approximately 0.06 acre of temporary impacts to the wetland and stream. This crossing is located on a slope that would require bore pits that are nearly 30 feet deep which would create excessive spoil piles and require multiple Huntington D-042 W-J8, S-J28 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut winching equipment, all while being located within an already reduced LOD. Because the pipeline ROW must remain free of woody vegetation to protect the pipe coating, a conversion impact to the wetland is unavoidable. Furthermore, the time to bore Conventional Bore 87 26 N 43 27 306 N N $484,406 the resources is double and the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 73 - N 29 18 0 N Y $69,641 The temporary impact associated with an open cut is less than 0.01 acre. However, the trenchless crossing would require bore pits that are approximately 20 feet deep. Bore pits of this depth may necessitate the use of a ramp and benching, resulting in Huntington D-043 S-J25 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut excessive spoil piles that would need to be located within an already reduced LOD. The minimized LOD is insufficient to stockpile the material. Furthermore, the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 73 21 N 29 18 0 N Y $399,001

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 73 - N 31 9 0 N Y $103,246 This area has been subject to frequent flooding from adjacent streams, which previously caused Mountain Valley to relocate a mainline valve to a different location. These conditions present an unacceptable risk for crews and equipment completing a bore Huntington D-044 S-J24 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut at this location over an extended duration. Completing this crossing of a small UNT to Little Laurel Creek with an open cut minimizes the time construction crews and equipment must be onsite, thereby greatly reducing risks to the safety of the crew, the Conventional Bore 73 17 N 31 9 0 N Y $284,818 environment, and the success of the crossing installation.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 25 - N 23 14 0 N Y $20,978 Stream S-J23 is an UNT to Little Laurel Creek and is very small - less than two feet in width. The temporary impact associated with an open cut is less than 0.01 acre. However, the trenchless crossing would require bore pits that are approximately 20 feet Huntington D-045 S-J23-EPH Dry-Ditch Open-Cut deep. Bore pits of this depth may necessitate the use of a ramp and benching, resulting in excessive spoil piles that would need to be located within an already reduced LOD. The minimized LOD is insufficient to stockpile the material. Furthermore, the cost Conventional Bore 25 17 N 23 14 0 N Y $148,594 to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 58 - N 23 18 0 N Y $52,396 The trenchless crossing would require bore pits that are approximately 20 feet deep. Bore pits of this depth may necessitate the use of a ramp and benching, resulting in excessive spoil piles that would need to be located within an already reduced LOD. The Huntington D-046 S-J22, W-J7 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut minimized LOD is insufficient to stockpile the material. Because the pipeline ROW must remain free of woody vegetation to protect the pipe coating, a conversion impact is unavoidable. Furthermore, the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the Conventional Bore 58 21 N 23 18 0 N Y $356,431 proposed construction method.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 84 - N 25 18 0 N Y $78,469 The resources are very small (less than five feet in width) UNT to Skelt Run. The trenchless crossing would require bore pits that are approximately 20 feet deep. Bore pits of this depth may necessitate the use of a ramp and benching, resulting in excessive Huntington D-047 S-N10, S-N10-Braid Dry-Ditch Open-Cut spoil piles that would need to be located within an already reduced LOD. The minimized LOD is insufficient to stockpile the material. Furthermore, the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 84 20 N 25 18 0 N Y $421,084

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 30 - N 17 11 0 N Y $33,872 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Huntington D-048 S-EE1 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 30 15 N 17 11 0 N Y $153,650

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 27 - N 38 18 0 N Y $26,485 The stream is a very small (less than five feet in width) UNT to Skelt Run. The trenchless crossing would require bore pits that are approximately 20 feet deep. Bore pits of this depth may necessitate the use of a ramp and benching, resulting in excessive Huntington D-049 S-N13 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut spoil piles that would need to be located within an already reduced LOD. The minimized LOD is insufficient to stockpile the material. Furthermore, the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 27 18 N 38 18 0 N Y $158,838

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 88 - N 77 63 644 N N $132,036 The crossing of the Jims Creek (S-L41) using a trenchless method would require bore pits that are nearly 60 feet deep. In addition, the crossing is at the base of an extremely long and steep approach. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a deep bore pit which would create excessive spoil piles in a topographical setting that would Huntington D-050 S-L41 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut require a technically and logistically difficult winching system, all while being located within an already reduced LOD. Furthermore, the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method and would take more than twice Conventional Bore 88 58 N 77 63 644 N N $3,413,379 as long to complete.

Page 13 of 49 Table 15. Crossing Method Determination Summary Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Evaluation Factors Sufficient USACE Crossing Methods Maximum Proposed Crossing # Waterbody Maximum Steep Maximum Winch Karst Terrain Stockpile Crossing Method Decision Rationale District Evaluated Crossing Length Pit Depth Deep Stream Average Slope Total Cost ($) Crossing Method Slope (%) Hill Length (feet) Present Storage (%) Available

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 66 - N 34 29 21 N N $56,701 Stream S-L38 is an UNT to Riley Branch and is very small - less than five feet in width. The crossing is located adjacent to a steep slope. The temporary impact associated with an open cut is less than 0.01 acre. The trenchless crossing would require bore pits that are approximately 30 feet deep. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a Huntington D-051 S-L38 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut deep bore pit which would create excessive spoil piles in a topographical setting that would require a technically and logistically difficult winching system, all while being located within an already reduced LOD. Furthermore, the cost to bore is unreasonably Conventional Bore 66 32 N 34 29 21 N N $771,927 high relative to the proposed construction method.

S-L35 is Riley Branch is less than four feet wide through the project area. Crossing #D-052, 053, and 054 are discussed together Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 28 - N 29 21 10 N N $34,350 since the requirements associated with a trenchless crossing are applicable to all three crossings. Each of these crossings would require a bore pit exceeding 20 feet, with D-054 exceeding 30 feet. Bore pits of this depth result in a significant amount of excavated material that must be stockpiled. The excess material is not only associated with the depth of the bore, but also the Huntington D-052 S-L35 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut access ramps and associated benching that would be required to reach depths greater than 20 feet. Each of these crossings is also located near a steep slope which reduces the available area to stockpile soils without compromising worker safety. In Conventional Bore 28 21 N 29 21 10 N N $271,292 addition to the deep bore pits and limited operating room, the costs to bore these crossings is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method.

S-L35 is Riley Branch is less than four feet wide through the project area. Crossing #D-052, 053, and 054 are discussed together Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 42 - N 30 16 0 N Y $46,900 since the requirements associated with a trenchless crossing are applicable to all three crossings. Each of these crossings would require a bore pit exceeding 20 feet, with D-054 exceeding 30 feet. Bore pits of this depth result in a significant amount of excavated material that must be stockpiled. The excess material is not only associated with the depth of the bore, but also the Huntington D-053 S-L35 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut access ramps and associated benching that would be required to reach depths greater than 20 feet. Each of these crossings is also located near a steep slope which reduces the available area to stockpile soils without compromising worker safety. In Conventional Bore 42 21 N 30 16 0 N Y $311,024 addition to the deep bore pits and limited operating room, the costs to bore these crossings is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method.

S-L35 is Riley Branch is less than four feet wide through the project area. Crossing #D-052, 053, and 054 are discussed together Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 51 - N 32 25 20 N N $53,200 since the requirements associated with a trenchless crossing are applicable to all three crossings. Each of these crossings would require a bore pit exceeding 20 feet, with D-054 exceeding 30 feet. Bore pits of this depth result in a significant amount of excavated material that must be stockpiled. The excess material is not only associated with the depth of the bore, but also the Huntington D-054 S-L35 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut access ramps and associated benching that would be required to reach depths greater than 20 feet. Each of these crossings is also located near a steep slope which reduces the available area to stockpile soils without compromising worker safety. In Conventional Bore 51 33 N 32 25 20 N N $747,627 addition to the deep bore pits and limited operating room, the costs to bore these crossings is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 36 - N 38 25 32 N Y $46,550 This resource is an extremely small UNT to Hominy Creek. The width of the stream is less than 10 feet. Due to the location on steep slopes, the bore pits for this stream are nearly 20 feet in depth. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a Huntington D-055 S-I37 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut conventional bore would create excessively deep bore pits and spoil piles. Furthermore the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 36 20 N 38 25 32 N Y $284,861

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 142 - N 63 45 436 N N $126,985 Both of these resources are UNT to Hominy Creek and each is less than 10 feet in width. Due to the location on steep slopes, the bore pits for this crossing are nearly 50 feet in depth. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would Huntington D-056 S-I38, S-I39 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut require a deep bore pit which would create excessive spoil piles in a topographical setting that would require a technically and logistically difficult winching system, all while being located within an already reduced LOD. Furthermore, the cost to bore is Conventional Bore 142 47 N 63 45 436 N N $2,966,630 unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 24 - N 59 27 104 N N $39,183 Stream S-I40 is an UNT to Hominy Creek and is very small - less than ten feet in width. The trenchless crossing would require bore pits that are more than 20 feet deep. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a Huntington D-057 S-I40 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut deep bore pit near a steep slope which would create excessive spoil piles in an already reduced LOD. Furthermore, the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 24 26 N 59 27 104 N N $305,614

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 47 - N 42 10 489 N Y $62,159 D-058 and D-059 are adjacent crossings are discussed together due to their proximity. These crossings present multiple confounding constructability challenges that limit the available options and necessitated the development of a unique solution. Huntington D-058 W-I11a, S-I41 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut The access to the location of these crossings is severely limited by long steep slopes, and there is insufficient suitable workspace available for construction equipment and spoil piles necessary to complete a trenchless crossing. A minor temporary impact Conventional Bore 47 13 N 42 10 489 N Y $192,761 associated with the bore to maintain access will be required.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 116 - Y 16 7 840 N N $279,787 D-058 and D-059 are adjacent crossings are discussed together due to their proximity. These crossings present multiple confounding constructability challenges that limit the available options and necessitated the development of a unique solution. Huntington D-059 S-I36 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut The access to the location of these crossings is severely limited by long steep slopes, and there is insufficient suitable workspace

Page 14 of 49 Table 15. Crossing Method Determination Summary Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Evaluation Factors Sufficient USACE Crossing Methods Maximum Proposed Crossing # Waterbody Maximum Steep Maximum Winch Karst Terrain Stockpile Crossing Method Decision Rationale District Evaluated Crossing Length Pit Depth Deep Stream Average Slope Total Cost ($) Crossing Method Slope (%) Hill Length (feet) Present Storage (%) Available Huntington D-059 S-I36 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut The access to the location of these crossings is severely limited by long steep slopes, and there is insufficient suitable workspace available for construction equipment and spoil piles necessary to complete a trenchless crossing. A minor temporary impact Conventional Bore 116 26 Y 16 7 840 N N $566,708 associated with the bore to maintain access will be required.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 25 - N 38 32 424 N N $26,015 The bore pits for this crossing are greater than 20 feet in depth and the crossing is located on a long steep slope. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a deep bore pit which would create excessive Huntington D-061 S-I31 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut spoil piles in a topographical setting that would require a technically and logistically difficult winching system, all while being located within an already reduced LOD. Furthermore, the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction Conventional Bore 25 22 N 38 32 424 N N $271,913 method.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 37 - N 45 35 122 N N $167,104 A trenchless crossing method at this location could not be completed without excavating a bore pit within proximity to a landowner private drive. Completing an open cut in this location greatly reduces the construction duration and access can be maintained Huntington E-001 S-H88 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut using road plates. A trenchless crossing of this resource has been deemed logistically impracticable due to the need to maintain the landowner's access over an extended duration and the safety risk of operating heavy equipment for an extended time with a Conventional Bore 37 32 N 45 35 122 N N $689,625 private landowner in close proximity and traversing the site.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 150 - N 75 46 282 N N $157,500 This group of resources are located adjacent to a steep slope with bore pits to be 80 feet deep. Avoiding/minimizing this minor S-H71, W-H33, W- impact through a conventional bore would create extremely excessive spoil piles in a topographical setting that would require a Huntington E-002 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut H35 technically and logistically difficult winching system, all while being located within an already reduced LOD. Furthermore, the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 150 80 N 75 46 282 N N $4,789,334

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 30 - N 39 24 31 N N $60,392 The trenchless crossing would require bore pits that are more than 20 feet deep. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact Huntington E-003 S-H67 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut (approximately 0.02 acre) through a conventional bore would require a deep bore pit creating excessive spoil piles in an already reduced LOD. Furthermore, the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 30 24 N 39 24 31 N N $304,372

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 54 - N 26 10 0 N Y $52,782 The trenchless crossing would require bore pits that are more than 20 feet deep. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact Huntington E-004 S-H64, W-H31 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut (approximately 0.03 acre) through a conventional bore would require a deep bore pit creating excessive spoil piles in an already reduced LOD. Furthermore, the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 54 24 N 26 10 0 N Y $372,484

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 56 - N 47 26 342 N N $240,231 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Huntington E-005 S-V3 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 56 23 N 47 26 342 N N $369,025

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 55 - N 20 9 0 N Y $44,212 The trenchless crossing would require bore pits that are more than 20 feet deep, which would necessitate benching and Huntington E-006 W-EF31, S-EF41 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut stockpiling significant amounts of spoil material. Furthermore, the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 55 21 N 20 9 0 N Y $347,918

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 223 - N 35 10 0 N Y $156,100 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Huntington E-009 W-M18 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 223 17 N 35 10 0 N Y $710,515

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 86 - N 26 16 0 N Y $60,200 The trenchless crossing would require bore pits that are nearly 20 feet deep, which may necessitate benching and stockpiling significant amounts of spoil material. Because the pipeline ROW must remain free of woody vegetation to protect the pipe Huntington E-010 W-M22, W-M23 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut coating, a conversion impact is unavoidable. Furthermore, the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed

Page 15 of 49 Table 15. Crossing Method Determination Summary Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Evaluation Factors Sufficient USACE Crossing Methods Maximum Proposed Crossing # Waterbody Maximum Steep Maximum Winch Karst Terrain Stockpile Crossing Method Decision Rationale District Evaluated Crossing Length Pit Depth Deep Stream Average Slope Total Cost ($) Crossing Method Slope (%) Hill Length (feet) Present Storage (%) Available Huntington E-010 W-M22, W-M23 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut coating, a conversion impact is unavoidable. Furthermore, the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method and would take twice as long to complete. Conventional Bore 86 17 N 26 16 0 N Y $321,711

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 101 - N 26 10 0 N Y $70,700 The trenchless crossing would require bore pits that are nearly 20 feet deep, which may necessitate benching and stockpiling significant amounts of spoil material. Because the pipeline ROW must remain free of woody vegetation to protect the pipe Huntington E-011 W-J6 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut coating, a conversion impact is unavoidable. Furthermore, the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method . Conventional Bore 101 15 N 26 10 0 N Y $355,146

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 255 - N 43 16 327 N N $298,496

Huntington E-012 S-J20 Conventional Bore FERC has approved the variance for this crossing which will be completed during the boring of the adjacent rail line.

Conventional Bore 255 37 N 43 16 327 N N $1,399,653

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 89 - N 34 24 10 N N $79,837 Stream S-I25 is an UNT to Meadow Creek and is very small - less than ten feet in width. The trenchless crossing would require bore pits that are more than 20 feet deep. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a Huntington E-013 S-I25 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut deep bore pit which would create excessive spoil piles in an already reduced LOD. Furthermore, the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 89 26 N 34 24 10 N N $490,082

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 26 - N 31 20 10 N N $33,826 Stream S-I26 is an UNT to Meadow Creek and is very small - less than ten feet in width. The trenchless crossing would require bore pits that are more than 20 feet deep. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a Huntington E-014 S-I26 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut deep bore pit which would create excessive spoil piles in an already reduced LOD. Furthermore, the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 26 20 N 31 20 10 N N $256,481

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 41 - N 17 13 0 N Y $46,828 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact Huntington E-015 S-I27 Conventional Bore associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 41 18 N 17 13 0 N Y $198,570

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 41 - N 54 33 724 N N $28,700 The bore pits for this crossing are greater than 30 feet in depth . Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a deep bore pit on an extremely long and steep slope which would create excessive spoil piles in a Huntington E-016 W-HS1 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut topographical setting that would require a technically and logistically difficult winching system, all while being located within an already reduced LOD. Furthermore, the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 41 32 N 54 33 724 N N $700,977

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 322 - N 10 8 0 N Y $225,400 A trenchless crossing in this location would require bore pits that are nearly thirty feet deep, which necessitates the use of a bench and interim ramp to access the bore pit. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would create Huntington E-017 W-QR2 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut excessive spoil piles in an already reduced LOD. Furthermore, the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 322 27 N 10 8 0 N Y $1,160,467

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 42 - N 27 9 0 N Y $42,210 This crossing is immediately adjacent to a mainline valve. Trenchless crossing methods are logistically difficult because they would require the pipe to be installed too deeply to facilitate connection to the valve site. An open cut crossing is necessary to Huntington E-018 S-L26, W-L16 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut facilitate connection to the mainline valve. Furthermore, using a conventional bore method to avoid a temporary impact to this small intermittent stream and wetland would be unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 42 23 N 27 9 0 N Y $329,293

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 90 - N 18 11 0 N Y $70,012 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Huntington E-019 S-L27 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact

Page 16 of 49 Table 15. Crossing Method Determination Summary Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Evaluation Factors Sufficient USACE Crossing Methods Maximum Proposed Crossing # Waterbody Maximum Steep Maximum Winch Karst Terrain Stockpile Crossing Method Decision Rationale District Evaluated Crossing Length Pit Depth Deep Stream Average Slope Total Cost ($) Crossing Method Slope (%) Hill Length (feet) Present Storage (%) Available Huntington E-019 S-L27 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 90 19 N 18 11 0 N Y $342,198

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 315 - N 77 46 1723 N N $325,500 Due to the location on steep slopes, the bore pits for this crossing are greater than sixty feet in depth which would create S-L30, W-L19, W- extremely excessive spoil piles in a topographical setting that would require a technically and logistically difficult winching system, Huntington E-020 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut L12, W-L13, S-L22 all while being located within an already reduced LOD. Furthermore, the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method and would take nearly 60 days as long to complete. Conventional Bore 315 62 N 77 46 1723 N N $4,275,783

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 53 - N 76 43 765 N N $54,697 Due to the location, the bore pits for this crossing are greater than thirty feet in depth. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact (approximately 0.03 acre) through a conventional bore would require a deep bore pit which would create excessive spoil piles in a Huntington E-021 W-L11, S-L20 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut topographical setting that would require a technically and logistically difficult winching system, all while being located within an already reduced LOD. Furthermore, the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 53 31 N 76 43 765 N N $716,764

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 92 - N 32 20 0 N Y $85,538 A trenchless crossing in this location would require bore pits that are greater than twenty feet deep, which necessitates the use of W-L4, S-L10, S- a bench and interim ramp to access the bore pit. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would create Huntington E-022 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut L11, W-L2 excessive spoil piles in an already reduced LOD. Furthermore, the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 92 25 N 32 20 0 N Y $489,462

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 70 - N 37 28 249 N N $66,994 A trenchless crossing in this location would require bore pits that are greater than twenty feet deep, which necessitates the use of a bench and interim ramp to access the bore pit. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would create Huntington E-023 S-I21, S-I22 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut excessive spoil piles in an already reduced LOD. Furthermore, the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 70 28 N 37 28 249 N N $454,430

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 1168 - N 28 20 92 N Y $887,600 A trenchless crossing in this location would require bore pits that are nearly twenty feet deep. Numerous cultural resources have W-K7, S-K17, W- been avoided by the current alignment. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would create IJ30, W-UV9, W- Huntington F-001 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut excessive spoil piles in an already reduced LOD. The trenchless crossing method would take nearly 160 days to complete, while UV11, W-UV10, W- the proposed method would take approximately 24 days to complete -- compounding the noise, aesthetic, and other impacts on K9-PEM-1, S-K19 Direct Pipe 1168 15 N 28 20 92 N Y $9,412,510 nearby persons. Furthermore, the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 123 - N 78 32 185 N N $125,156 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to two small UNTs to Buffalo Creek. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require an excessively deep bore pit greater than 40 feet at the edge of a steep slope, Huntington F-002 S-K21, S-K22 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and two benches and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be Conventional Bore 123 48 N 78 32 185 N N $2,967,254 unreasonably expensive and would take twice as long to complete.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 70 - N 49 27 52 N N $75,861 A trenchless crossing of this small UNT to Morris Fork and wetlands system would require bore pits that are nearly thirty feet deep, which necessitates the use of a bench and interim ramp to access the bore pit. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact Huntington F-003 S-UV6, W-UV4 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut through a conventional bore would create excessive spoil piles in an already reduced LOD. Because the pipeline ROW must remain free of woody vegetation to protect the pipe coating, a conversion impact is unavoidable. Furthermore, the cost to bore is Conventional Bore 70 27 N 49 27 52 N N $445,295 unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method.

This crossing of a small UNT to Morris Fork presents multiple challenges that limit the available options and necessitate the Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 345 - N 65 52 371 N N $290,616 development of a unique solution. A bore pit depth just short of 40 feet would required the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increases the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. Steep slopes (greater than 30%) adjacent to this waterbody also increase the complexity of a bored crossing, increase safety risk to personnel, and add risk of impact to the Huntington F-004 W-UV8, S-UV2 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut waterbody from upland work during a bore. In addition, this crossing is in close proximity to residences, and a trenchless crossing of this location would take longer than six weeks to complete -- compounding the noise, aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby persons. The open-cut method reduces construction duration thereby minimizing the disruption the affected residences and Guided Conventional businesses. Accordingly, a trenchless crossing of this resource has been deemed logistically difficult due to the compounding 345 36 N 65 52 371 N N $1,169,818 Bore constructability constraints.

Page 17 of 49 Table 15. Crossing Method Determination Summary Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Evaluation Factors Sufficient USACE Crossing Methods Maximum Proposed Crossing # Waterbody Maximum Steep Maximum Winch Karst Terrain Stockpile Crossing Method Decision Rationale District Evaluated Crossing Length Pit Depth Deep Stream Average Slope Total Cost ($) Crossing Method Slope (%) Hill Length (feet) Present Storage (%) Available

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 593 - N 52 35 293 N Y $461,800 This crossing presents multiple challenges that limit the available options and necessitated the development of a site-specific solution. The proximity of this stream to the adjacent bore of Interstate-64 makes it difficult to tie-in a bore of this resource. A bore pit depth nearing 40 feet at this location requires the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increases the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. Steep slopes (greater than 30%) adjacent to the waterbody increases the Huntington F-004A S-U22 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut complexity of this crossing if bored, increases safety risk to personnel, and adds risk of impact to the waterbody from upland work during a bore. A trenchless crossing would take more than six weeks to be completed. Use of the open-cut method would reduce the construction duration and minimize noise and other disruptions to nearby persons due to construction activities. Accordingly, Guided Conventional 593 37 N 52 35 293 N Y $1,556,221 a trenchless crossing of this resource has been deemed logistically difficult due to the compounding constructability constraints. Bore

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 154 - N 19 12 0 N Y $120,716 A trenchless crossing of this small UNT to Red Spring Branch and wetland system would require bore pits greater than thirty feet deep, which necessitates the use of a bench and interim ramp to access the bore pit. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact Huntington F-005 W-EE4, S-EE4 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut through a conventional bore would create excessive spoil piles in an already reduced LOD. Furthermore, the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 154 32 N 19 12 0 N Y $1,021,669

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 163 - N 47 32 51 N N $130,313 A trenchless crossing of this small UNT to Red Spring Branch and wetland system would require bore pits that are nearly forty feet deep, which necessitates the use of a bench and interim ramp to access the bore pit. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact Huntington F-006 S-M6, W-M2 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut through a conventional bore would create excessive spoil piles in an already reduced LOD. Furthermore, the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method and would also take three times as long to complete. Conventional Bore 163 38 N 47 32 51 N N $1,156,828

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 37 - N 25 15 0 N Y $43,400 S-J13 is an UNT to Patterson Creek, a very small stream, and is crossed three times by the project. Crossing # F-007, 008, and 009 are discussed together since the requirements associated with a trenchless crossing are applicable to all three crossings. Each of these crossings would require a bore pit exceeding 20 feet, with F-009 being nearly thirty feet deep. Bore pits of this depth result in a significant amount of excavated material that must be stockpiled. The excess material is not only associated with Huntington F-007 S-J13 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut the depth of the bore, but also the access ramps and associated benching that would be required to reach depths greater than 20 feet. Crossing F-009 is in a topographical setting that would require a technically and logistically difficult winching system. In addition to the deep bore pits and limited operating room, the costs to bore these crossings is unreasonably high relative to the Conventional Bore 37 22 N 25 15 0 N Y $305,969 proposed construction method.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 45 - N 32 21 21 N Y $49,000 S-J13 is an UNT to Patterson Creek, a very small stream, and is crossed three times by the project. Crossing # F-007, 008, and 009 are discussed together since the requirements associated with a trenchless crossing are applicable to all three crossings. Each of these crossings would require a bore pit exceeding 20 feet, with F-009 being nearly thirty feet deep. Bore pits of this depth result in a significant amount of excavated material that must be stockpiled. The excess material is not only associated with Huntington F-008 S-J13 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut the depth of the bore, but also the access ramps and associated benching that would be required to reach depths greater than 20 feet. Crossing F-009 is in a topographical setting that would require a technically and logistically difficult winching system. In addition to the deep bore pits and limited operating room, the costs to bore these crossings is unreasonably high relative to the Conventional Bore 45 21 N 32 21 21 N Y $319,538 proposed construction method.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 75 - N 42 34 419 N Y $70,000 S-J13 is an UNT to Patterson Creek, a very small stream, and is crossed three times by the project. Crossing # F-007, 008, and 009 are discussed together since the requirements associated with a trenchless crossing are applicable to all three crossings. Each of these crossings would require a bore pit exceeding 20 feet, with F-009 being nearly thirty feet deep. Bore pits of this depth result in a significant amount of excavated material that must be stockpiled. The excess material is not only associated with Huntington F-009 S-J13 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut the depth of the bore, but also the access ramps and associated benching that would be required to reach depths greater than 20 feet. Crossing F-009 is in a topographical setting that would require a technically and logistically difficult winching system. In addition to the deep bore pits and limited operating room, the costs to bore these crossings is unreasonably high relative to the Conventional Bore 75 27 N 42 34 419 N Y $459,485 proposed construction method.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 43 - N 56 44 1538 N N $38,855 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small UNT to Lick Creek. The crossing is located at the base of an extremely long and steep slope and require bore pits exceeding forty feet. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a deep bore pit which would create excessive spoil piles in a topographical setting that would Huntington F-010 S-I17 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut require a technically and logistically difficult winching system, all while being located within an already reduced LOD. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive and would Conventional Bore 43 31 N 56 44 1538 N N $688,384 take twice as long to complete.

Page 18 of 49 Table 15. Crossing Method Determination Summary Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Evaluation Factors Sufficient USACE Crossing Methods Maximum Proposed Crossing # Waterbody Maximum Steep Maximum Winch Karst Terrain Stockpile Crossing Method Decision Rationale District Evaluated Crossing Length Pit Depth Deep Stream Average Slope Total Cost ($) Crossing Method Slope (%) Hill Length (feet) Present Storage (%) Available

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 66 - N 50 36 1200 N N $101,669 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to Lick Creek. The crossing is located at the base of an extremely long and steep slope and require bore pits exceeding forty feet. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore Huntington F-011 S-I19 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut would create excessive spoil piles in a topographical setting that would require a technically and logistically difficult winching system, all while being located within an already reduced LOD. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize Conventional Bore 66 44 N 50 36 1200 N N $2,587,307 this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive and would take twice as long to complete.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 39 - N 78 57 735 N N $76,000 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small UNT to Lick Creek. The crossing is located on an extremely long and steep slope and require bore pits that are nearly forty feet deep. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a deep bore pit on which would create excessive spoil piles in a topographical setting that would Huntington F-011A S-I20 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut require a technically and logistically difficult winching system, all while being located within an already reduced LOD. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive and would Conventional Bore 39 35 N 78 57 735 N N $750,110 take twice as long to complete.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 63 - N 33 24 10 N N $52,226 A trenchless crossing of this small UNT to Hungard Creek would require bore pits greater than 20 feet deep, which necessitates the use of a bench and interim ramp to access the bore pit. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore Huntington F-012 S-N5 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut would create excessive spoil piles in an already reduced LOD. Furthermore, the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 63 24 N 33 24 10 N N $398,025

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 35 - N 40 34 252 N N $44,164 A trenchless crossing of this small UNT to Hungard Creek would require bore pits greater than twenty feet deep, which necessitates the use of a bench and interim ramp to access the bore pit. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a Huntington F-013 S-K14 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut conventional bore would create excessive spoil piles in an already reduced LOD. Furthermore, the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 35 22 N 40 34 252 N N $300,293

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 106 - N 6 3 0 N Y $97,922 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Huntington F-014 S-N3 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 106 15 N 6 3 0 N Y $369,336

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 48 - N 36 10 0 N Y $107,232 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Huntington F-015 S-N2 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 48 15 N 36 10 0 N Y $204,733

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 128 - N 8 3 0 N Y $98,350

This crossing is adjacent to planned bored, which will allow the existing bore pits to be utilized to avoid/minimize the aquatic Huntington F-016 S-CD23 Conventional Bore impact at this location by boring. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required.

Conventional Bore 128 15 N 8 3 0 N Y $431,772

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 99 - N 9 4 0 N Y $83,735 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Huntington F-017 S-N4, W-EF40 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 99 16 N 9 4 0 N Y $354,038

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 208 - N 46 0 0 N Y $299,600 The pipeline has already been installed under an adjacent road (East Clayton Rd). There is no feasible way to tie the two sections Huntington F-019 S-KL29 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut of pipe together if a trenchless method is used to install this crossing. Lastly, substantial increase in cost and lost time (four weeks to complete bore) to avoid a temporary impact to this small, one-foot-wide stream is not appropriate and practicable. Conventional Bore 208 35 N 46 0 0 N Y $1,229,729

Page 19 of 49 Table 15. Crossing Method Determination Summary Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Evaluation Factors Sufficient USACE Crossing Methods Maximum Proposed Crossing # Waterbody Maximum Steep Maximum Winch Karst Terrain Stockpile Crossing Method Decision Rationale District Evaluated Crossing Length Pit Depth Deep Stream Average Slope Total Cost ($) Crossing Method Slope (%) Hill Length (feet) Present Storage (%) Available

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 0 - N 0 0 0 N Y -$700

W-MM20-PFO, S- Crossing these resources requires the pipeline to negotiate a bend that cannot be completed with any available trenchless Huntington F-020 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut CV17 crossing technology.

Conventional Bore 0 0 N 0 0 0 N Y $0

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 1250 - Y 9 3 0 N Y $2,287,563 The Greenbrier River will be crossed using the Direct Pipe trenchless methodology. The stream depth would require an instream diversion system that would severely limit the amount of usable workspace in an already reduced LOD. The Greenbrier River is Huntington F-021 S-I8 Direct Pipe also classified by the WVDNR as Group 1 mussel stream. While mussel survey and relocation efforts were completed in 2020, completing a trenchless crossing will further minimize any potential impacts to mussel species. Direct Pipe 1250 13 Y 9 3 0 N Y $10,059,375

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 91 - N 14 6 0 N Y $124,405 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Huntington F-022 S-I9 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 91 18 N 14 6 0 N Y $340,469

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 30 - N 42 33 293 N N $51,375 A trenchless crossing of this small UNT to Greenbrier River would require bore pits greater than thirty feet deep, which necessitates the use of a bench and interim ramp to access the bore pit. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a Huntington F-023 S-L4 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut conventional bore would create excessive spoil piles in an already reduced LOD. Furthermore, the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 30 33 N 42 33 293 N N $688,029

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 41 - N 37 35 105 N N $42,713 A trenchless crossing of this small UNT to Greenbrier River would require bore pits greater that are nearly 30 feet deep, which necessitates the use of a bench and interim ramp to access the bore pit. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a Huntington F-024 S-L2 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut conventional bore would create excessive spoil piles in an already reduced LOD. Furthermore, the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 41 29 N 37 35 105 N N $381,263

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 40 - N 60 41 146 N N $49,003 A trenchless crossing of this small wetland and small UNT to Kelly Creek would require bore pits greater than thirty feet deep, which necessitates the use of a bench and interim ramp to access the bore pit. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a Huntington F-025 W-K2-PEM, S-L1 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut conventional bore would create excessive spoil piles in an already reduced LOD. Furthermore, the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. Conventional Bore 40 32 N 60 41 146 N N $698,139

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 42 - N 82 57 240 N N $100,783 This crossing presents multiple challenges that limit the available options and necessitated the development of a unique solution. A bore pit depth greater than 20 feet requires the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and increases the space occupied by Huntington F-026 S-J5 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut the bore pit and spoil pile. Steep slopes (greater than 30%) adjacent to these waterbodies increase the complexity of a bored crossing, increase safety risk to personnel, and add risk of impact to the waterbody from upland work during a bore. In addition, Conventional Bore 42 24 N 82 57 240 N N $338,428 this crossing is on a property with a well or spring. The open cut method reduces the construction duration near the well/spring.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 30 - N 47 34 173 N N $37,647 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Huntington F-027 S-J4 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 30 19 N 47 34 173 N N $171,919

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 104 - N 72 25 228 N N $83,831 The pipeline is already installed through a portion of the wetland at this crossing. The layout of a conventional bore would require excavation of a bore pit unacceptably close to the installed pipe. Additionally, a trenchless method would require excavation of a W-OP1-PEM, S- bore pit within the wetland, meaning that that a longer-duration bore pit in the wetland is not less environmentally damaging than a Huntington F-028 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut OP1 much shorter duration impact associated with an open cut through the wetland and adjacent stream. Lastly, the cost to avoid a temporary impact to these resources is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method, especially in light of the Conventional Bore 104 19 N 72 25 228 N N $381,930 fact that boring does not materially avoid or minimize the impact at this location.

Page 20 of 49 Table 15. Crossing Method Determination Summary Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Evaluation Factors Sufficient USACE Crossing Methods Maximum Proposed Crossing # Waterbody Maximum Steep Maximum Winch Karst Terrain Stockpile Crossing Method Decision Rationale District Evaluated Crossing Length Pit Depth Deep Stream Average Slope Total Cost ($) Crossing Method Slope (%) Hill Length (feet) Present Storage (%) Available

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 742 - N 20 9 0 N Y $554,400 A trenchless crossing in this area would require bore pits that are nearly 20 feet deep. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would create excessive spoil piles in an already reduced LOD. Furthermore, the cost to bore is S-A63, W-A13, S- unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. A trenchless crossing of this area would take approximately Huntington F-029-030 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut A61, S-A60 three times longer to complete than the proposed construction method -- compounding the noise, aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby persons. Reducing the time at the crossing and permanently stabilizing this area will reduce the potential for Direct Pipe 742 15 N 20 9 0 N Y $6,004,510 sedimentation and erosion along the hillside.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 81 - N 55 42 99 N N $284,433 This crossing presents multiple challenges that limit the available options and necessitated the development of a unique solution. A bore pit depth of nearly 40 feet will require the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increase the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. Steep slopes (greater than 30%) adjacent to stream increases the complexity of a bored Huntington F-031 S-D31 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut crossing, increases safety risk to personnel, and adds risk of impact to the waterbody from upland work during a bore. In addition, this crossing is in close proximity to residences and/or businesses, which would cause increased noise and other impacts to persons nearby for the approximately seven weeks that would be required to complete a trenchless crossing. The open-cut Conventional Bore 81 38 N 55 42 99 N N $924,113 method would reduce construction duration and minimize disruptions to persons due to construction activities.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 32 - N 23 11 74 N Y $36,432 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Huntington F-032 S-D25 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 32 19 N 23 11 74 N Y $177,595

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 31 - N 32 25 10 Y N $30,454 Site conditions do not allow sufficient space to stockpile spoils from bore pits. Karst terrain increases the risk of bore failure and Huntington F-034 S-Z5, S-Z4 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut environmental impact. Furthermore, avoiding this temporary impact to this small stream with a conventional bore crossing would be unreasonably expensive. Conventional Bore 31 26 N 32 25 10 Y N $325,479

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 88 - N 51 33 191 N N $86,108 A trenchless crossing of these small wetlands and small UNT to Hans Creek would require bore pits that are 20 feet deep, which necessitates the use of a bench and interim ramp to access the bore pit. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a W-MN15, W-MN14, conventional bore would create excessive spoil piles in an already reduced LOD. Furthermore, the cost to bore is unreasonably Huntington F-035 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut S-MN2 high relative to the proposed construction method. The proposed crossing method is also shorter in duration, which reduces the noise, aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby persons. Reducing the time at the crossing and permanently stabilizing this area Conventional Bore 88 20 N 51 33 191 N N $432,436 will reduce the potential for sedimentation and erosion along the hillside.

This crossing presents multiple challenges that limit the available options and necessitated the development of a unique solution. Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 84 - N 53 28 536 N N $148,571 A bore pit depth of nearly 30 feet will require the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increase the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. Steep slopes (greater than 30%) adjacent to stream increases the complexity of a bored crossing, increases safety risk to personnel, and adds risk of impact to the waterbody from upland work during a bore. In addition, the topographical constraints create a technical and logistical limit on a winching system further increasing the worker safety risk. Huntington F-036 S-CV19 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut Furthermore, the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. The proposed crossing method is also shorter in duration, which reduces the noise, aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby persons. Reducing the time at the crossing and permanently stabilizing this area will reduce the potential for sedimentation and erosion along the hillside. Conventional Bore 84 33 N 53 28 536 N N $841,280 Accordingly, a trenchless crossing of this resource has been deemed logistically difficult due to the multiple compounding constraints.

This crossing presents multiple challenges that limit the available options and necessitated the development of a unique solution. S-MN39, S-MN40, Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 180 - N 64 54 254 N N $140,000 Installing a trenchless crossing at this location would require a deep bore pit (38 feet) at the bottom of a steep hill that would W-CV24, S-MN38, require winched equipment. There is insufficient space available at this location to stockpile spoils from the bore pit. Huntington F-037 S-MN37, W-MN18- Dry-Ditch Open-Cut Avoiding/minimize impacts to this cluster of small aquatic resources would require an extended construction period greater than PFO, W-MN18- six weeks and triple the total greenhouse gas emissions associated with completed the crossing. Lastly, the cost to avoid a PEM, W-MN1 Conventional Bore 180 38 N 64 54 254 N N $1,205,073 temporary impact to these resources is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 34 - N 30 23 0 N Y $38,869 A trenchless crossing of this small UNT to Hans Creek would require bore pits that are greater than 20 feet deep, which necessitates the use of a bench and interim ramp to access the bore pit. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would create excessive spoil piles in an already reduced LOD. Furthermore, the cost to bore is unreasonably Huntington F-038 S-G44 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut high relative to the proposed construction method. The proposed crossing method is shorter in duration, which reduces the noise, aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby persons. Reducing the time at the crossing and permanently stabilizing this area Conventional Bore 34 24 N 30 23 0 N Y $315,724 will reduce the potential for sedimentation and erosion along the hillside.

Page 21 of 49 Table 15. Crossing Method Determination Summary Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Evaluation Factors Sufficient USACE Crossing Methods Maximum Proposed Crossing # Waterbody Maximum Steep Maximum Winch Karst Terrain Stockpile Crossing Method Decision Rationale District Evaluated Crossing Length Pit Depth Deep Stream Average Slope Total Cost ($) Crossing Method Slope (%) Hill Length (feet) Present Storage (%) Available

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 52 - N 40 27 73 N N $56,420 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Huntington F-039 S-G43, W-MN1 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 52 19 N 40 27 73 N N $234,355

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 83 - N 61 51 312 N N $69,021 A trenchless crossing of this small wetland and UNT to Hans Creek would require bore pits that are greater than thirty feet deep, which necessitates the use of a bench and interim ramp to access the bore pit. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would create excessive spoil piles in an already reduced LOD. Furthermore, the cost to bore is unreasonably Huntington F-040 W-G6, S-G42 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut high relative to the proposed construction method. The proposed crossing method is also shorter in duration, which reduces the noise, aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby persons. Reducing the time at the crossing and permanently stabilizing this area Conventional Bore 83 34 N 61 51 312 N N $856,711 will reduce the potential for sedimentation and erosion along the hillside.

A trenchless crossing of this small wetland and UNT to Hans Creek would require bore pits that are thirty feet deep, which Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 42 - N 45 33 342 N N $36,464 necessitates the use of a bench and interim ramp to access the bore pit. In addition the crossing is located at the bottom of a long, steep slope, further complicating construction and worker safety. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a Huntington F-041 S-MN45, W-MN24 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut conventional bore would create excessive spoil piles in an already reduced LOD. Furthermore, the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. The proposed crossing method is also shorter in duration, which reduces the Conventional Bore 42 30 N 45 33 342 N N $667,277 noise, aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby persons. Reducing the time at the crossing and permanently stabilizing this area will reduce the potential for sedimentation and erosion along the hillside.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 50 - N 27 13 0 N Y $40,250 A trenchless crossing of these small wetlands and UNT to Hans Creek would require bore pits that are approximately twenty feet deep, which necessitates the use of a bench and interim ramp to access the bore pit. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact W-CV25-PEM-2, W- through a conventional bore would create excessive spoil piles in an already reduced LOD. Furthermore, the cost to bore is Huntington F-042 CV25-PSS-1, S- Dry-Ditch Open-Cut unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. The proposed crossing method is shorter in duration, which CV27 reduces the noise, aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby persons. Reducing the time at the crossing and permanently Conventional Bore 50 20 N 27 13 0 N Y $324,593 stabilizing this area will reduce the potential for sedimentation and erosion along the hillside.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 42 - N 34 30 210 Y N $58,269 Site conditions do not allow sufficient space to stockpile spoils from bore pits. Karst terrain presents greater logistical and Huntington F-043 S-E43, S-E45 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut technical challenges. Furthermore, avoiding this temporary impact to this small stream with a conventional bore crossing would be unreasonably expensive. Conventional Bore 42 28 N 34 30 210 Y N $374,967

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 48 - N 41 25 295 Y N $78,651

W-E12, S-E40, S- Site conditions reduce the available space to stockpile spoils from bore pits. Karst terrain presents greater logistical and technical Huntington F-044 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut E41 challenges.

Conventional Bore 48 14 N 41 25 295 Y N $200,166

A trenchless crossing of these small wetlands and Painters Run would require bore pits that are approximately thirty feet deep, Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 181 - N 31 19 10 N Y $151,803 which necessitates the use of a bench and interim ramp to access the bore pit. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would create excessive spoil piles in an already reduced LOD. In addition, the presence of steep slopes W-C14, W-C13, S- Huntington F-045 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut logistical and technical challenges. Furthermore, the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction C38, S-C39 method. The time to complete the proposed crossing method is also shorter in duration (nearly half), which reduces the noise, Conventional Bore 181 29 N 31 19 10 N Y $778,581 aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby persons. Reducing the time at the crossing and permanently stabilizing this area will reduce the potential for sedimentation and erosion along the hillside.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 72 - N 56 46 295 N N $61,161 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to this small UNT to Painters Run. The crossing is located on a steep slope and require bore pits nearly 30 feet. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a Huntington F-046 S-C41 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut deep bore pit which would create excessive spoil piles, all while being located within an already reduced LOD. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive and would Conventional Bore 72 29 N 56 46 295 N N $469,241 take over forty days to complete.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 42 - N 64 44 75 Y N $43,449 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to this small UNT to Kimballton Branch. The crossing is located on a steep slope and require bore pits exceeding fifty feet. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would Norfolk G-001 S-Q12 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut require a deep bore pit which would create excessive spoil piles. Karst terrain presents greater logistical and technical challenges. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably Conventional Bore 42 55 N 64 44 75 Y N $3,119,195 expensive and would take six times longer to complete.

Page 22 of 49 Table 15. Crossing Method Determination Summary Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Evaluation Factors Sufficient USACE Crossing Methods Maximum Proposed Crossing # Waterbody Maximum Steep Maximum Winch Karst Terrain Stockpile Crossing Method Decision Rationale District Evaluated Crossing Length Pit Depth Deep Stream Average Slope Total Cost ($) Crossing Method Slope (%) Hill Length (feet) Present Storage (%) Available

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 69 - N 45 29 331 Y N $118,248 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to Kimballton Branch. The crossing is located on a steep slope and require bore pits exceeding thirty feet. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a deep Norfolk G-002 S-Q13 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut bore pit which would create excessive spoil piles. Karst terrain increases the risk of bore failure and environmental impact. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive and would Conventional Bore 69 33 N 45 29 331 Y N $798,710 take three times longer to complete.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 44 - N 42 32 84 Y N $51,841 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to UNT to Stony Creek. The crossing is located adjacent to a steep slope and require bore pits nearly thirty feet deep. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would Norfolk G-003 S-P6 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut require a deep bore pit which would create excessive spoil piles. Karst terrain increases the logistical and technical challenges. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive and Conventional Bore 44 29 N 42 32 84 Y N $389,777 would take nearly twice as long to complete.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 300 - N 21 5 66 N N $356,008 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available S-S5-Braid-1, S-S5- Norfolk G-004 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact Braid-2, S-S5 associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Guided Conventional 300 0 N 21 5 66 N N $445,322 Bore

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 58 - N 49 38 110 Y N $70,917 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to two UNT to Dry Branch. Both streams are very small - less than ten feet in width. The crossing is located adjacent to a steep slope and require bore pits nearly forty feet deep. Avoiding/minimizing Norfolk G-005 S-G30, S-G29 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a deep bore pit which would create excessive spoil piles. Karst terrain increases the logistical and technical challenges. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor Conventional Bore 58 38 N 49 38 110 Y N $858,839 temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive and would take three times longer to complete.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 100 - N 46 28 607 Y N $100,749 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to Dry Branch. The crossing is located adjacent to a steep slope and require bore pits greater than twenty feet. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a deep bore pit adjacent to an extremely long and steep slope which would create excessive spoil piles in a topographical setting Norfolk G-006 S-G32 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut that would require a technically and logistically difficult winching system, all while being located within an already reduced LOD. Karst terrain increases the logistical and technical challenges. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this Conventional Bore 100 24 N 46 28 607 Y N $503,031 minor temporary impact would take twice as long to complete.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 90 - N 38 34 289 N N $93,649 A trenchless crossing of this small UNT to Dry Branch (less than 10 feet) would require bore pits that are approximately thirty feet deep, which necessitates the use of a bench and interim ramp to access the bore pit. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would create excessive spoil piles in an already reduced LOD. Furthermore, the cost to bore is Norfolk G-007 S-G33 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. The proposed crossing method is also shorter in duration, which reduces the noise, aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby persons. Reducing the time at the crossing and permanently Conventional Bore 90 30 N 38 34 289 N N $803,500 stabilizing this area will reduce the potential for sedimentation and erosion along the hillside.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 60 - N 39 26 220 N N $42,000 A trenchless crossing of this small wetland would require bore pits that are greater than twenty feet deep, which necessitates the use of a bench and interim ramp to access the bore pit. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would create excessive spoil piles in an already reduced LOD. Furthermore, the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the Norfolk G-008 W-Z11 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut proposed construction method. The proposed crossing method is shorter in duration, which reduces the noise, aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby persons. Reducing the time at the crossing and permanently stabilizing this area will reduce the potential Conventional Bore 60 21 N 39 26 220 N N $362,107 for sedimentation and erosion along the hillside.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 139 - N 38 34 608 N N $225,223

Mountain Valley must use a conventional bore to cross an adjacent road (Big Branch Hollow Road). The bore can be extended to Norfolk G-009 S-G35 Conventional Bore avoid this resource.

Conventional Bore 139 30 N 38 34 608 N N $942,561

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 30 - N 22 16 0 N Y $30,059

This stream is listed as trout water. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. Norfolk G-010 S-SS4 Conventional Bore A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required.

Conventional Bore 30 27 N 22 16 0 N Y $331,776

Page 23 of 49 Table 15. Crossing Method Determination Summary Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Evaluation Factors Sufficient USACE Crossing Methods Maximum Proposed Crossing # Waterbody Maximum Steep Maximum Winch Karst Terrain Stockpile Crossing Method Decision Rationale District Evaluated Crossing Length Pit Depth Deep Stream Average Slope Total Cost ($) Crossing Method Slope (%) Hill Length (feet) Present Storage (%) Available

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 48 - N 45 29 21 N N $49,564

This stream is listed as trout water. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. Norfolk G-011 S-Z9 Conventional Bore A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required.

Conventional Bore 48 27 N 45 29 21 N N $382,860

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 47 - N 24 14 0 N Y $44,128 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Norfolk G-012 S-Z7, S-Z7-Braid-1 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 47 19 N 24 14 0 N Y $220,165

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 331 - N 9 4 0 N Y $322,599 S-Z10, S-Z11, S- There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Guided Norfolk G-013 Z12-EPH, W-Z3, S- methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact Conventional Bore Z13 associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Guided Conventional 331 23 N 9 4 0 N Y $701,437 Bore

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 53 - N 37 32 292 N N $53,882 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Norfolk G-014 S-Z14 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 53 15 N 37 32 292 N N $218,923

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 77 - N 36 32 330 Y N $74,900 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small UNT to Doe Creek. The stream is very small - less than ten feet in width and would require bore pits nearly thirty feet deep. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional Norfolk G-015A S-A34 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut bore would require a deep bore pit which would create excessive spoil piles. Karst terrain increases the logistical and technical challenges. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably Conventional Bore 77 29 N 36 32 330 Y N $483,431 expensive and would take twice as along to complete.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 58 - N 36 30 388 Y Y $68,849 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small UNT to Doe Creek. The stream is very small - less than ten feet in width and would require bore pits greater than twenty feet deep on a steep slope. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact Norfolk G-015B S-A33 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut through a conventional bore would require a deep bore pit which would create excessive spoil piles, with limited room for stockpiling. Karst terrain increases the logistical and technical challenges. Using a conventional bore crossing method to Conventional Bore 58 24 N 36 30 388 Y Y $383,836 avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive and would take twice as along to complete.

The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to an UNT to Doe Creek. The crossing is located adjacent to a steep Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 103 - N 36 32 975 Y N $130,827 slope and require bore pits up to forty feet in depth. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a deep bore pit adjacent to an extremely long and steep slope which would create excessive spoil piles in a topographical setting that would require a technically and logistically difficult winching system, all while being located within an already reduced Norfolk G-016 S-A32 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut LOD. Karst terrain increases the logistical and technical challenges. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive and would take eight times longer to complete. Conventional Bore 103 40 N 36 32 975 Y N $2,474,130 Reducing the time at the crossing and permanently stabilizing this area will reduce the potential for sedimentation and erosion along the hillside.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 246 - N 52 25 328 Y N $263,200

Mountain Valley must use a conventional bore to cross an adjacent road (Doe Creek Road). The bore can be extended to avoid Norfolk G-017 S-Y3, S-Y2 Conventional Bore this resource.

Conventional Bore 246 37 N 52 25 328 Y N $1,374,111

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 69 - N 28 13 0 N Y $120,466 This crossing is immediately adjacent to another crossing (G-019B) that will be bored. A significant change in elevation between the two crossing locations does not allow the pipeline to be tied-in together unless this crossing is completed with an open cut. Norfolk G-019A S-E24 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut Furthermore, avoiding this temporary impact to a UNT to Sinking Creek with a conventional bore crossing would be unreasonably

Page 24 of 49 Table 15. Crossing Method Determination Summary Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Evaluation Factors Sufficient USACE Crossing Methods Maximum Proposed Crossing # Waterbody Maximum Steep Maximum Winch Karst Terrain Stockpile Crossing Method Decision Rationale District Evaluated Crossing Length Pit Depth Deep Stream Average Slope Total Cost ($) Crossing Method Slope (%) Hill Length (feet) Present Storage (%) Available Norfolk G-019A S-E24 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut Furthermore, avoiding this temporary impact to a UNT to Sinking Creek with a conventional bore crossing would be unreasonably expensive. Conventional Bore 69 32 N 28 13 0 N Y $780,441

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 92 - N 48 20 450 N Y $99,400 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Norfolk G-019B S-E25-Downstream Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 92 19 N 48 20 450 N Y $347,874

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 154 - N 56 45 400 N N $146,371 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to an UNT to Sinking Creek. The crossing is located adjacent to a steep slope and require bore pits nearly forty feet deep. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a deep bore pit adjacent to an extremely long and steep slope which would create excessive spoil piles in a topographical Norfolk G-020 S-RR5 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut setting that would require a technically and logistically difficult winching system, all while being located within an already reduced LOD. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably Conventional Bore 154 35 N 56 45 400 N N $1,076,478 expensive and would take longer to complete.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 22 - N 41 13 11 N N $21,300 A trenchless crossing of this small stream (UNT to Sinking Creek) would require bore pits that are nearly twenty feet deep. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would create excessive spoil piles in an already reduced LOD. Norfolk G-020A S-IJ18 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut Furthermore, the cost to bore is unreasonably high relative to the proposed construction method. The proposed crossing method is shorter in duration, which reduces the noise, aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby persons. Reducing the time at the Conventional Bore 22 19 N 41 13 11 N N $149,215 crossing and permanently stabilizing this area will reduce the potential for sedimentation and erosion along the hillside.

The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to an UNT to Sinking Creek. The crossing is located adjacent to a steep Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 50 - N 70 42 537 Y N $52,912 slope and require bore pits up to thirty feet in depth. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would create excessive spoil piles in a topographical setting that would require a technically and logistically difficult winching system, all Norfolk G-022 S-IJ16-b Dry-Ditch Open-Cut while being located within an already reduced LOD. Karst terrain increases the logistical and technical challenges. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive and would Conventional Bore 50 33 N 70 42 537 Y N $744,789 take nearly twice as long to complete. Reducing the time at the crossing and permanently stabilizing this area will reduce the potential for sedimentation and erosion along the hillside.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 140 - N 62 40 372 Y N $296,363

Mountain Valley must use a conventional bore to cross an adjacent road (Rt. 604). The bore can be extended to avoid this Norfolk G-023 S-NN17 Conventional Bore resource.

Conventional Bore 140 23 N 62 40 372 Y N $607,416

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 133 - N 63 42 702 Y N $129,388

S-RR2, S-YZ6, W- Mountain Valley must use a conventional bore to cross an adjacent road (Rt. 42). The bore can be extended to avoid this Norfolk G-024 Conventional Bore RR1b resource.

Conventional Bore 133 28 N 63 42 702 Y N $633,223

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 35 - N 45 41 349 Y N $43,253 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small UNT to Sinking Creek. The stream is very small - less than ten feet in width and would require bore pits approximately twenty feet deep. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a Norfolk G-025 S-MM18 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut conventional bore would require creating excessive spoil piles, with limited room for stockpiling. Karst terrain increases the logistical and technical challenges. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact Conventional Bore 35 20 N 45 41 349 Y N $282,023 would be unreasonably expensive and would take three times as along to complete.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 41 - N 41 28 276 Y N $37,317 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small UNT to Sinking Creek. The stream is very small - less than five feet in width and would require bore pits that are twenty feet deep. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a Norfolk G-026 S-NN12 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut conventional bore would require a deep bore pit which would create excessive spoil piles, with limited room for stockpiling. Karst terrain increases the logistical and technical challenges. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor Conventional Bore 41 20 N 41 28 276 Y N $299,051 temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive and would take longer to complete.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 147 - N 38 26 43 Y N $121,499 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small UNT to Sinking Creek. The stream is very small - less than five feet in width and would require bore pits greater than twenty feet deep. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a Norfolk G-027 S-NN11 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut conventional bore would require a deep bore pit which would create excessive spoil piles, with limited room for stockpiling. Karst

Page 25 of 49 Table 15. Crossing Method Determination Summary Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Evaluation Factors Sufficient USACE Crossing Methods Maximum Proposed Crossing # Waterbody Maximum Steep Maximum Winch Karst Terrain Stockpile Crossing Method Decision Rationale District Evaluated Crossing Length Pit Depth Deep Stream Average Slope Total Cost ($) Crossing Method Slope (%) Hill Length (feet) Present Storage (%) Available Norfolk G-027 S-NN11 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut conventional bore would require a deep bore pit which would create excessive spoil piles, with limited room for stockpiling. Karst terrain increases the logistical and technical challenges. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor Conventional Bore 147 24 N 38 26 43 Y N $636,416 temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive and would take longer to complete.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 48 - N 43 28 102 Y N $61,648 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small UNT to Sinking Creek. The stream is very small - less than ten feet in width and would require bore pits greater than twenty feet deep. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a Norfolk G-028 S-KL43 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut conventional bore would create excessive spoil piles, with limited room for stockpiling. Karst terrain increases the logistical and technical challenges. Conventional Bore 48 19 N 43 28 102 Y N $223,003

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 70 - N 23 11 0 Y Y $63,367 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small wetland and small UNT to Sinking Creek. The stream is very small - less than ten feet in width and would require bore pits greater than twenty feet deep. Avoiding/minimizing this minor Norfolk G-029 W-CD12, S-OO14 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut impact through a conventional bore would create excessive spoil piles, with limited room for stockpiling. Karst terrain increases the logistical and technical challenges. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact Conventional Bore 70 22 N 23 11 0 Y Y $399,622 would be unreasonably expensive and would take longer to complete.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 45 - N 41 21 73 Y N $101,903 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to two small UNTs to Sinking Creek. This crossing is in proximity to a residence, and a trenchless crossing of this location would take nearly three times as long to complete -- compounding the noise, Norfolk G-030 S-OO12, S-OO13 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby persons. The open-cut method reduces construction duration to minimize disruption due to construction activities on the affected residents. Karst terrain increases the logistical and technical challenges. Conventional Bore 45 18 N 41 21 73 Y N $209,921

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 46 - N 16 8 0 Y Y $43,348 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small (three-feet wide) intermittent UNT to Sinking Creek. This crossing is in close proximity to a residence, and a trenchless crossing of this location would take four times as long to complete -- Norfolk G-031 S-PP1 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut compounding the noise, aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby persons. The open-cut method reduces construction duration to minimize disruption due to construction activities on the affected residents. Karst terrain increases the logistical and technical Conventional Bore 46 15 N 16 8 0 Y Y $199,057 challenges.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 25 - N 17 12 0 Y Y $26,364 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small (three-feet wide) UNT to Sinking Creek. Karst terrain Norfolk G-032 S-PP3 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut increases the logistical and technical challenges. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive. Conventional Bore 25 17 N 17 12 0 Y Y $148,594

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 38 - N 22 11 0 Y Y $34,742 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small (two-feet wide) intermittent UNT to Sinking Creek. Karst Norfolk G-033 S-PP4 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut terrain increases the logistical and technical challenges. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive. Conventional Bore 38 11 N 22 11 0 Y Y $158,084

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 48 - N 57 48 203 N N $44,100

Norfolk G-034 S-PP22 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut Mountain Valley has only been authorized to boring the streams in this section of the project.

Conventional Bore 48 19 N 57 48 203 N N $223,003

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 35 - N 33 26 0 N N $38,975

Norfolk G-035 S-PP21 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut Mountain Valley has only been authorized to boring the streams in this section of the project.

Conventional Bore 35 22 N 33 26 0 N N $300,293

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 48 - N 26 9 0 N Y $58,844

Norfolk G-036 S-PP20 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut Mountain Valley has only been authorized to boring the streams in this section of the project.

Page 26 of 49 Table 15. Crossing Method Determination Summary Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Evaluation Factors Sufficient USACE Crossing Methods Maximum Proposed Crossing # Waterbody Maximum Steep Maximum Winch Karst Terrain Stockpile Crossing Method Decision Rationale District Evaluated Crossing Length Pit Depth Deep Stream Average Slope Total Cost ($) Crossing Method Slope (%) Hill Length (feet) Present Storage (%) Available Norfolk G-036 S-PP20 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut Mountain Valley has only been authorized to boring the streams in this section of the project.

Conventional Bore 48 18 N 26 9 0 N Y $218,435

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 61 - N 20 8 0 N Y $166,001

Norfolk G-037 S-OO6 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut Mountain Valley has only been authorized to boring the streams in this section of the project.

Conventional Bore 61 11 N 20 8 0 N Y $223,358

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 38 - N 33 19 21 N N $52,813

Norfolk G-038 S-RR14 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut Mountain Valley has only been authorized to boring the streams in this section of the project.

Conventional Bore 38 13 N 33 19 21 N N $167,219

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 55 - N 42 24 216 N N $59,609

Norfolk G-039 S-HH18 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut Mountain Valley has only been authorized to boring the streams in this section of the project.

Conventional Bore 55 29 N 42 24 216 N N $420,995

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 32 - N 53 42 287 N N $40,296 Access to this crossing location is extremely limited and requires removal and replacement of approximately 200 waterbars per day during period of active construction. Operating a boring operation at this location is logistically and technically challenging. Norfolk G-040 S-MN21 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut Furthermore, avoiding this temporary impact to this small stream with a conventional bore crossing would be unreasonably expensive. Conventional Bore 32 28 N 53 42 287 N N $346,587

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 40 - N 30 24 0 N Y $43,706 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small (four-feet wide) stream. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit of 20 feet at the edge of a steep slope, thereby requiring the Norfolk G-041 S-MN22 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive. Conventional Bore 40 20 N 30 24 0 N Y $296,213

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 88 - N 43 27 560 Y N $166,301 Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit exceeding 20 feet, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and Norfolk G-042 S-EF65 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut spoil pile. The stream is also located on a steep slope that would require logistically and technically challenging winching system in an already reduced work area. Karst terrain increases the logistical and technical challenges. Conventional Bore 88 22 N 43 27 560 Y N $450,706

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 38 - N 28 17 293 Y N $58,103

The stream is located on a steep slope that would require logistically and technically challenging winching system in an already Norfolk G-043 S-EF62 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut reduced work area. Karst terrain increases the logistical and technical challenges.

Conventional Bore 38 16 N 28 17 293 Y N $180,921

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 46 - N 63 35 178 Y N $57,673 Site conditions do not allow sufficient space to stockpile spoils from bore pits. Karst terrain increases the logistical and technical S-IJ52, W-IJ46- Norfolk G-044 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut challenges. Furthermore, avoiding this temporary impact to this small stream with a conventional bore crossing would be PEM unreasonably expensive and would take longer to complete. Conventional Bore 46 24 N 63 35 178 Y N $349,780

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 301 - N 74 46 1576 N N $232,364 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small (six-feet wide) intermittent UNT to Roanoke River. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a deep bore pit of nearly 40 feet at the edge of a steep slope, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by

Page 27 of 49 Table 15. Crossing Method Determination Summary Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Evaluation Factors Sufficient USACE Crossing Methods Maximum Proposed Crossing # Waterbody Maximum Steep Maximum Winch Karst Terrain Stockpile Crossing Method Decision Rationale District Evaluated Crossing Length Pit Depth Deep Stream Average Slope Total Cost ($) Crossing Method Slope (%) Hill Length (feet) Present Storage (%) Available a steep slope, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. The slope adjacent to the crossing is steep and excessively long, requiring equipment operating within Norfolk H-001 S-G39 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut and around the bore pit to be winched to other equipment. That increases the complexity of this crossing if bored, increases safety risk to personnel, and adds risk of impact to the waterbody from upland work during a bore. There is insufficient space at Conventional Bore 301 36 N 74 46 1576 N N $1,511,931 this location for spoil piles from a bore pit. A conventional bore crossing would extend the duration of this crossing from 6 to 79 days, thereby increasing the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the crossing by nearly 1,400%. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 37 - N 39 29 74 N N $47,979 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small (six-feet wide) intermittent UNT to Flatwoods Branch. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a deep bore pit of nearly 30 feet at the edge of Norfolk H-002 S-MM15 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut a steep slope, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be Conventional Bore 37 33 N 39 29 74 N N $707,895 unreasonably expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 100 - N 42 33 243 N N $104,394 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a UNT to Flatwoods Branch. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a deep bore pit of nearly 40 feet at the edge of a steep slope, thereby requiring the Norfolk H-003 S-MM14 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive. Conventional Bore 100 37 N 42 33 243 N N $959,765

The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small (five-feet wide) UNT to Flatwoods Branch. Avoiding/minimizing Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 33 - N 59 34 33 N N $41,924 this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit exceeding 30 feet at the edge of a steep slope, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore Norfolk H-004 S-MM13 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut pit and spoil pile. This crossing is in close proximity to a residence, and a trenchless crossing of this location would take more than twice as long to complete -- compounding the noise, aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby persons. The open-cut method Conventional Bore 33 32 N 59 34 33 N N $678,274 reduces construction duration to minimize disruption due to construction activities on the affected residents. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive.

The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small (nine-feet wide) UNT to Flatwoods Branch. Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 34 - N 46 24 33 N N $54,178 Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit exceeding 20 feet at the edge of a steep slope, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. This crossing is in close proximity to residences, and a trenchless crossing of this location Norfolk H-005 S-MM11 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut would take more than twice as long to complete -- compounding the noise, aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby persons. The open-cut method reduces construction duration to minimize disruption due to construction activities on the affected residents. The Conventional Bore 34 25 N 46 24 33 N N $324,859 open cut method would reduce the construction duration near a private drinking water well on the property. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive.

The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to an intermittent UNT to Flatwoods Branch and an adjacent PFO Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 55 - N 56 17 0 N Y $85,276 wetland (0.02 ac). Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit exceeding 30 feet at the edge of a steep slope, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. This crossing is in proximity to residences, and a trenchless crossing Norfolk H-006 W-F9-PFO, S-F15 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut of this location would take twice as long to complete -- compounding the noise, aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby persons. The open-cut method reduces construction duration to minimize disruption due to construction activities on the affected residents. Conventional Bore 55 35 N 56 17 0 N Y $795,517 The open cut method would reduce the construction duration near a private drinking water well on the property. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize these minor temporary impacts would be unreasonably expensive.

The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small (three-feet wide) UNT to Flatwoods Branch. Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 32 - N 30 15 0 N Y $32,899 Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit of nearly 30 feet at the edge of a steep slope, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. This crossing is in close proximity to residences, and a trenchless crossing of this location Norfolk H-007 S-F16a/F16b Dry-Ditch Open-Cut would take nearly twice as long to complete -- compounding the noise, aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby persons. The open- cut method reduces construction duration to minimize disruption due to construction activities on the affected residents. The open Conventional Bore 32 27 N 30 15 0 N Y $337,452 cut method would reduce the construction duration near a private drinking water well on the property. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 313 - N 21 15 0 N Y $240,100 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a UNT to Flatwoods Branch. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit more than 20 feet, thereby requiring the excavation of an S-C33, S-C36, W- Norfolk H-008 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. A conventional bore C11 crossing would extend the duration of this crossing from 2 to 30 days, thereby increasing the greenhouse gas emissions Conventional Bore 313 23 N 21 15 0 N Y $1,098,387 associated with the crossing by over 1500%.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 40 - N 5 3 0 N Y $43,566 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Norfolk H-009 S-MM31 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 40 11 N 5 3 0 N Y $163,760

Page 28 of 49 Table 15. Crossing Method Determination Summary Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Evaluation Factors Sufficient USACE Crossing Methods Maximum Proposed Crossing # Waterbody Maximum Steep Maximum Winch Karst Terrain Stockpile Crossing Method Decision Rationale District Evaluated Crossing Length Pit Depth Deep Stream Average Slope Total Cost ($) Crossing Method Slope (%) Hill Length (feet) Present Storage (%) Available

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 44 - N 21 16 0 N Y $35,326 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to the small (one-foot wide) Flatwoods Branch. A conventional bore crossing would extend the duration of this crossing from 2 to 9 days, thereby increasing the greenhouse gas emissions associated Norfolk H-010 S-C29 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut with the crossing by over 450%. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive. Conventional Bore 44 17 N 21 16 0 N Y $202,516

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 68 - N 31 19 0 N Y $47,600 The open cut method would result in a small temporary impact to a PEM wetland (0.05 ac). Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a deep bore pit of nearly 20 feet, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. A conventional bore crossing would Norfolk H-012 W-C5 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut extend the duration of this crossing from 2 to 8 days, thereby increasing the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the crossing by over 400%. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be Conventional Bore 68 23 N 31 19 0 N Y $403,081 unreasonably expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 65 - N 39 29 52 N N $62,093 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small (five-feet wide) UNT to Bradshaw Creek. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a deep bore pit of nearly 40 feet at the edge of a steep slope, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and Norfolk H-013 S-C25 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut spoil pile. A conventional bore crossing would extend the duration of this crossing from 2 to 18 days, thereby increasing the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the crossing by over 900%. Using a conventional bore crossing method to Conventional Bore 65 38 N 39 29 52 N N $878,705 avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 67 - N 38 20 21 N N $64,412 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a UNT to Bradshaw Creek. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit exceeding 30 feet at the edge of a steep slope, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil Norfolk H-014 S-C24 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut pile. A conventional bore crossing would extend the duration of this crossing from 2 to 18 days, thereby increasing the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the crossing by over 900%. Using a conventional bore crossing method to Conventional Bore 67 34 N 38 20 21 N N $811,304 avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 90 - N 18 6 21 N N $168,191 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Norfolk H-015 S-C21 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 90 26 N 18 6 21 N N $492,920

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 360 - N 45 36 282 Y N $266,002

Norfolk H-017 S-OO16 Conventional Bore Mountain Valley must use a conventional bore to cross an adjacent road (I-81). The bore can be extended to avoid this resource.

Conventional Bore 360 39 N 45 36 282 Y N $1,734,180

The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small (four-feet wide) UNT to Roanoke River. Avoiding/minimizing Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 34 - N 53 27 11 Y N $36,153 this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit exceeding 30 feet at the edge of a steep slope, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. This crossing is in close proximity to a residence, and a trenchless crossing of this location would take three Norfolk H-018 S-NN19 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut weeks to complete -- compounding the noise, aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby persons. The open-cut method reduces construction duration to minimize disruption due to construction activities on the affected residents. Karst terrain increases the Conventional Bore 34 33 N 53 27 11 Y N $699,381 logistical and technical challenges. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 316 - N 23 14 0 Y Y $504,735

Norfolk H-019 S-NN16, W-NN8 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut Mountain Valley must use microtunneling to cross an adjacent road (Rt. 11). The bore can be extended to avoid this resource.

Microtunnel 316 31 N 23 14 0 Y Y $3,726,351

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 280 - N 4 3 74 Y Y $244,999

S-I1, S-AB16, W- Norfolk H-020 Conventional Bore Mountain Valley must use microtunneling to cross an adjacent road (Rt. 11). The bore can be extended to avoid this resource. AB7

Conventional Bore 280 16 N 4 3 74 Y Y $867,713

Page 29 of 49 Table 15. Crossing Method Determination Summary Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Evaluation Factors Sufficient USACE Crossing Methods Maximum Proposed Crossing # Waterbody Maximum Steep Maximum Winch Karst Terrain Stockpile Crossing Method Decision Rationale District Evaluated Crossing Length Pit Depth Deep Stream Average Slope Total Cost ($) Crossing Method Slope (%) Hill Length (feet) Present Storage (%) Available

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 38 - N 3 2 0 N Y $37,100 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Norfolk H-021 S-CD12b Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 38 11 N 3 2 0 N Y $158,084

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 114 - N 1 0 0 N Y $79,800 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Norfolk H-022 W-KL58 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 114 12 N 1 0 0 N Y $378,338

The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small (one-foot wide) UNT to Indian Run. Avoiding/minimizing this Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 30 - N 76 60 647 N N $24,179 minor impact through a trenchless crossing would require an excessively deep bore pit exceeding 50 feet, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and up to three benches and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil Norfolk H-023 S-EF19 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut pile. The slope adjacent to the crossing is steep and excessively long, requiring equipment operating within and around the bore pit to be winched to other equipment. That increases the complexity of this crossing if bored, increases safety risk to personnel, Microtunnel 30 51 N 76 60 647 N N $3,081,818 and adds risk of impact to the waterbody from upland work during a bore. There is insufficient space at this location for spoil piles from a bore pit. Using a trenchless method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive.

The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small (five-feet wide) UNT to Roanoke River and an adjacent PFO Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 83 - N 63 52 768 N N $80,005 wetland (0.11 ac). Avoiding/minimizing these minor impacts through a conventional bore would require an excessively deep bore pit greater than 40 feet, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and two benches and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. The slope adjacent to the crossing is steep and excessively long, requiring equipment operating within and around the bore pit to be winched to other equipment. That increases the complexity of this W-EF5-PFO, S- crossing if bored, increases safety risk to personnel, and adds risk of impact to the waterbody from upland work during a bore. Norfolk H-024 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut EF20a There is insufficient space at this location for spoil piles from a bore pit. In forested wetlands, a 30-foot corridor generally must be maintained free of trees. Accordingly, conversion impacts to the PFO wetland are unavoidable, even if a bore is used. This Conventional Bore 83 44 N 63 52 768 N N $2,635,553 crossing also is in close proximity to a residence, and a trenchless crossing of this location would take 27 days -- compounding the noise, aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby persons. The open-cut method reduces construction duration to minimize disruption due to construction activities on the affected residents. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize these minor temporary impacts would be unreasonably expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 200 - N 33 25 2582 N N $192,500

The stream is located on a slope that will increase the logistical and technical difficulty of crossing this small stream. The bore pits Norfolk H-025 S-MM22 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut are nearly 20 feet deep which makes stockpiling the spoils on such steep slope and logistical challenge.

Conventional Bore 200 17 N 33 25 2582 N N $645,242

The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small UNT to Roanoke River. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 88 - N 74 66 2681 N N $96,784 through a trenchless crossing would require an excessively deep bore pit of nearly 60 feet, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and up to three benches and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. The slope Norfolk H-026 S-IJ50 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut adjacent to the crossing is steep and excessively long, requiring equipment operating within and around the bore pit to be winched to other equipment. That increases the complexity of this crossing if bored, increases safety risk to personnel, and adds Microtunnel 88 59 N 74 66 2681 N N $4,098,182 risk of impact to the waterbody from upland work during a bore. There is insufficient space at this location for spoil piles from a bore pit. Using a trenchless method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 104 - N 66 45 670 N N $124,613 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to two small UNTs to Bottom Creek. The slope adjacent to the crossing is steep and excessively long, requiring equipment operating within and around the bore pit to be winched to other equipment. Norfolk H-027 S-Y13, S-Y14 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut That increases the complexity of this crossing if bored, increases safety risk to personnel, and adds risk of impact to the waterbody from upland work during a bore. There is insufficient space at this location for spoil piles from a bore pit. Using a Conventional Bore 104 38 N 66 45 670 N N $989,387 conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize these minor temporary impacts would be unreasonably expensive.

The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to two small UNTs to Bottom Creek. Avoiding/minimizing these minor Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 100 - N 63 51 508 N N $105,000 impacts through a conventional bore would require an excessively deep bore pit greater than 40 feet, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and two benches and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. The slope adjacent to the crossing is steep and excessively long, requiring equipment operating within and around the bore pit to be Norfolk H-028 S-EF34b, S-EF55 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut winched to other equipment. That increases the complexity of this crossing if bored, increases safety risk to personnel, and adds risk of impact to the waterbody from upland work during a bore. There is insufficient space at this location for spoil piles from a Conventional Bore 100 45 N 63 51 508 N N $2,738,344 bore pit. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize these minor temporary impacts would be unreasonably expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 43 - N 42 19 560 N N $48,809 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small (five-feet wide) intermittent UNT to Bottom Creek. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit of nearly 30 feet, Norfolk H-029 S-EF33 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and

Page 30 of 49 Table 15. Crossing Method Determination Summary Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Evaluation Factors Sufficient USACE Crossing Methods Maximum Proposed Crossing # Waterbody Maximum Steep Maximum Winch Karst Terrain Stockpile Crossing Method Decision Rationale District Evaluated Crossing Length Pit Depth Deep Stream Average Slope Total Cost ($) Crossing Method Slope (%) Hill Length (feet) Present Storage (%) Available Norfolk H-029 S-EF33 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably Conventional Bore 43 31 N 42 19 560 N N $688,384 expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 73 - N 25 14 0 N Y $70,275

Norfolk H-030 S-IJ82 Conventional Bore The stream is a trout water and the direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method.

Conventional Bore 73 27 N 25 14 0 N Y $453,809

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 362 - N 25 12 0 N Y $292,224 W-IJ94-PEM, W- Orangefin madtom habitat may be present in this stream and it is a trout water. The direct aquatic impact will be IJ95-PSS, S-IJ83, S- Norfolk H-031 Conventional Bore avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain IJ88, S-IJ84, W- access will be required. IJ102 Conventional Bore 362 28 N 25 12 0 N Y $1,283,121

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 108 - N 34 22 212 N N $94,134 Orangefin madtom habitat may be present in this stream and it is a trout water. The direct aquatic impact will be Norfolk H-032 S-IJ89, S-IJ90 Conventional Bore avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 108 22 N 34 22 212 N N $507,465

The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small (three-feet wide) intermittent UNT to Mill Creek and a PSS Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 59 - N 14 9 521 N N $53,001 wetland (0.04 ac). The slope adjacent to the crossing is steep and excessively long, requiring equipment operating within and around the bore pit to be winched to other equipment. That increases the complexity of this crossing if bored, increases safety risk Norfolk H-033 W-KL17, S-KL25 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut to personnel, and adds risk of impact to the waterbody from upland work during a bore. There is insufficient space at this location for spoil piles from a bore pit. This crossing also is in close proximity to a residence, and a trenchless crossing of this location Conventional Bore 59 16 N 14 9 521 N N $240,519 increases the duration of the crossing work -- compounding the noise, aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby persons. The open- cut method reduces construction duration to minimize disruption due to construction activities on the affected residents.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 59 - N 15 12 0 N Y $41,300 The open cut method would result in a small temporary impact to a PEM wetland (0.03 ac). This crossing is in close proximity to residences, and a trenchless crossing of this location nearly triples the duration of the crossing work -- compounding the noise, Norfolk H-035 W-KL15 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby persons. The open-cut method reduces construction duration to minimize disruption due to construction activities on the affected residents. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize the impact to this Conventional Bore 59 16 N 15 12 0 N Y $240,519 PEM would be unreasonably expensive.

W-EF42, W-HS02, Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 1600 - N 4 2 0 N Y $1,120,000 The open cut method would result in a small temporary impacts several closely grouped wetland features. To avoid excavating W-AB6-PEM-2, W- bore pits in wetland areas, Direct Pipe would be necessary to span the excessively long crossing distance. The trenchless AB6-PFO-1, W-AB6- crossing would take more than one month to complete (as opposed to three days for an open cut crossing). The greenhouse gas Norfolk H-036 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut PEM-1, W-AB6- footprint of the crossing would therefore increase by over 1,400%. Furthermore, using a Direct Pipe crossing method to PSS, W-AB5, W- avoid/minimize the temporary impacts to these features would be unreasonably expensive. A minor temporary impact associated AB3-PEM-2 Direct Pipe 1600 10 N 4 2 0 N Y $12,845,673 with the bore to maintain access will be required.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 179 - N 31 17 10 N N $152,132 Orangefin madtom habitat may be present in this stream and it is a trout water. The direct aquatic impact will be Norfolk H-040 W-EF46, S-ST9b Conventional Bore avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 179 21 N 31 17 10 N N $699,827

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 70 - N 10 5 0 N Y $49,000

The open cut method would result in a small temporary impact to PSS wetland. Using a conventional bore crossing method to Norfolk H-041 W-KL48-PSS-1 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive.

Conventional Bore 70 17 N 10 5 0 N Y $276,304

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 202 - N 17 13 0 N Y $181,156 W-KL49-PEM, W- Orangefin madtom habitat may be present in this stream and it is a trout water. The direct aquatic impact will be Norfolk H-042 KL51-PEM, S-KL55, Conventional Bore avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain

Page 31 of 49 Table 15. Crossing Method Determination Summary Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Evaluation Factors Sufficient USACE Crossing Methods Maximum Proposed Crossing # Waterbody Maximum Steep Maximum Winch Karst Terrain Stockpile Crossing Method Decision Rationale District Evaluated Crossing Length Pit Depth Deep Stream Average Slope Total Cost ($) Crossing Method Slope (%) Hill Length (feet) Present Storage (%) Available Norfolk H-042 KL51-PEM, S-KL55, Conventional Bore avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain W-KL51-PSS access will be required. Conventional Bore 202 22 N 17 13 0 N Y $774,236

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 87 - N 31 22 340 N N $74,999 Orangefin madtom habitat may be present in this stream and it is a trout water. The direct aquatic impact will be W-MN7-PEM, S- Norfolk H-043 Conventional Bore avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain IJ12 access will be required. Conventional Bore 87 25 N 31 22 340 N N $475,272

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 45 - N 45 33 84 N N $49,054

There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Norfolk H-044 S-EF44, W-EF44 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method.

Conventional Bore 45 21 N 45 33 84 N N $319,538

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 282 - N 43 26 230 N N $251,003

Orangefin madtom habitat may be present in this stream and it is a trout water. The direct aquatic impact will be Norfolk H-045 W-IJ36, S-IJ43 Conventional Bore avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method.

Conventional Bore 282 30 N 43 26 230 N N $1,348,393

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 140 - N 44 24 43 N N $117,275

Orangefin madtom habitat may be present in this stream and it is a trout water. The direct aquatic impact will be Norfolk H-046 S-Y7, W-Y2, S-Y8 Conventional Bore avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method.

Conventional Bore 140 25 N 44 24 43 N N $625,685

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 64 - N 9 5 0 N Y $59,056

Orangefin madtom habitat may be present in this stream and it is a trout water. The direct aquatic impact will be Norfolk H-047A S-B22 Conventional Bore avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method.

Conventional Bore 64 14 N 9 5 0 N Y $245,574

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 154 - N 9 4 0 N Y $107,800 The open cut method would result in a small (0.19 ac) temporary impact to PEM wetland. This crossing is in close proximity to several residences, and a trenchless crossing of this location would take 30 days to complete -- compounding the noise, Norfolk H-047B W-B25-PEM-1 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby persons. The open-cut method reduces construction duration to minimize disruption due to construction activities on the affected residents. Conventional Bore 154 13 N 9 4 0 N Y $496,425

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 253 - N 3 1 0 N Y $202,035

W-B25-PSS-2, S- There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Norfolk H-048A Conventional Bore B25 methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method.

Conventional Bore 253 11 N 3 1 0 N Y $768,251

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 228 - N 9 6 0 N Y $176,494 The pipeline is already installed through a portion of the wetland at this crossing. The layout of a conventional bore would require excavation of a bore pit unacceptably close to the installed pipe. Additionally, a trenchless method would require excavation of a W-B24-PEM, W- Norfolk H-048B Dry-Ditch Open-Cut bore pit within the wetland, meaning that that a longer-duration bore pit in the wetland (3 to 4 weeks) is not less environmentally B24-PSS, S-B21 damaging than a much shorter duration impact associated with an open cut through the wetlands and adjacent four-foot-wide Conventional Bore 228 20 N 9 6 0 N Y $829,754 UNT to Mill Creek.

The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to two small UNTs to Green Creek and a PEM wetland. Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 96 - N 57 48 130 N N $95,320 Avoiding/minimizing these minor impacts through a conventional bore would require a deep bore pit of nearly 40 feet at the edge of a steep slope, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied W-ST2-PEM, S- Norfolk H-051 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut by the bore pit and spoil pile. This crossing is in close proximity to a residence, and a trenchless crossing of this location increases G24, S-G25

Page 32 of 49 Table 15. Crossing Method Determination Summary Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Evaluation Factors Sufficient USACE Crossing Methods Maximum Proposed Crossing # Waterbody Maximum Steep Maximum Winch Karst Terrain Stockpile Crossing Method Decision Rationale District Evaluated Crossing Length Pit Depth Deep Stream Average Slope Total Cost ($) Crossing Method Slope (%) Hill Length (feet) Present Storage (%) Available Norfolk H-051 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut by the bore pit and spoil pile. This crossing is in close proximity to a residence, and a trenchless crossing of this location increases G24, S-G25 the duration of the crossing from 2 to 19 days -- compounding the noise, aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby persons. The Conventional Bore 96 36 N 57 48 130 N N $930,144 open-cut method reduces construction duration to minimize disruption due to construction activities on the affected residents. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize these minor temporary impacts would be unreasonably expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 79 - N 34 24 729 N N $65,800 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small (three-feet wide) UNT. The slope adjacent to the crossing is steep and excessively long, requiring equipment operating within and around the bore pit to be winched to other equipment. That Norfolk H-052 S-D14 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut increases the complexity of this crossing if bored, increases safety risk to personnel, and adds risk of impact to the waterbody from upland work during a bore. There is insufficient space at this location for spoil piles from a bore pit. Conventional Bore 79 19 N 34 24 729 N N $310,980

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 89 - N 27 20 83 N N $84,077 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to two small intermittent UNTs to North Fork Blackwater River and a PEM wetland. Avoiding/minimizing these minor impacts through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit W-D7-PEM, S-D13, Norfolk H-053 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut exceeding 20 feet at the edge of a steep slope, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically S-D12 increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize these Conventional Bore 89 24 N 27 20 83 N N $471,813 minor temporary impacts would be unreasonably expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 81 - N 33 10 51 N N $119,688 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Norfolk H-054 S-D11 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 81 22 N 33 10 51 N N $430,840

The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small (four-feet wide) UNT to North Fork Blackwater River. Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 60 - N 43 37 585 N N $107,791 Avoiding/minimizing these minor impacts through a conventional bore would require a deep bore pit exceeding 30 feet, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and two benches and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. The slope adjacent to the crossing is steep and excessively long, requiring equipment operating within and around the Norfolk H-055 S-D8 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut bore pit to be winched to other equipment. That increases the complexity of this crossing if bored, increases safety risk to personnel, and adds risk of impact to the waterbody from upland work during a bore. There is insufficient space at this location Conventional Bore 60 35 N 43 37 585 N N $809,707 for spoil piles from a bore pit. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 35 - N 62 54 148 N N $38,526 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small (four-feet wide) intermittent UNT to North Fork Blackwater River. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit exceeding 20 Norfolk H-056 S-GH15 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut feet at the edge of a steep slope, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary Conventional Bore 35 24 N 62 54 148 N N $318,562 impact would be unreasonably expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 54 - N 48 34 109 N N $52,050 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small (four-feet wide) UNT to North Fork Blackwater River. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit exceeding 30 feet at Norfolk H-057 S-GH14 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut the edge of a steep slope, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact Conventional Bore 54 36 N 48 34 109 N N $810,949 would be unreasonably expensive.

The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small (three-feet wide) intermittent UNT to Blackwater River. Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 31 - N 54 42 231 N N $32,688 Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit exceeding 30 feet at the edge of a steep slope, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. This crossing is in close proximity to a residence, and a trenchless crossing of this location Norfolk H-058 S-GH11 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut would take longer to complete -- compounding the noise, aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby persons. The open-cut method reduces construction duration to minimize disruption due to construction activities on the affected residents. The open cut method Conventional Bore 31 32 N 54 42 231 N N $672,598 would reduce the construction duration near private drinking water wells on the property. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive.

The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small (four-feet wide) UNT to North Fork Blackwater River. Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 48 - N 47 24 62 N N $48,203 Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit exceeding 30 feet at the edge of a steep slope, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space Norfolk H-059 S-GH9 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. This crossing is in close proximity to a residence, and a trenchless crossing of this location would take nearly twice as long to complete -- compounding the noise, aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby persons. The open- Conventional Bore 48 34 N 47 24 62 N N $757,382 cut method reduces construction duration to minimize disruption due to construction activities on the affected residents. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 43 - N 20 12 0 N Y $54,799 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Norfolk H-060 S-RR08 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact

Page 33 of 49 Table 15. Crossing Method Determination Summary Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Evaluation Factors Sufficient USACE Crossing Methods Maximum Proposed Crossing # Waterbody Maximum Steep Maximum Winch Karst Terrain Stockpile Crossing Method Decision Rationale District Evaluated Crossing Length Pit Depth Deep Stream Average Slope Total Cost ($) Crossing Method Slope (%) Hill Length (feet) Present Storage (%) Available Norfolk H-060 S-RR08 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 43 15 N 20 12 0 N Y $190,543

The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small (nine-feet wide) UNT to North Fork Blackwater River. Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 30 - N 56 34 64 N N $48,428 Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit exceeding 30 feet at the edge of a steep slope, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space Norfolk H-061 S-RR09 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. This crossing is in close proximity to a residence, and a trenchless crossing of this location would take nearly twice as long to complete -- compounding the noise, aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby persons. The open- Conventional Bore 30 31 N 56 34 64 N N $651,490 cut method reduces construction duration to minimize disruption due to construction activities on the affected residents. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 38 - N 39 26 136 N N $51,125 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small (seven-feet wide) UNT to North Fork Blackwater River Blackwater River. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require an excessively deep bore pit Norfolk H-062 S-RR11 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut greater than 20 feet at the edge of a steep slope, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and two benches and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. Using a conventional bore crossing method to Conventional Bore 38 27 N 39 26 136 N N $354,480 avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive.

The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to two small UNTs to North Fork Blackwater River and a PEM wetland Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 133 - N 44 37 928 N N $135,744 (0.002 ac). Avoiding/minimizing these minor impacts through a conventional bore would require an excessively deep bore pit greater than 40 feet, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and two benches and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. The slope adjacent to the crossing is steep and excessively long, requiring equipment operating within and around the bore pit to be winched to other equipment. That increases the complexity of this crossing if bored, Norfolk H-063 S-IJ1, W-IJ1, S-IJ2 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut increases safety risk to personnel, and adds risk of impact to the waterbody from upland work during a bore. There is insufficient space at this location for spoil piles from a bore pit. This crossing is in close proximity to a residence, and a trenchless crossing of Conventional Bore 133 41 N 44 37 928 N N $2,613,815 this location would take nearly three times as long to complete -- compounding the noise, aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby persons. The open-cut method reduces construction duration to minimize disruption due to construction activities on the affected residents. The open cut method would reduce the construction duration near a private drinking water well on the property. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize these minor temporary impacts would be unreasonably expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 56 - N 46 18 0 N Y $95,200 This crossing is immediately adjacent to a mainline valve. Trenchless crossing methods are logistically difficult because they Norfolk I-001 S-E28 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut would require the pipe to be installed too deeply to facilitate connection to the valve site. An open cut crossing is necessary to facilitate connection to the mainline valve. Conventional Bore 56 16 N 46 18 0 N Y $232,005

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 22 - N 41 19 31 N N $33,100 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Norfolk I-001A S-GH3 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 22 14 N 41 19 31 N N $126,378

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 52 - N 4 2 0 N Y $65,383 This UNT to Teels Creek is in an area with highly erodible solids. The stream banks at the crossing location are rapidly eroding due to natural conditions unrelated to pipeline construction. Instream work will be necessary to permanently restore and stabilize Norfolk I-002 S-E29 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut the banks, which will provide greater protection for the pipeline and have the benefit of reducing long-term sediment loads in the stream. That work can be done efficiently and effectively after completion of an open-cut crossing. Therefore, temporary stream Conventional Bore 52 14 N 4 2 0 N Y $211,518 impacts are unavoidable at this location.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 45 - N 15 3 0 N Y $87,500 Teels Creek in an area with highly erodible solids. The stream banks at the crossing location are rapidly eroding due to natural conditions unrelated to pipeline construction. Instream work will be necessary to permanently restore and stabilize the banks, Norfolk I-003 S-E28 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut which will provide greater protection for the pipeline and have the benefit of reducing long-term sediment loads in the stream. That work can be done efficiently and effectively after completion of an open-cut crossing. Therefore, temporary stream impacts are Conventional Bore 45 15 N 15 3 0 N Y $196,219 unavoidable at this location.

Avoiding/minimizing these minor impacts through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit of nearly 30 feet, Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 298 - N 18 6 0 N Y $208,600 thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and two benches and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. This crossing is in close proximity to residences, and a trenchless crossing of this location would take 14 days to Norfolk I-004 W-E7 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut complete -- compounding the noise, aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby persons. The open-cut method reduces construction duration to minimize disruption due to construction activities on the affected residents. The open cut method would reduce the Conventional Bore 298 21 N 18 6 0 N Y $1,037,547 construction duration near private drinking water wells on the property. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize the impact to this PEM would be unreasonably expensive.

Page 34 of 49 Table 15. Crossing Method Determination Summary Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Evaluation Factors Sufficient USACE Crossing Methods Maximum Proposed Crossing # Waterbody Maximum Steep Maximum Winch Karst Terrain Stockpile Crossing Method Decision Rationale District Evaluated Crossing Length Pit Depth Deep Stream Average Slope Total Cost ($) Crossing Method Slope (%) Hill Length (feet) Present Storage (%) Available

The open cut method would result in a small temporary impact (0.07 ac) to a PEM wetland. Avoiding/minimizing these minor Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 150 - N 37 29 0 N Y $105,000 impacts through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit of nearly 30 feet on the edge of a steep slope, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and two benches and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore Norfolk I-005A W-E8 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut pit and spoil pile. This crossing is in close proximity to residences, and a trenchless crossing of this location would take 19 days to complete -- compounding the noise, aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby persons. The open-cut method reduces construction Conventional Bore 150 27 N 37 29 0 N Y $672,334 duration to minimize disruption due to construction activities on the affected residents. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize the impact to this PEM would be unreasonably expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 67 - N 24 18 0 N Y $102,900 This Section of Teels Creek is in an area with highly erodible solids. The stream banks at the crossing location are rapidly eroding due to natural conditions unrelated to pipeline construction. Instream work will be necessary to permanently restore and stabilize Norfolk I-005B S-E28 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut the banks, which will provide greater protection for the pipeline and have the benefit of reducing long-term sediment loads in the stream. That work can be done efficiently and effectively after completion of an open-cut crossing. Therefore, temporary stream Conventional Bore 67 23 N 24 18 0 N Y $400,243 impacts are unavoidable at this location.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 59 - N 48 29 62 N N $81,979 This intermittent UNT to Teels Creek is in an area with highly erodible solids. The stream banks at the crossing location are rapidly eroding due to natural conditions unrelated to pipeline construction. Instream work will be necessary to permanently restore and stabilize the banks, which will provide greater protection for the pipeline and have the benefit of reducing long-term sediment Norfolk I-006 S-EF4 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut loads in the stream. That work can be done efficiently and effectively after completion of an open-cut crossing. Therefore, temporary stream impacts are unavoidable at this location. Furthermore, it would be unreasonably expensive to use a trenchless Conventional Bore 59 34 N 48 29 62 N N $788,600 crossing to avoid only a fraction of the aquatic impact to this small (three-foot wide) stream.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 68 - N 8 2 124 N N $123,232 This UNT to Teels Creek is in an area with highly erodible solids. The stream banks at the crossing location are rapidly eroding due to natural conditions unrelated to pipeline construction. Instream work will be necessary to permanently restore and stabilize Norfolk I-007 S-EF12 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut the banks, which will provide greater protection for the pipeline and have the benefit of reducing long-term sediment loads in the stream. That work can be done efficiently and effectively after completion of an open-cut crossing. Therefore, temporary stream Conventional Bore 68 16 N 8 2 124 N N $266,060 impacts are unavoidable at this location.

The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small (two-feet wide) UNT to Teels Creek. Avoiding/minimizing this Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 43 - N 25 18 0 N Y $37,690 minor impact through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit exceeding 20 feet, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. This crossing is in close proximity to residences, and a trenchless crossing of this location would take nearly twice as long to complete - Norfolk I-008 S-MM42 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut - compounding the noise, aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby persons. The open-cut method reduces construction duration to minimize disruption due to construction activities on the affected residents. The open cut method would reduce the construction Conventional Bore 43 23 N 25 18 0 N Y $332,131 duration near private drinking water wells on the property. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 60 - N 25 12 30 N N $102,185

Although the bore pits associated with this crossing are 20 feet deep, the relatively flat approaches are reasonable for winching Norfolk I-009 S-RR15 Conventional Bore equipment and the excessive spoils associated with deeper bore pits can be managed appropriately.

Conventional Bore 60 20 N 25 12 30 N N $352,973

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 71 - N 39 19 87 N N $136,216 The stream banks at the crossing location are rapidly eroding due to natural conditions unrelated to pipeline construction. Instream work will be necessary to permanently restore and stabilize the banks, which will provide greater protection for the pipeline and have the benefit of reducing long-term sediment loads in the stream. That work can be done efficiently and effectively Norfolk I-010 S-D23 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut after completion of an open-cut crossing. Therefore, temporary stream impacts are unavoidable at this location. This location has construction constraints, including winch-hill construction and limited space for soil stockpiles. The open cut method also reduces Conventional Bore 71 28 N 39 19 87 N N $457,268 the construction duration near a private drinking water well on the property.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 42 - N 31 21 0 N Y $61,662 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small (eight-feet wide) intermittent UNT to Teels Creek. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit nearly 20 feet at the Norfolk I-011 S-D22 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut edge of a steep slope, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact Conventional Bore 42 21 N 31 21 0 N Y $311,024 would be unreasonably expensive.

The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small (eight-feet wide) intermittent UNT to Teels Creek. Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 29 - N 35 27 113 N N $43,964 Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit nearly 30 feet at the edge of a steep slope, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space Norfolk I-012 S-D20 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. This crossing is in close proximity to a residence, and a trenchless crossing of this location would take more than twice as long to complete -- compounding the noise, aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby persons. The Conventional Bore 29 28 N 35 27 113 N N $338,073 open-cut method reduces construction duration to minimize disruption due to construction activities on the affected residents. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive.

Page 35 of 49 Table 15. Crossing Method Determination Summary Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Evaluation Factors Sufficient USACE Crossing Methods Maximum Proposed Crossing # Waterbody Maximum Steep Maximum Winch Karst Terrain Stockpile Crossing Method Decision Rationale District Evaluated Crossing Length Pit Depth Deep Stream Average Slope Total Cost ($) Crossing Method Slope (%) Hill Length (feet) Present Storage (%) Available

Teels Creek is in an area with highly erodible solids. The stream banks at the crossing location are rapidly eroding due to natural Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 90 - N 40 28 53 N N $271,204 conditions unrelated to pipeline construction. Instream work will be necessary to permanently restore and stabilize the banks, which will provide greater protection for the pipeline and have the benefit of reducing long-term sediment loads in the stream. That Norfolk I-013 S-C14 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut work can be done efficiently and effectively after completion of an open-cut crossing. Therefore, temporary stream impacts are unavoidable at this location. Construction constraints at this location include a bore pit depth of nearly 40 feet and steep slopes on Conventional Bore 90 38 N 40 28 53 N N $949,655 both sides of the creek, one of which would require winched equipment. The open cut method also reduces the construction duration near a private drinking water well on the property.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 62 - N 21 16 0 N Y $187,051

Roanoke logperch habitat may be present in this stream. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the Norfolk I-014 S-C17 Conventional Bore conventional bore method.

Conventional Bore 62 20 N 21 16 0 N Y $358,649

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 109 - N 4 1 0 N Y $276,201 Teels Creek is in an area with highly erodible solids. The stream banks at the crossing location are rapidly eroding due to natural conditions unrelated to pipeline construction. Instream work will be necessary to permanently restore and stabilize the banks, Norfolk I-015 S-CD6 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut which will provide greater protection for the pipeline and have the benefit of reducing long-term sediment loads in the stream. That work can be done efficiently and effectively after completion of an open-cut crossing. Therefore, temporary stream impacts are Conventional Bore 109 20 N 4 1 0 N Y $492,034 unavoidable at this location.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 94 - N 4 1 0 N Y $65,800 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Norfolk I-016 W-CD6 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 94 11 N 4 1 0 N Y $317,011

The open cut method would result in a small temporary impact (0.11 ac) to a PFO wetland. Avoiding/minimizing these minor impacts through a conventional bore would require an excessively deep bore pit exceeding 50 feet on the edge of a very steep Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 88 - N 67 54 122 N N $61,600 slope, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and two benches and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. This crossing is in proximity to a residence, and a trenchless crossing of this location would increase Norfolk I-017 W-CD5 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut the duration of the crossing from 4 to 35 days -- compounding the noise, aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby persons. The open-cut method reduces construction duration to minimize disruption due to construction activities on the affected residents. Conventional Bore 88 52 N 67 54 122 N N $3,086,106 Because the pipeline ROW must remain free of woody vegetation to protect the pipe coating, a conversion impact is unavoidable with any crossing method. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize a portion of the impact to this PFO would be unreasonably expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 98 - N 13 3 0 N Y $278,804 Little Creek is in an area with highly erodible solids. The stream banks at the crossing location are rapidly eroding due to natural conditions unrelated to pipeline construction. Instream work will be necessary to permanently restore and stabilize the banks, which will provide greater protection for the pipeline and have the benefit of reducing long-term sediment loads in the stream. That Norfolk I-018 S-II2 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut work can be done efficiently and effectively after completion of an open-cut crossing. Therefore, temporary stream impacts are unavoidable at this location. The open cut method also reduces the construction duration near a private drinking water wells on Conventional Bore 98 20 N 13 3 0 N Y $460,816 the property.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 110 - N 22 12 0 N Y $89,800 This crossing is in close proximity to a residence, and a trenchless crossing of this location would take nearly four times longer to Norfolk I-019 S-CD1, W-CD1 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut long to complete -- compounding the noise, aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby persons. The open-cut method reduces construction duration to minimize disruption due to construction activities on the affected residents. Conventional Bore 110 18 N 22 12 0 N Y $394,390

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 72 - N 32 14 106 N N $62,773 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Norfolk I-020 S-KL35, W-EF48 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 72 16 N 32 14 106 N N $277,412

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 39 - N 34 18 32 N Y $55,130 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Norfolk I-021 S-KL36 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 39 17 N 34 18 32 N Y $188,326

Page 36 of 49 Table 15. Crossing Method Determination Summary Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Evaluation Factors Sufficient USACE Crossing Methods Maximum Proposed Crossing # Waterbody Maximum Steep Maximum Winch Karst Terrain Stockpile Crossing Method Decision Rationale District Evaluated Crossing Length Pit Depth Deep Stream Average Slope Total Cost ($) Crossing Method Slope (%) Hill Length (feet) Present Storage (%) Available

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 200 - N 54 24 0 N Y $165,254 The pipeline has already been installed under an adjacent road (Hwy. 220). There is no feasible way to tie the two sections of pipe Norfolk I-022 S-KL38 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut together if a trenchless method is used to install this crossing. Furthermore, avoiding this temporary impact to this small UNT to the Blackwater River with a conventional bore crossing would be unreasonably expensive. Conventional Bore 200 35 N 54 24 0 N Y $1,207,025

The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small (seven-feet wide) UNT to Blackwater River. Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 98 - N 40 31 85 N N $92,713 Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit exceeding 30 feet at the edge of a steep slope, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. This crossing is in close proximity to a residence, and a trenchless crossing of this location Norfolk I-023 S-KL39 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut would take nearly twice as long to complete -- compounding the noise, aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby persons. The open cut method would reduce the construction duration near private drinking water wells on the property. The open-cut method Conventional Bore 98 32 N 40 31 85 N N $862,742 reduces construction duration to minimize disruption due to construction activities on the affected residents. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive.

The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small (four-feet wide) UNT to Blackwater River. Avoiding/minimizing Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 40 - N 31 19 0 N Y $43,080 this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit nearly 30 feet at the edge of a steep slope, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and Norfolk I-024 S-YZ5 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut spoil pile. This crossing is in close proximity to several residences, and a trenchless crossing of this location would take more than twice as long to complete -- compounding the noise, aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby persons. The open-cut method Conventional Bore 40 28 N 31 19 0 N Y $369,291 reduces construction duration to minimize disruption due to construction activities on the affected residents. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive.

The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small (three-feet wide) UNT to Blackwater River. Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 32 - N 37 28 52 N N $33,182 Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit nearly 30 feet at the edge of a steep slope, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. This crossing is in close proximity to several residences, and a trenchless crossing of this Norfolk I-025 S-YZ4 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut location would take longer to complete -- compounding the noise, aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby persons. The open-cut method reduces construction duration to minimize disruption due to construction activities on the affected residents. The open cut Conventional Bore 32 22 N 37 28 52 N N $291,779 method would reduce the construction duration near private drinking water wells on the property. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive.

The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small (two-feet wide) intermittent UNT to Blackwater River and an adjacent PEM wetland (0.01 ac). Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a relatively Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 42 - N 32 29 0 N Y $36,404 deep bore pit nearly 30 feet at the edge of a steep slope, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. This crossing is in close proximity to several residences, Norfolk I-026 S-EF48, W-EF51 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut and a trenchless crossing of this location would take twice as long to complete -- compounding the noise, aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby persons. The open-cut method reduces construction duration to minimize disruption due to construction Conventional Bore 42 28 N 32 29 0 N Y $374,967 activities on the affected residents. The open cut method would reduce the construction duration near a private drinking water well on the property. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 48 - N 41 32 83 N N $75,690 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a UNT to Blackwater River. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit exceeding 30 feet at the edge of a steep slope, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil Norfolk I-027 S-KL41 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut pile. It also would increase the duration of the crossing from 8 to 33 days. The open cut method would reduce the construction duration near a private drinking water well on the property. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this Conventional Bore 48 33 N 41 32 83 N N $739,113 minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 44 - N 32 23 31 N N $48,854 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small (five-feet wide) intermittent UNT to Blackwater River. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit of nearly 30 feet at the edge of a steep slope, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space Norfolk I-028 S-C8 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. It also would increase the duration of the crossing from 5 to 11 days. The open cut method would reduce the construction duration near several private drinking water wells on the property. Using a conventional bore Conventional Bore 44 28 N 32 23 31 N N $380,643 crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive.

The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small (six-feet wide) stream. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 45 - N 36 27 105 N N $50,762 through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit exceeding 20 feet at the edge of a steep slope, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. This crossing is in close proximity to a residence, and a trenchless crossing of this location would take more than twice as Norfolk I-029 S-KL51 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut long to complete -- compounding the noise, aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby persons. The open-cut method reduces construction duration to minimize disruption due to construction activities on the affected residents. The open cut method would Conventional Bore 45 24 N 36 27 105 N N $346,942 reduce the construction duration near a private drinking water well on the property. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive.

The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small (one-foot wide) stream. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 59 - N 23 18 0 N Y $45,967 through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit exceeding 20 feet, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and a bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. This crossing is in close proximity to a residence, and a trenchless crossing of this location would take twice as long to complete -- compounding the Norfolk I-030 S-KL52 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut noise, aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby persons. The open-cut method reduces construction duration to minimize disruption due to construction activities on the affected residents. The open-cut method would reduce the construction duration near private Conventional Bore 59 23 N 23 18 0 N Y $377,539 drinking water wells on the property. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive.

Page 37 of 49 Table 15. Crossing Method Determination Summary Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Evaluation Factors Sufficient USACE Crossing Methods Maximum Proposed Crossing # Waterbody Maximum Steep Maximum Winch Karst Terrain Stockpile Crossing Method Decision Rationale District Evaluated Crossing Length Pit Depth Deep Stream Average Slope Total Cost ($) Crossing Method Slope (%) Hill Length (feet) Present Storage (%) Available

The open-cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small (one-foot wide) stream. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 32 - N 29 21 0 N Y $57,639 through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit that is nearly 20 feet deep, potentially requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and a bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. This Norfolk I-031 S-KL54 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut crossing is in proximity to a residence, and a trenchless crossing of this location would take twice as long to complete -- compounding the noise, aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby persons. The open-cut method reduces construction duration to Conventional Bore 32 20 N 29 21 0 N Y $273,509 minimize disruption due to construction activities on the affected residents. The open-cut method would reduce the construction duration near private drinking water wells on the property.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 206 - N 32 26 0 N Y $257,327 The pipeline has already been installed under an adjacent road (Rt. 122). There is no feasible way to tie the two sections of pipe together if a trenchless method is used to install this crossing. If a trenchless crossing were attempted, it would require a bore pit Norfolk I-032 S-F8 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut depth exceeding 40 feet, which would require the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increase the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. Lastly, avoiding this temporary impact to this small UNT to the Maggodee Creek with a Conventional Bore 206 41 N 32 26 0 N Y $2,820,988 conventional bore crossing would be unreasonably expensive.

The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to an intermittent UNT to Maggodee Creek. Avoiding/minimizing this Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 63 - N 29 18 20 N N $77,464 minor impact through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit exceeding 30 feet at the edge of a steep slope, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and Norfolk I-033 S-HH4 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut spoil pile. This crossing is in close proximity to residences, and a trenchless crossing of this location would take 17 days to complete -- compounding the noise, aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby persons. The open-cut method reduces construction Conventional Bore 63 32 N 29 18 20 N N $763,413 duration to minimize disruption due to construction activities on the affected residents. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 52 - N 20 13 0 N Y $50,437 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Norfolk I-034 S-C20 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 52 17 N 20 13 0 N Y $225,220

The open-cut method would result in a temporary impact to Maggodee Creek. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 100 - N 49 41 234 N N $227,598 conventional bore would require an excessively deep bore pit of greater than 40 feet at the edge of a steep slope, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and two benches and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and Norfolk I-035 S-C19 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut spoil pile. This crossing is in close proximity to residences, and a trenchless crossing of this location would take 34 days to complete -- compounding the noise, aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby persons. The open-cut method reduces construction Microtunnel 100 46 N 49 41 234 N N $3,509,091 duration to minimize disruption due to construction activities on the affected residents. Using a microtunnel crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 139 - N 56 40 100 N N $415,926 The Blackwater River's banks at the crossing location are rapidly eroding due to natural conditions unrelated to pipeline construction. Instream work will be necessary to permanently restore and stabilize the banks, which will provide greater protection for the pipeline and have the benefit of reducing long-term sediment loads in the stream. That work can be done Norfolk I-036 S-F11 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut efficiently and effectively after completion of an open-cut crossing. Therefore, temporary stream impacts are unavoidable at this location. A trenchless crossing at this location also faces significant constructability constraints. The bore pits for this crossing Conventional Bore 139 39 N 56 40 100 N N $1,106,985 would be just short of 40-feet deep. Site conditions do not allow sufficient space to stockpile spoils from bore pits of that size.

The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a UNT to Blackwater River. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 56 - N 37 30 62 N N $92,048 through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit exceeding 30 feet at the edge of a steep slope, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. This crossing is in close proximity to residences, and a trenchless crossing of this location would take 16 days to complete -- Norfolk I-037 S-F9b Dry-Ditch Open-Cut compounding the noise, aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby persons. The open-cut method reduces construction duration to minimize disruption due to construction activities on the affected residents. The open cut method would reduce the construction Conventional Bore 56 31 N 37 30 62 N N $725,278 duration near several private drinking water wells on the property. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 47 - N 16 9 0 N Y $72,699 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Norfolk I-038 S-F10 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 47 16 N 16 9 0 N Y $206,463

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 66 - N 20 12 0 N Y $98,700 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Norfolk I-039 S-F9a Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 66 20 N 20 12 0 N Y $370,001

Page 38 of 49 Table 15. Crossing Method Determination Summary Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Evaluation Factors Sufficient USACE Crossing Methods Maximum Proposed Crossing # Waterbody Maximum Steep Maximum Winch Karst Terrain Stockpile Crossing Method Decision Rationale District Evaluated Crossing Length Pit Depth Deep Stream Average Slope Total Cost ($) Crossing Method Slope (%) Hill Length (feet) Present Storage (%) Available

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 53 - N 18 13 0 N Y $56,010 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Norfolk I-040 S-GG4 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 53 17 N 18 13 0 N Y $228,058

The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small (four-feet wide) UNT to Foul Ground Creek. Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 51 - N 21 10 0 N Y $49,896 Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit exceeding 20 feet, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and Norfolk I-041 S-A36 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut spoil pile. This crossing is in close proximity to several residences, and a trenchless crossing of this location would take nearly twice as long to complete -- compounding the noise, aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby persons. The open-cut method Conventional Bore 51 22 N 21 10 0 N Y $345,700 reduces construction duration to minimize disruption due to construction activities on the affected residents. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 78 - N 20 16 0 N Y $92,243 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Norfolk I-042 S-A38 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 78 20 N 20 16 0 N Y $404,056

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 114 - N 14 10 0 N Y $121,800 Foul Ground Creek is in an area with highly erodible solids. The stream banks at the crossing location are rapidly eroding due to natural conditions unrelated to pipeline construction. Instream work will be necessary to permanently restore and stabilize the banks, which will provide greater protection for the pipeline and have the benefit of reducing long-term sediment loads in the Norfolk I-043A S-A41 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut stream. That work can be done efficiently and effectively after completion of an open-cut crossing. Therefore, temporary stream impacts are unavoidable at this location. Lastly, it would be unreasonably expensive to use a trenchless crossing to avoid only a Conventional Bore 114 17 N 14 10 0 N Y $401,175 fraction of the aquatic impact to this resource.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 110 - N 14 7 0 N Y $77,000 The open cut method would result in a small (0.05 ac) temporary impact to PEM wetland. The open cut method would reduce Norfolk I-043B W-DD1 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut construction time for this crossing by 11 days. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive. Conventional Bore 110 18 N 14 7 0 N Y $394,390

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 103 - N 21 9 0 N Y $89,600 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Norfolk I-044A S-GH36, S-KL17 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 103 19 N 21 9 0 N Y $379,092

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 61 - N 27 23 0 N Y $56,700 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small (four-feet wide) intermittent UNT to Foul Ground Creek. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit of nearly 30 feet, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and Norfolk I-044B S-GH39 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut spoil pile. It also would increase the duration of the crossing from 8 to 25 days. The open cut method would reduce the construction duration near several private drinking water wells on the property. Using a conventional bore crossing method to Conventional Bore 61 26 N 27 23 0 N Y $410,619 avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 57 - N 17 13 0 N Y $50,751 The open-cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small (three-feet wide) UNT to Foul Ground Creek. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit of exceeding 20 feet, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and Norfolk I-045 S-GH40 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut spoil pile. It also would double the duration of the crossing. The open-cut method would reduce the construction duration near several private drinking water wells on the property. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor Conventional Bore 57 22 N 17 13 0 N Y $362,728 temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 217 - N 11 7 0 N Y $181,597 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available S-GH44, S-GH38, S- Norfolk I-046 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact IJ47, W-GH16 associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 217 20 N 11 7 0 N Y $798,536

Page 39 of 49 Table 15. Crossing Method Determination Summary Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Evaluation Factors Sufficient USACE Crossing Methods Maximum Proposed Crossing # Waterbody Maximum Steep Maximum Winch Karst Terrain Stockpile Crossing Method Decision Rationale District Evaluated Crossing Length Pit Depth Deep Stream Average Slope Total Cost ($) Crossing Method Slope (%) Hill Length (feet) Present Storage (%) Available

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 48 - N 50 38 87 N N $76,133 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a UNT to Poplar Camp Creek. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit of nearly 40 feet on the edge of a steep slope, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil Norfolk I-047 S-G22 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut pile. It also would increase the duration of the crossing from 4 to 44 days. The open cut method would reduce the construction duration near two private drinking water wells on the property. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this Conventional Bore 48 37 N 50 38 87 N N $812,190 minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 62 - N 39 18 93 N N $81,267 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Norfolk I-048 S-G20 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 62 15 N 39 18 93 N N $244,465

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 37 - N 35 18 10 N N $33,422 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small (two-feet wide) intermittent UNT to the Blackwater River. The Norfolk I-049 S-G18 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut open cut method would reduce by half the construction duration near a private drinking water well on the property. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive. Conventional Bore 37 19 N 35 18 10 N N $191,785

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 38 - N 27 18 0 N Y $54,216 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small (eight-feet wide) UNT to Blackwater River. Avoiding/minimizing these minor impacts through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit of exceeding 20 Norfolk I-050 S-E18 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut feet, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be Conventional Bore 38 21 N 27 18 0 N Y $299,672 unreasonably expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 77 - N 35 16 32 N Y $88,594 The open-cut method would result in a temporary impact to a UNT to the Blackwater River. This crossing is in proximity to a residence, and a trenchless crossing of this location would take twice as long to complete -- compounding the noise, aesthetic, Norfolk I-051 S-E17 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut and other impacts on nearby persons. The open-cut method reduces construction duration to minimize disruption due to construction activities on the affected residents. The open-cut method would reduce the construction duration near a private Conventional Bore 77 16 N 35 16 32 N Y $291,602 drinking water well on the property.

The open-cut method would result in a temporary impact to a UNT to the Blackwater River. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 60 - N 25 18 0 N Y $117,336 through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit exceeding 20 feet, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. This crossing is in proximity Norfolk I-052 S-E14 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut to a residence, and a trenchless crossing of this location would take twice as long to complete -- compounding the noise, aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby persons. The open-cut method reduces construction duration to minimize disruption due Conventional Bore 60 25 N 25 18 0 N Y $398,646 to construction activities on the affected residents. The open cut method would reduce the construction duration near a private drinking water well on the property.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 169 - N 18 6 0 N Y $164,668

Orangefin madtom habitat may be present in this stream. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the Norfolk I-053 S-H38, W-H17 Conventional Bore conventional bore method.

Conventional Bore 169 22 N 18 6 0 N Y $680,582

The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to the small (six-feet wide) UNT to Jacks Creek. Avoiding/minimizing this Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 35 - N 47 23 31 N N $45,685 minor impact through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit exceeding 30 feet on the edge of a steep slope, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and Norfolk I-054 S-H37 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut spoil pile. This crossing is in close proximity to a residence, and a trenchless crossing of this location would take 15 days to complete -- compounding the noise, aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby persons. The open-cut method reduces construction Conventional Bore 35 33 N 47 23 31 N N $702,219 duration to minimize disruption due to construction activities on the affected residents. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 84 - N 31 25 10 N N $168,404

Orangefin madtom habitat may be present in this stream. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the Norfolk I-055 S-H36, W-H16 Conventional Bore conventional bore method.

Conventional Bore 84 30 N 31 25 10 N N $786,472

Page 40 of 49 Table 15. Crossing Method Determination Summary Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Evaluation Factors Sufficient USACE Crossing Methods Maximum Proposed Crossing # Waterbody Maximum Steep Maximum Winch Karst Terrain Stockpile Crossing Method Decision Rationale District Evaluated Crossing Length Pit Depth Deep Stream Average Slope Total Cost ($) Crossing Method Slope (%) Hill Length (feet) Present Storage (%) Available

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 32 - N 40 24 32 N N $33,003

Orangefin madtom habitat may be present in this stream. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the Norfolk I-056 S-H34 Conventional Bore conventional bore method.

Conventional Bore 32 24 N 40 24 32 N N $310,048

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 46 - N 38 29 74 N N $68,296

Orangefin madtom habitat may be present in this stream. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the Norfolk I-057 S-H32 Conventional Bore conventional bore method.

Conventional Bore 46 26 N 38 29 74 N N $368,049

The open cut method would result in a small temporary impact to a PEM wetland. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 83 - N 32 18 0 N Y $58,100 conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit of 30 feet, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. This crossing is in close proximity to several residences, and a trenchless crossing of this location would take 17 days to complete -- compounding the noise, aesthetic, and Norfolk I-058 W-H11 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut other impacts on nearby persons. The open-cut method reduces construction duration to minimize disruption due to construction activities on the affected residents. The open cut method would reduce the construction duration near a private drinking water well Conventional Bore 83 30 N 32 18 0 N Y $783,634 on the property. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive.

The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to the small (four-feet wide) intermittent UNT to Jacks Creek. Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 92 - N 26 17 0 N Y $80,003 Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit of nearly 20 feet, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and Norfolk I-059 S-A18 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut spoil pile. This crossing is in proximity to a residence, and a trenchless crossing of this location would take 13 days to complete -- compounding the noise, aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby persons. The open-cut method reduces construction duration to Conventional Bore 92 24 N 26 17 0 N Y $480,327 minimize disruption due to construction activities on the affected residents. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 93 - N 39 28 52 N Y $149,100 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to an intermittent UNT to Jacks Creek. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require an excessively deep bore pit of greater than 40 feet, thereby requiring the Norfolk I-060A S-A19/H26 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut excavation of an interim ramp and two benches and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive. Conventional Bore 93 41 N 39 28 52 N Y $2,500,296

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 82 - N 39 23 0 N Y $81,900

Orangefin madtom habitat may be present in this stream. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the Norfolk I-060B S-A20 Conventional Bore conventional bore method.

Conventional Bore 82 39 N 39 23 0 N Y $945,220

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 52 - N 27 18 0 N Y $67,900 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Norfolk I-061A S-A22 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 52 16 N 27 18 0 N Y $220,653

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 60 - N 28 14 0 N Y $77,000 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small UNT to Jacks Creek. Avoiding/minimizing these minor impacts through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit of nearly 30 feet, thereby requiring the excavation of an Norfolk I-061B S-H27 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive. Conventional Bore 60 29 N 28 14 0 N Y $435,185

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 54 - N 36 24 0 N Y $54,544

Orangefin madtom habitat may be present in this stream. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the Norfolk I-062 S-MM44 Conventional Bore conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required.

Conventional Bore 54 36 N 36 24 0 N Y $810,949

Page 41 of 49 Table 15. Crossing Method Determination Summary Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Evaluation Factors Sufficient USACE Crossing Methods Maximum Proposed Crossing # Waterbody Maximum Steep Maximum Winch Karst Terrain Stockpile Crossing Method Decision Rationale District Evaluated Crossing Length Pit Depth Deep Stream Average Slope Total Cost ($) Crossing Method Slope (%) Hill Length (feet) Present Storage (%) Available

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 83 - N 29 18 0 N Y $91,845

Orangefin madtom habitat may be present in this stream. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the Norfolk I-063 S-MM48 Conventional Bore conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required.

Conventional Bore 83 29 N 29 18 0 N Y $500,459

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 31 - N 40 21 31 N N $53,320

Orangefin madtom habitat may be present in this stream. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the Norfolk I-064 S-H25, W-H9 Conventional Bore conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required.

Conventional Bore 31 26 N 40 21 31 N N $325,479

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 79 - N 31 21 0 N Y $216,378

Orangefin madtom habitat may be present in this stream. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the Norfolk I-065 S-H24 Conventional Bore conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required.

Conventional Bore 79 28 N 31 21 0 N Y $479,972

The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to the small (five-feet wide) intermittent UNT to Turkey Creek. Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 45 - N 30 23 0 N Y $49,679 Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit of nearly 30 feet, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and Norfolk I-066 S-H23 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut spoil pile. This crossing is in close proximity to a residence, and a trenchless crossing of this location would take more than twice as long to complete -- compounding the noise, aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby persons. The open-cut method reduces Conventional Bore 45 27 N 30 23 0 N Y $374,346 construction duration to minimize disruption due to construction activities on the affected residents. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 54 - N 21 16 0 N Y $81,560

Orangefin madtom habitat may be present in this stream. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the Norfolk I-067 S-A13 Conventional Bore conventional bore method.

Conventional Bore 54 20 N 21 16 0 N Y $335,945

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 61 - N 23 10 0 N Y $74,200

Orangefin madtom habitat may be present in this stream. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the Norfolk I-069A S-A7 Conventional Bore conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required.

Conventional Bore 61 19 N 23 10 0 N Y $259,897

The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to the small (seven-feet wide) intermittent Dinner Creek. Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 90 - N 27 20 0 N Y $86,898 Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit nearing 30 feet, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. This crossing is in proximity to a residence, and a trenchless crossing of this location would take 22 days to complete -- Norfolk I-069B S-H17 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut compounding the noise, aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby persons. The open-cut method reduces construction duration to minimize disruption due to construction activities on the affected residents. The open cut method would reduce the construction Conventional Bore 90 28 N 27 20 0 N Y $511,190 duration near several private drinking water wells on the property. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 51 - N 31 24 0 N Y $77,803

Orangefin madtom habitat may be present in this stream. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the Norfolk I-070 S-SS8 Conventional Bore conventional bore method.

Conventional Bore 51 26 N 31 24 0 N Y $382,239

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 38 - N 27 24 0 N Y $43,598 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small (five-feet wide) intermittent UNT to Owens Creek. Avoiding/minimizing these minor impacts through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit of nearly 30 feet, Norfolk I-071 S-CD8 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably Conventional Bore 38 27 N 27 24 0 N Y $354,480 expensive.

Page 42 of 49 Table 15. Crossing Method Determination Summary Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Evaluation Factors Sufficient USACE Crossing Methods Maximum Proposed Crossing # Waterbody Maximum Steep Maximum Winch Karst Terrain Stockpile Crossing Method Decision Rationale District Evaluated Crossing Length Pit Depth Deep Stream Average Slope Total Cost ($) Crossing Method Slope (%) Hill Length (feet) Present Storage (%) Available

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 44 - N 35 24 11 N N $49,580 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small (five-feet wide) intermittent UNT to Owens Creek. Avoiding/minimizing these minor impacts through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit exceeding 30 feet Norfolk I-072 S-AB8 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut on the edge of a short but steep slope, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor Conventional Bore 44 34 N 35 24 11 N N $746,030 temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 81 - N 10 8 91 N Y $121,514

Orangefin madtom habitat may be present in this stream. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the Norfolk I-073 S-DD3 Conventional Bore conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required.

Conventional Bore 81 16 N 10 8 91 N Y $302,954

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 53 - N 34 23 0 N Y $142,157

Orangefin madtom habitat may be present in this stream. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the Norfolk I-074 S-G16 Conventional Bore conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required.

Conventional Bore 53 31 N 34 23 0 N Y $716,764

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 54 - N 31 20 10 N Y $72,205 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small intermittent UNT to Parrott Branch. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit exceeding 30 feet on the edge of a short but steep slope, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the Norfolk I-075 S-G15 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut bore pit and spoil pile. It also would more than double the duration of the crossing. The open cut method would reduce the construction duration near several private drinking water wells on the property. Using a conventional bore crossing method to Conventional Bore 54 33 N 31 20 10 N Y $756,141 avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 42 - N 57 36 107 N N $57,417

Orangefin madtom habitat may be present in this stream. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the Norfolk I-076 S-G13 Conventional Bore conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required.

Conventional Bore 42 26 N 57 36 107 N N $356,697

The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to the small (nine-feet wide) intermittent UNT to Jonnikin Creek. Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 39 - N 36 20 21 N N $57,474 Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit exceeding 20 feet on the edge of a short but steep slope, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. This crossing is in close proximity to a residence, and a trenchless crossing of Norfolk I-077 S-D7, W-MM17 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut this location would take more than twice as long to complete -- compounding the noise, aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby persons. The open-cut method reduces construction duration to minimize disruption due to construction activities on the affected Conventional Bore 39 25 N 36 20 21 N N $339,049 residents. The open cut method would reduce the construction duration near several private drinking water wells on the property. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 43 - N 28 16 0 N Y $65,776

Orangefin madtom habitat may be present in this stream. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the Norfolk I-078 S-D3 Conventional Bore conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required.

Conventional Bore 43 16 N 28 16 0 N Y $195,111

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 62 - N 35 20 10 N N $73,648 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small (six-feet wide) intermittent UNT to Jonnikin Creek. Avoiding/minimizing these minor impacts through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit of nearly 40 feet, Norfolk I-079 S-D4 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably Conventional Bore 62 38 N 35 20 10 N N $870,191 expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 54 - N 41 21 96 N N $102,144

Orangefin madtom habitat may be present in this stream. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the Norfolk I-080 S-D2, W-D3 Conventional Bore conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required.

Conventional Bore 54 19 N 41 21 96 N N $240,031

Page 43 of 49 Table 15. Crossing Method Determination Summary Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Evaluation Factors Sufficient USACE Crossing Methods Maximum Proposed Crossing # Waterbody Maximum Steep Maximum Winch Karst Terrain Stockpile Crossing Method Decision Rationale District Evaluated Crossing Length Pit Depth Deep Stream Average Slope Total Cost ($) Crossing Method Slope (%) Hill Length (feet) Present Storage (%) Available

Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit of nearly 30 feet, Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 82 - N 28 19 0 N Y $95,632 thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. The stream banks at the crossing location are rapidly eroding due to natural conditions unrelated to pipeline construction. Instream work will be necessary to permanently restore and stabilize the banks, which will provide greater Norfolk I-081 S-D1-EPH Dry-Ditch Open-Cut protection for the pipeline and have the benefit of reducing long-term sediment loads in the stream. That work can be done efficiently and effectively after completion of an open-cut crossing. Therefore, temporary stream impacts are unavoidable at this Conventional Bore 82 29 N 28 19 0 N Y $497,621 location. It would be unreasonably expensive to use a trenchless crossing to avoid only a fraction of the aquatic impact to this UNT to Jonnikin Creek.

The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to the small (six-feet wide) intermittent UNT to Jonnikin Creek. Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 55 - N 35 16 0 N Y $59,983 Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit exceeding 30 feet, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. This crossing is in close proximity to a residence, and a trenchless crossing of this location would take more than twice Norfolk I-082 S-G11 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut as long to complete -- compounding the noise, aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby persons. The open-cut method reduces construction duration to minimize disruption due to construction activities on the affected residents. The open cut method would Conventional Bore 55 33 N 35 16 0 N Y $758,979 reduce the construction duration near several private drinking water wells on the property. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 44 - N 24 14 10 N N $45,226 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to the small (four-feet wide) intermittent UNT to Jonnikin Creek. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit exceeding 20 feet on Norfolk I-083 S-G9, W-B5 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut the edge of a short slope, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. It also would increase the duration of the crossing by one week. Using a conventional Conventional Bore 44 20 N 24 14 10 N N $307,565 bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 41 - N 24 16 0 N Y $42,700 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to the small (four-feet wide) intermittent UNT to Jonnikin Creek. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit exceeding 20 feet, Norfolk I-084A S-G8 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. It also would increase the duration of the crossing from 5 to 17 days. Using a conventional bore crossing method to Conventional Bore 41 21 N 24 16 0 N Y $308,186 avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 48 - N 26 22 0 N Y $54,600 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to the small (six-feet wide) UNT to Jonnikin Creek. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit exceeding 20 feet, thereby requiring the Norfolk I-084B S-Q15 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. It also would increase the duration of the crossing from 5 to 17 days. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this Conventional Bore 48 25 N 26 22 0 N Y $364,590 minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 44 - N 28 21 0 N Y $51,308

Orangefin madtom habitat may be present in this stream. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the Norfolk I-085 S-A6 Conventional Bore conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required.

Conventional Bore 44 22 N 28 21 0 N Y $325,834

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 65 - N 42 19 96 N N $115,499

Orangefin madtom habitat may be present in this stream. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the Norfolk I-086 S-C7 Conventional Bore conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required.

Conventional Bore 65 19 N 42 19 96 N N $271,248

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 126 - N 34 27 115 N N $153,189

Orangefin madtom habitat may be present in this stream. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the Norfolk I-087 S-C4, S-C3 Conventional Bore conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required.

Conventional Bore 126 27 N 34 27 115 N N $604,222

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 173 - N 33 25 21 N N $191,262 The stream banks at the crossing location are rapidly eroding due to natural conditions unrelated to pipeline construction. Instream work will be necessary to permanently restore and stabilize the banks, which will provide greater protection for the pipeline and have the benefit of reducing long-term sediment loads in the stream. That work can be done efficiently and effectively Norfolk I-088 S-H13, W-H5 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut after completion of an open-cut crossing. Therefore, temporary stream impacts are unavoidable at this location. Lastly, it would be unreasonably expensive to use a trenchless crossing to avoid only a fraction of the aquatic impact to this UNT to Little Conventional Bore 173 35 N 33 25 21 N N $1,130,399 Cherrystone Creek and adjacent wetland.

Page 44 of 49 Table 15. Crossing Method Determination Summary Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Evaluation Factors Sufficient USACE Crossing Methods Maximum Proposed Crossing # Waterbody Maximum Steep Maximum Winch Karst Terrain Stockpile Crossing Method Decision Rationale District Evaluated Crossing Length Pit Depth Deep Stream Average Slope Total Cost ($) Crossing Method Slope (%) Hill Length (feet) Present Storage (%) Available

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 60 - N 30 23 0 N Y $63,951 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to the small (six-feet wide) UNT to Harpen Creek. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit exceeding 30 feet, thereby requiring the Norfolk I-089 S-G6 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. It also would more than double the duration of the crossing. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor Conventional Bore 60 34 N 30 23 0 N Y $791,438 temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 50 - N 26 17 0 N Y $56,003 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to the small (six-feet wide) UNT to Harpen Creek. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit exceeding 30 feet, thereby requiring the Norfolk I-090 S-G5 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. It also would increase the duration of the crossing from 4 to 10 days. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this Conventional Bore 50 26 N 26 17 0 N Y $379,401 minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 74 - N 30 18 0 N Y $167,471

Orangefin madtom habitat may be present in this stream. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the Norfolk I-091 S-G4 Conventional Bore conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required.

Conventional Bore 74 32 N 30 18 0 N Y $794,631

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 39 - N 31 17 0 N Y $61,935

Orangefin madtom habitat may be present in this stream. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the Norfolk I-092 S-G3 Conventional Bore conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required.

Conventional Bore 39 20 N 31 17 0 N Y $293,375

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 52 - N 18 11 0 N Y $75,678

Orangefin madtom habitat may be present in this stream. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the Norfolk I-093 S-CC16 Conventional Bore conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required.

Conventional Bore 52 16 N 18 11 0 N Y $220,653

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 110 - N 25 18 0 N Y $105,108 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Norfolk I-094 S-CC13, S-CC14 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 110 23 N 25 18 0 N Y $522,276

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 39 - N 20 14 0 N Y $48,302 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Norfolk I-095 S-MM8, W-MM5 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 39 19 N 20 14 0 N Y $197,461

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 33 - N 18 14 0 N Y $45,144 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Norfolk I-096 S-CC15 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 33 18 N 18 14 0 N Y $175,866

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 78 - N 32 11 10 N N $128,994 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Norfolk I-097 S-CC8, S-CC5 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 78 14 N 32 11 10 N N $285,306

Page 45 of 49 Table 15. Crossing Method Determination Summary Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Evaluation Factors Sufficient USACE Crossing Methods Maximum Proposed Crossing # Waterbody Maximum Steep Maximum Winch Karst Terrain Stockpile Crossing Method Decision Rationale District Evaluated Crossing Length Pit Depth Deep Stream Average Slope Total Cost ($) Crossing Method Slope (%) Hill Length (feet) Present Storage (%) Available

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 42 - N 45 26 21 N N $48,685 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to the small (six-feet wide) UNT to Cherrystone Creek. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit exceeding 30 feet, Norfolk I-098 S-CC9 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. It also would increase the duration of the crossing from 4 to 10 days. Using a conventional bore crossing method to Conventional Bore 42 35 N 45 26 21 N N $758,623 avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 38 - N 38 20 21 N N $58,726 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to the small (nine-feet wide) intermittent UNT to Cherrystone Creek. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit exceeding 30 feet, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and Norfolk I-099 S-CC10 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut spoil pile. It also would increase the duration of the crossing from 4 to 10 days. The open cut method would reduce the construction duration near a private drinking water well on the property. Using a conventional bore crossing method to Conventional Bore 38 32 N 38 20 21 N N $692,463 avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 42 - N 44 19 0 N Y $60,039 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to the small (nine-feet wide) UNT to Cherrystone Creek. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit of nearly 30 feet on the edge of a short but steep slope, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the Norfolk I-100 S-CC11 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. It also would increase the duration of the crossing from 4 to 10 days. The open cut method would reduce the construction duration near a private drinking water well on the property. Using a conventional bore Conventional Bore 42 27 N 44 19 0 N Y $365,832 crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 35 - N 44 26 52 N N $83,561

There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Norfolk I-101A W-MM9 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method.

Conventional Bore 35 18 N 44 26 52 N N $181,542

The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to the small intermittent UNT to Cherrystone Creek and two adjacent Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 161 - N 20 8 32 N Y $172,200 wetland features (PEM and PFO). Avoiding/minimizing these minor impacts through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit of nearly 40 feet , thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the W-MM8-PFO, W- Norfolk I-101B Dry-Ditch Open-Cut space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. It also would increase the duration of the crossing from 4 to 60 days. The open cut MM8-PEM, S-CC1 method would reduce the construction duration near a private drinking water well on the property. Because the pipeline ROW Conventional Bore 161 38 N 20 8 32 N Y $1,151,152 must remain free of woody vegetation to protect the pipe coating, a conversion impact is unavoidable with any crossing method. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize these minor temporary impacts would be unreasonably expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 38 - N 40 21 0 N Y $56,288 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to the small (eight-feet wide) UNT to Cherrystone Creek. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit of nearly 30 feet on the edge, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore Norfolk I-102 S-CC3 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut pit and spoil pile. It also would increase the duration of the crossing from 4 to 10 days. The open cut method would reduce the construction duration near a private drinking water well on the property. Using a conventional bore crossing method to Conventional Bore 38 30 N 40 21 0 N Y $655,925 avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 47 - N 12 10 0 N Y $56,790

There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Norfolk I-103 S-P5 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method.

Conventional Bore 47 11 N 12 10 0 N Y $183,626

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 32 - N 23 16 0 N Y $36,895 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to the small (five-feet wide) UNT to Pole Bridge Branch. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would increase the duration of the crossing from 4 to 11 days. Norfolk I-104 S-IJ35-EPH Dry-Ditch Open-Cut The open cut method would reduce the construction duration near a private drinking water well on the property. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive. Conventional Bore 32 23 N 23 16 0 N Y $300,913

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 48 - N 22 7 0 N Y $56,601

There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Norfolk I-105 S-Q4 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method.

Conventional Bore 48 19 N 22 7 0 N Y $223,003

Page 46 of 49 Table 15. Crossing Method Determination Summary Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Evaluation Factors Sufficient USACE Crossing Methods Maximum Proposed Crossing # Waterbody Maximum Steep Maximum Winch Karst Terrain Stockpile Crossing Method Decision Rationale District Evaluated Crossing Length Pit Depth Deep Stream Average Slope Total Cost ($) Crossing Method Slope (%) Hill Length (feet) Present Storage (%) Available

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 51 - N 17 15 0 N Y $123,204

There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Norfolk I-106A S-Q2 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method.

Conventional Bore 51 16 N 17 15 0 N Y $217,815

This crossing presents multiple challenges that limit the available options and necessitated the development of a site-specific solution. A bore pit depth exceeding 20 feet at this location requires the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 319 - N 17 6 0 N Y $253,621 dramatically increases the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. Steep slopes (greater than 30%) adjacent to the waterbody increases the complexity of this crossing if bored, increases safety risk to personnel, and adds risk of impact to the Norfolk I-106B W-Q2, S-Q3 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut waterbody from upland work during a bore. The open cut method also reduces the construction duration near private drinking water wells on the property. Attempting a conventional bore would extend the duration of this crossing from 5 days for an open cut Guided Conventional 319 26 N 17 6 0 N Y $711,028 to 60 days for a guided conventional bore -- which also would increase the total greenhouse gas emissions associated with this Bore crossing by 15 times. Furthermore, the other significant environmental impacts associated with a trenchless crossing method at this location outweigh the minimized temporary impact to Pole Bridge Branch.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 55 - N 10 8 0 N Y $38,500 The open cut method would result in a small temporary impact to a PEM wetland. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would increase the duration of the crossing from 4 to 43 days. The open cut method would reduce the Norfolk I-107 W-Q1 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut construction duration near a private drinking water well on the property. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive. Conventional Bore 55 16 N 10 8 0 N Y $229,167

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 55 - N 42 19 0 N Y $80,024 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to the small (five-feet wide) intermittent UNT to Pole Bridge Branch. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit of nearly 40 feet, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and Norfolk I-108 S-B6 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut spoil pile. It also would increase the duration of the crossing from 4 to 11 days. The open cut method would reduce the construction duration near a private drinking water well on the property. Using a conventional bore crossing method to Conventional Bore 55 36 N 42 19 0 N Y $813,787 avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 43 - N 31 16 0 N Y $46,214 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to the small (five-feet wide) intermittent UNT to Pole Bridge Branch. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit of nearly 30 feet, thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and Norfolk I-109 S-B8 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut spoil pile. It also would increase the duration of the crossing from 4 to 44 days. The open cut method would reduce the construction duration near a private drinking water well on the property. Using a conventional bore crossing method to Conventional Bore 43 29 N 31 16 0 N Y $386,939 avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 41 - N 19 13 0 N Y $53,226 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to the small (seven-feet wide) UNT to Pole Bridge Branch. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit exceeding 20 feet, Norfolk I-110 S-B9 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut thereby requiring the excavation of an interim ramp and bench and dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably Conventional Bore 41 22 N 19 13 0 N Y $317,320 expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 230 - N 9 5 0 N Y $213,500 The pipeline has already been installed under an adjacent railroad. There is no feasible way to tie the two sections of pipe Norfolk I-111 S-DD4 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut together if a trenchless method is used to install this crossing. Furthermore, the railroad bore encountered difficult conditions, which indicates that completing another crossing at this location has a higher degree of potential failure. Conventional Bore 230 17 N 9 5 0 N Y $730,381

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 33 - N 23 13 0 N Y $75,600

There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Norfolk i-111A S-DD4 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method.

Conventional Bore 33 15 N 23 13 0 N Y $162,164

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 33 - N 12 7 0 N Y $27,032 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to the small (one-foot wide) UNT to Mill Creek. It also would double the Norfolk I-112 S-KL27 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut duration of the crossing. Using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive. Conventional Bore 33 15 N 12 7 0 N Y $162,164

Page 47 of 49 Table 15. Crossing Method Determination Summary Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Evaluation Factors Sufficient USACE Crossing Methods Maximum Proposed Crossing # Waterbody Maximum Steep Maximum Winch Karst Terrain Stockpile Crossing Method Decision Rationale District Evaluated Crossing Length Pit Depth Deep Stream Average Slope Total Cost ($) Crossing Method Slope (%) Hill Length (feet) Present Storage (%) Available

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 61 - N 38 11 0 N Y $64,849 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to the small intermittent Mill Creek. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit exceeding 30 feet with an excavator operating from a bench Norfolk I-113 S-C1 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut within the pit, at the edge of short but steep slope, and nearly triple the duration of the crossing. It also would require the excavation of an interim ramp and bench, thereby dramatically increasing the space occupied by the bore pit and spoil pile. Using Conventional Bore 61 31 N 38 11 0 N Y $739,468 a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 122 - N 35 16 11 N Y $111,010 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Norfolk I-114 S-G2, W-G2 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 122 21 N 35 16 11 N Y $538,062

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 40 - N 21 12 0 N Y $46,015 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Norfolk I-115 S-B2 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 40 18 N 21 12 0 N Y $195,732

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 40 - N 13 8 0 N Y $38,950 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Norfolk I-116 S-H55 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 40 16 N 13 8 0 N Y $186,597

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 56 - N 15 9 0 N Y $88,685 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Norfolk I-117 S-H54 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 56 16 N 15 9 0 N Y $232,005

Due a close cluster of wetlands that would be crossed in one undertaking, this crossing is unusually long at over 800 feet. The Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 835 - N 22 7 0 N Y $616,507 direct pipe method would be necessary to cross these features. That crossing would method would extend the duration of this crossing from seven days for an open cut to 99 days for the trenchless method (increasing greenhouse gas emissions associated S-H5, W-H1, W-H2, Norfolk I-118 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut with the crossing by nearly 1,900%). The open cut method would reduce the construction duration near multiple private drinking S-H3, W-H3 water wells on the property. Using a Direct Pipe crossing method to avoid/minimize these minor temporary impacts two a small (6- Direct Pipe 835 0 N 22 7 0 N Y $6,680,000 foot wide) intermittent stream, small (8-foot wide) perennial stream, and two small PEM wetlands would be unreasonably expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 59 - N 35 20 10 N N $58,931 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small intermittent UNT to Little Cherrystone Creek and an adjacent PSS wetland. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit of nearly 30 feet, with equipment operating within a bore pit at the edge of short but steep slope, as well as more than quadrupling the Norfolk I-119 S-OO1, W-MM3 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut duration of the crossing and the relevant greenhouse gas emissions. The open cut method would reduce the construction duration near multiple private drinking water wells on the property. Lastly, using a conventional bore crossing method to Conventional Bore 59 27 N 35 20 10 N N $414,078 avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be unreasonably expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 37 - N 40 22 0 N Y $44,417 The open cut method would result in a temporary impact to a small intermittent UNT to Little Cherrystone Creek. Avoiding/minimizing this minor impact through a conventional bore would require a relatively deep bore pit exceeding 30 feet with Norfolk I-120 S-OO2 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut an excavator operating from a bench within the pit, at the edge of short but steep slope, and more than double the duration of the crossing. Furthermore, using a conventional bore crossing method to avoid/minimize this minor temporary impact would be Conventional Bore 37 31 N 40 22 0 N Y $671,356 unreasonably expensive.

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 405 - N 18 9 0 N Y $357,812 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available S-EF26, W-IJ22- Norfolk I-121 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact PFO, W-IJ22-PEM associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 405 19 N 18 9 0 N Y $1,236,163

Page 48 of 49 Table 15. Crossing Method Determination Summary Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Evaluation Factors Sufficient USACE Crossing Methods Maximum Proposed Crossing # Waterbody Maximum Steep Maximum Winch Karst Terrain Stockpile Crossing Method Decision Rationale District Evaluated Crossing Length Pit Depth Deep Stream Average Slope Total Cost ($) Crossing Method Slope (%) Hill Length (feet) Present Storage (%) Available

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 68 - N 10 8 0 N Y $87,003 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Norfolk I-122 S-H44 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 68 17 N 10 8 0 N Y $270,628

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 43 - N 20 8 0 N Y $68,600 There are no significant constraints on available crossing methods or significant environmental impacts relevant to the available Norfolk I-123 S-H42 Conventional Bore methods. The direct aquatic impact will be avoided/minimized by use of the conventional bore method. A minor temporary impact associated with the bore to maintain access will be required. Conventional Bore 43 23 N 20 8 0 N Y $332,131

Dry-Ditch Open-Cut 155 - N 5 3 30 N N $108,500 To protect the integrity of the pipeline coating, woody vegetation cannot be allowed to grow close to the pipe. In forested wetlands, a 30-foot corridor generally must be maintained free of trees. Accordingly, conversion impacts to this wetland are unavoidable. The conventional bore method also entails significant environmental consequences at this location. This crossing is in close Norfolk I-124 W-EF6 Dry-Ditch Open-Cut proximity to a residence, and a trenchless crossing of this location would take nearly four weeks to complete -- compounding the noise, aesthetic, and other impacts on nearby residents. The longer-duration bore also nearly quadruples the greenhouse gas Conventional Bore 155 13 N 5 3 30 N N $499,263 emissions associated with the crossing.

Page 49 of 49 Table 16. Streams and Wetlands Avoided at the Direction of Other Federal or State Authorities Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Feature Name NHD Stream Name USACE District County Latitude1 Longitude1 Crossing Method2 Reason for Avoidance2

S-J29 Gauley River Huntington Nicholas 38.274348 -80.691350 Microtunnel USFWS Biological Opinion

S-S5-Braid-2 Stony Creek Norfolk Giles 37.360325 -80.684214 Conventional Bore USFWS Biological Opinion

S-S5-Braid-1 Stony Creek Norfolk Giles 37.360276 -80.684193 Conventional Bore USFWS Biological Opinion

S-S5 Stony Creek Norfolk Giles 37.360071 -80.683960 Conventional Bore USFWS Biological Opinion

S-PP22 UNT to Craig Creek Norfolk Montgomery 37.321090 -80.412831 Conventional Bore USFS Record of Decision

S-PP21 UNT to Craig Creek Norfolk Montgomery 37.317187 -80.409235 Conventional Bore USFS Record of Decision

S-PP20 UNT to Craig Creek Norfolk Montgomery 37.316523 -80.408646 Conventional Bore USFS Record of Decision

S-HH18 UNT to Craig Creek Norfolk Montgomery 37.313910 -80.398683 Conventional Bore USFS Record of Decision

S-RR14 UNT to Craig Creek Norfolk Montgomery 37.313615 -80.402521 Conventional Bore USFS Record of Decision

S-OO6 Craig Creek Norfolk Montgomery 37.313511 -80.404606 Conventional Bore USFS Record of Decision

S-NN16-Braid Roanoke River Norfolk Montgomery 37.233631 -80.197743 Microtunnel USFWS Biological Opinion

USFWS Biological Opinion W-NN8 N/A (Wetland) Norfolk Montgomery 37.233519 -80.197841 Microtunnel (Roanoke River Microtunnel)

S-NN16 Roanoke River Norfolk Montgomery 37.233402 -80.197942 Microtunnel USFWS Biological Opinion

S-E11 Pigg River Norfolk Pittsylvania 36.933353 -79.538293 HDD FERC FEIS

FERC FEIS W-A4 N/A (Wetland) Norfolk Pittsylvania 36.933299 -79.537648 HDD (Pigg River HDD)

FERC FEIS S-H8 UNT to Pigg River Norfolk Pittsylvania 36.932497 -79.535087 HDD (Pigg River HDD)

FERC FEIS S-A4 UNT to Pigg River Norfolk Pittsylvania 36.932251 -79.532989 HDD (Pigg River HDD)

FERC FEIS S-H7 UNT to Pigg River Norfolk Pittsylvania 36.932182 -79.532963 HDD (Pigg River HDD)

Notes: 1 - in decimal degrees 2 - Abbreviations: FEIS - Final Environmental Impact Statement FERC - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission HDD - Horizontal Directional Drilling UNT - Unnamed tributary USFWS - United States Fish and Wildlife Service

Page 1 of 1 Table 17. Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Cowardin Mitigation Evaluation Projected Mitigation Proposed Mitigation Feature USACE District HUC 8 Name HUC 8 # Impact (acres) Impact Type Class1 Method2 Requirement Type3

W-IJ31 Huntington Middle Ohio 05030201 PEM 0.0082 Permanent Fill SWVM 0.0082 Kincheloe W-A27-PFO Huntington Middle Ohio 05030201 PFO 0.0547 Permanent Conversion SWVM 0.0547 Kincheloe W-A23 Huntington Middle Ohio 05030201 PEM 0.0579 Permanent Fill SWVM 0.0579 Kincheloe W-H109 Huntington Little Kanawha 05030203 PEM 0.0027 Permanent Fill SWVM 0.0027 Kincheloe W-K33-PSS Huntington Little Kanawha 05030203 PSS 0.0024 Permanent Conversion SWVM 0.0024 Kincheloe W-I22-PEM Huntington Little Kanawha 05030203 PEM 0.0059 Permanent Fill SWVM 0.0059 Kincheloe W-H98 Huntington Little Kanawha 05030203 PEM 0.0331 Permanent Fill SWVM 0.0331 Kincheloe W-UV17 Huntington Little Kanawha 05030203 PFO 0.0055 Permanent Conversion SWVM 0.0055 Kincheloe W-VV4-PFO Huntington Little Kanawha 05030203 PFO 0.0263 Permanent Conversion SWVM 0.0263 Kincheloe W-VV3-PFO Huntington Little Kanawha 05030203 PFO 0.0160 Permanent Conversion SWVM 0.0160 Kincheloe W-A20-PFO Huntington Elk 05050007 PFO 0.0298 Permanent Conversion SWVM 0.0298 Beverly W-H70 Huntington Elk 05050007 PEM 0.0057 Permanent Fill SWVM 0.0057 Beverly W-H71 Huntington Elk 05050007 PEM 0.0205 Permanent Fill SWVM 0.0205 Beverly W-H72 Huntington Elk 05050007 PEM 0.0064 Permanent Fill SWVM 0.0064 Beverly W-H73 Huntington Elk 05050007 PEM 0.0061 Permanent Fill SWVM 0.0061 Beverly W-H74 Huntington Elk 05050007 PEM 0.0115 Permanent Fill SWVM 0.0115 Beverly W-H67 Huntington Elk 05050007 PFO 0.0908 Permanent Conversion SWVM 0.0908 Beverly W-H66 Huntington Elk 05050007 PFO 0.2496 Permanent Conversion SWVM 0.2496 Beverly W-H64-PSS Huntington Elk 05050007 PSS 0.0422 Permanent Conversion SWVM 0.0422 Beverly W-O13 Huntington Elk 05050007 PEM 0.0405 Permanent Fill SWVM 0.0405 Beverly W-B35 Huntington Elk 05050007 PSS 0.0108 Permanent Conversion SWVM 0.0108 Beverly W-E28 Huntington Elk 05050007 PSS 0.0084 Permanent Fill SWVM 0.0084 Beverly W-E30 Huntington Elk 05050007 PEM 0.0316 Permanent Fill SWVM 0.0316 Beverly W-F40 Huntington Elk 05050007 PSS 0.0188 Permanent Conversion SWVM 0.0188 Beverly W-E18-PSS Huntington Gauley 05050005 PSS 0.0538 Permanent Conversion SWVM 0.0538 Spanishburg W-E13 Huntington Gauley 05050005 PFO 0.0107 Permanent Conversion SWVM 0.0107 Spanishburg W-FF6-PSS Huntington Gauley 05050005 PSS 0.0333 Permanent Conversion SWVM 0.0333 Spanishburg W-A15 Huntington Gauley 05050005 PSS 0.0891 Permanent Conversion SWVM 0.0891 Spanishburg W-A14 Huntington Gauley 05050005 PFO 0.0374 Permanent Conversion SWVM 0.0374 Spanishburg W-I7 Huntington Gauley 05050005 PFO 0.0333 Permanent Conversion SWVM 0.0333 Spanishburg W-J8 Huntington Gauley 05050005 PFO 0.0533 Permanent Conversion SWVM 0.0533 Spanishburg W-J7 Huntington Gauley 05050005 PFO 0.0693 Permanent Conversion SWVM 0.0693 Spanishburg W-H35 Huntington Gauley 05050005 PEM 0.0177 Permanent Fill SWVM 0.0177 Spanishburg W-M22 Huntington Gauley 05050005 PSS 0.0039 Permanent Conversion SWVM 0.0039 Spanishburg W-J6 Huntington Gauley 05050005 PFO 0.0744 Permanent Conversion SWVM 0.0744 Spanishburg W-HS1 Huntington Gauley 05050005 PEM 0.0360 Permanent Fill SWVM 0.0360 Spanishburg W-QR2 Huntington Gauley 05050005 PEM 0.0010 Permanent Fill SWVM 0.0010 Spanishburg W-IJ47-PEM Huntington Gauley 05050005 PEM 0.0633 Permanent Fill SWVM 0.0633 Spanishburg W-UV4 Huntington Gauley 05050005 PSS 0.0885 Permanent Conversion SWVM 0.0885 Spanishburg W-I10 Huntington Gauley 05050005 PEM 0.0550 Permanent Fill SWVM 0.0550 Spanishburg W-MM20-PFO Huntington Greenbrier 05050003 PFO 0.2990 Permanent Conversion SWVM 0.2990 Spanishburg W-A13 Huntington Upper New 05050002 PEM 0.0228 Permanent Fill SWVM 0.0228 Spanishburg W-MN18-PFO Huntington Upper New 05050002 PFO 0.1750 Permanent Conversion SWVM 0.1750 Spanishburg W-CV25-PSS-1 Huntington Upper New 05050002 PSS 0.0270 Permanent Conversion SWVM 0.0270 Spanishburg W-UU1 Pittsburgh West Fork 05020002 PFO 0.0045 Permanent Conversion SWVM 0.0045 Kincheloe W-UU3 Pittsburgh West Fork 05020002 PFO 0.0065 Permanent Conversion SWVM 0.0065 Kincheloe W-ST12-PSS Pittsburgh West Fork 05020002 PSS 0.1444 Permanent Conversion SWVM 0.1444 Kincheloe W-K52 Pittsburgh West Fork 05020002 PEM 0.0115 Permanent Fill SWVM 0.0115 Kincheloe W-C12 Norfolk Upper Roanoke 03010101 PFO 0.0523 Permanent Conversion 1 : 1 0.0523 Banister Bend W-KL58 Norfolk Upper Roanoke 03010101 PEM 0.0392 Permanent Fill 1 : 1 0.0392 Banister Bend W-EF5-PFO Norfolk Upper Roanoke 03010101 PFO 0.0852 Permanent Conversion 1 : 1 0.0852 VARTF W-EF17 Norfolk Upper Roanoke 03010101 PFO 0.0224 Permanent Conversion 1 : 1 0.0224 Banister Bend W-EF18 Norfolk Upper Roanoke 03010101 PSS 0.0052 Permanent Conversion 1 : 1 0.0052 Banister Bend

Page 1 of 2 Table 17. Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Cowardin Mitigation Evaluation Projected Mitigation Proposed Mitigation Feature USACE District HUC 8 Name HUC 8 # Impact (acres) Impact Type Class1 Method2 Requirement Type3

W-IJ96-PEM Norfolk Upper Roanoke 03010101 PEM 0.0133 Permanent Fill 1 : 1 0.0133 Banister Bend W-IJ97 Norfolk Upper Roanoke 03010101 PEM 0.0005 Permanent Fill 1 : 1 0.0005 Banister Bend W-IJ95-PSS Norfolk Upper Roanoke 03010101 PSS 0.0254 Permanent Conversion 1 : 1 0.0254 Banister Bend W-IJ102 Norfolk Upper Roanoke 03010101 PFO 0.0100 Permanent Conversion 1 : 1 0.0100 Banister Bend W-KL17 Norfolk Upper Roanoke 03010101 PSS 0.0435 Permanent Conversion 1 : 1 0.0435 Banister Bend W-AB6-PFO-1 Norfolk Upper Roanoke 03010101 PFO 0.0618 Permanent Conversion 1 : 1 0.0618 Banister Bend W-AB6-PSS Norfolk Upper Roanoke 03010101 PSS 0.0061 Permanent Conversion 1 : 1 0.0061 Banister Bend W-AB5 Norfolk Upper Roanoke 03010101 PFO 0.0042 Permanent Conversion 1 : 1 0.0042 Banister Bend W-EF46 Norfolk Upper Roanoke 03010101 PSS 0.0682 Permanent Conversion 1 : 1 0.0682 Banister Bend W-KL48-PSS-2 Norfolk Upper Roanoke 03010101 PSS 0.0264 Permanent Conversion 1 : 1 0.0264 Banister Bend W-IJ36 Norfolk Upper Roanoke 03010101 PSS 0.1237 Permanent Conversion 1 : 1 0.1237 Banister Bend W-Z7 Norfolk Upper Roanoke 03010101 PSS 0.0003 Permanent Conversion 1 : 1 0.0003 Banister Bend W-Z6 Norfolk Upper Roanoke 03010101 PFO 0.0028 Permanent Conversion 1 : 1 0.0028 Banister Bend W-B24-PSS Norfolk Upper Roanoke 03010101 PSS 0.1637 Permanent Conversion 1 : 1 0.1637 Banister Bend W-D4 Norfolk Upper Roanoke 03010101 PEM 0.0009 Permanent Fill 1 : 1 0.0009 Banister Bend W-IJ2-PSS Norfolk Upper Roanoke 03010101 PSS 0.0080 Permanent Conversion 1 : 1 0.0080 Banister Bend W-GH2 Norfolk Upper Roanoke 03010101 PSS 0.0130 Permanent Conversion 1 : 1 0.0130 Banister Bend W-CD5 Norfolk Upper Roanoke 03010101 PFO 0.1136 Permanent Conversion 1 : 1 0.1136 Banister Bend W-CD1 Norfolk Upper Roanoke 03010101 PFO 0.1106 Permanent Conversion 1 : 1 0.1106 Banister Bend W-H15 Norfolk Upper Roanoke 03010101 PSS 0.0071 Permanent Conversion 1 : 1 0.0071 Banister Bend W-B4-PSS Norfolk Upper Roanoke 03010101 PSS 0.0047 Permanent Conversion 1 : 1 0.0047 Banister Bend W-Q2 Norfolk Banister 03010105 PFO 0.3770 Permanent Conversion 1 : 1 0.3770 Banister Bend W-IJ21 Norfolk Banister 03010105 PFO 0.0106 Permanent Conversion 1 : 1 0.0106 Banister Bend TOTAL 3.5958 - 3.5958 -

Notes: 1 - Field classification 2 - In WV, the SWVM (Stream and Wetland Valuation Metric) was used to determine mitigation credit requirements - In VA, per VDEQ and USACE guidance, mitigation ratios are 1:1 for PEM fill, PSS conversion, and PFO conversion impacts. 3 - Proposed mitigation bank based on the location of the impact and availability of mitigation credits in the impact area. - Kincheloe - Kincheloe Mitigation Bank - Beverly - Beverly Mitigation Bank - Spanishburg - Spanishburg Mitigation Bank - Banister Bend - Banister Bend Mitigation Bank

Page 2 of 2 Table 18. Compensatory Stream Mitigation Individual Permit Application Mountain Valley Pipeline Project

Mitigation Evaluation Projected Mitigation USACE District Feature HUC 8 Name HUC 8 # Flow Regime Impact (LF) USACE District Method1 Requirement Pittsburgh S-A128 West Fork 05020002 Perennial 29 SWVM 24 Pittsburgh Pittsburgh S-OP9 West Fork 05020002 Ephemeral 36 SWVM 30 Pittsburgh Pittsburgh S-OP8 West Fork 05020002 Ephemeral 41 SWVM 29 Pittsburgh Pittsburgh S-B79 West Fork 05020002 Ephemeral 60 SWVM 23 Pittsburgh Huntington S-A120 Middle Ohio 05030201 Intermittent 26 SWVM 13 Huntington Huntington S-QR34 Middle Ohio 05030201 Ephemeral 125 SWVM 65 Huntington Huntington S-J56 Middle Ohio 05030201 Perennial 41 SWVM 32 Huntington Huntington S-J59 Middle Ohio 05030201 Intermittent 7 SWVM 4 Huntington Huntington S-A110/K62 Middle Ohio 05030201 Intermittent 25 SWVM 10 Huntington Huntington S-K43 Little Kanawha 05030203 Perennial 27 SWVM 18 Huntington Huntington S-I63 Little Kanawha 05030203 Perennial 26 SWVM 18 Huntington Huntington S-UV11 Little Kanawha 05030203 Perennial 25 SWVM 18 Huntington Huntington S-L61 Little Kanawha 05030203 Intermittent 58 SWVM 40 Huntington Huntington S-L57 Little Kanawha 05030203 Ephemeral 26 SWVM 13 Huntington Huntington S-IJ27 Little Kanawha 05030203 Perennial 84 SWVM 63 Huntington Huntington S-IJ32 Little Kanawha 05030203 Ephemeral 26 SWVM 17 Huntington Huntington S-B62 Elk 05050007 Perennial 29 SWVM 24 Huntington Huntington S-H107 Elk 05050007 Intermittent 30 SWVM 12 Huntington Huntington S-I23a Gauley 05050005 Intermittent 33 SWVM 18 Huntington Huntington S-IJ54 Gauley 05050005 Ephemeral 31 SWVM 17 Huntington Huntington S-IJ53 Gauley 05050005 Perennial 20 SWVM 12 Huntington Huntington S-FF1 Gauley 05050005 Ephemeral 31 SWVM 31 Huntington Huntington S-I12 Lower New 05050004 Intermittent 38 SWVM 22 Huntington Huntington S-I10 Lower New 05050004 Intermittent 26 SWVM 18 Huntington Huntington S-K10 Greenbrier 05050003 Intermittent 31 SWVM 11 Huntington Huntington S-K4 Greenbrier 05050003 Intermittent 22 SWVM 8 Huntington Huntington S-A63 Upper New 05050002 Perennial 25 SWVM 16 Huntington Huntington S-A61 Upper New 05050002 Ephemeral 26 SWVM 14 Huntington Huntington S-CV26 Upper New 05050002 Perennial 32 SWVM 20 Huntington Huntington S-F18 Upper New 5050002 Perennial 26 SWVM 17 Huntington Norfolk S-IJ16-a Middle New 05050002 Ephemeral 45 USM 23 Norfolk Norfolk S-IJ85 Upper Roanoke 03010101 Perennial 50 1:1* 50 Norfolk Norfolk S-H42 Banister 03010105 Perennial 15 USM 21 Norfolk TOTAL 1,006 - 645

Notes: 1 - In WV, the SWVM (Stream and Wetland Valuation Metric) was used to determine mitigation credit requirements - In VA, mitigation ratio values for stream impacts were calculated using Unified Stream Methodology (USM), except where noted. 2 - Proposed mitigation bank based on the location of the impact and availability of mitigation credits in the impact area. - Foster Run - Foster Run Mitigation Bank - Hayes Run - Hayes Run Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank - Spanishburg - Spanishburg Mitigation Bank -Graham and David - Graham and David Mitigation Bank * '- Unified Stream Methodology field evaluation has not been performed for S-IJ85. Compensatory mitigation requirement ratio of impacts : credits is assumed to be 1:1.

Page 1 of 1 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

ATTACHMENT A. WV DEP 401 Water Quality Certification Information

Tetra Tech Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

ATTACHMENT B. VA DEQ 401 Water Quality Certification Information and Virginia Water Protection Permit Application

Tetra Tech Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

ATTACHMENT C. Virginia Marine Resources Commission Permit Modification Request and Materials

Tetra Tech Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

ATTACHMENT D. USACE Pittsburgh District ENG Form 4345

Tetra Tech Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

ATTACHMENT E. USACE Huntington District ENG Form 4345

Tetra Tech Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

ATTACHMENT F. USACE Norfolk District Standard JPA Form

Tetra Tech Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

ATTACHMENT G. FERC Weekly Status Report

Tetra Tech Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

ATTACHMENT H. Plan and Profile Crossing Drawings and Inadvertent Return Plan

H‐1. Section 10 Waters Plan and Profile Crossing Drawings H‐2. West Virginia Plan and Profile Crossing Drawings H‐3. Virginia Plan and Profile Crossing Drawings H‐4. Inadvertent Return Plan

Tetra Tech Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

ATTACHMENT H‐1. Section 10 Waters Plan and Profile Crossing Drawings

Tetra Tech Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

ATTACHMENT H‐2. West Virginia Plan and Profile Crossing Drawings

Tetra Tech Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

ATTACHMENT H‐3. Virginia Plan and Profile Crossing Drawings

Tetra Tech Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

ATTACHMENT H‐4. Inadvertent Return Plan

Tetra Tech Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

ATTACHMENT I. Wetland and Stream Data Forms and Photographs

I‐1. USACE Pittsburgh Stream Data Forms I‐2. USACE Pittsburgh Wetland Data Forms I‐3. USACE Huntington Stream Data Forms I‐4. USACE Huntington Wetland Data Forms I‐5. USACE Norfolk Stream Data Forms I‐6. USACE Norfolk Wetland Data Forms

Tetra Tech Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

ATTACHMENT I‐1. USACE Pittsburgh Stream Data Forms

Tetra Tech Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

ATTACHMENT I‐2. USACE Pittsburgh Wetland Data Forms

Tetra Tech Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

ATTACHMENT I‐3. USACE Huntington Stream Data Forms

Tetra Tech Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

ATTACHMENT I‐4. USACE Huntington Wetland Data Forms

Tetra Tech Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

ATTACHMENT I‐5. USACE Norfolk Stream Data Forms

Tetra Tech Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

ATTACHMENT I‐6. USACE Norfolk Wetland Data Forms

Tetra Tech Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

ATTACHMENT J. Construction Details

Tetra Tech Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

Attachment K. Karst Mitigation Plan

Tetra Tech Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

Attachment L. Examples of Completed Project Stream and Wetland Restoration

Tetra Tech Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

Attachment M. Compensatory Mitigation

M‐1. USACE Pittsburgh Wetland SWVM Forms M‐2. USACE Pittsburgh Stream SWVM Forms M‐3. USACE Huntington Wetland SWVM Forms M‐4. USACE Huntington Stream SWVM Forms M‐5. USACE Norfolk Stream USM Forms

Tetra Tech Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

Attachment M‐1. USACE Pittsburgh Wetland SWVM Forms

Tetra Tech Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

Attachment M‐2. USACE Pittsburgh Stream SWVM Forms

Tetra Tech Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

Attachment M‐3. USACE Huntington Wetland SWVM Forms

Tetra Tech Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

Attachment M‐4. USACE Huntington Stream SWVM Forms

Tetra Tech Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

Attachment M‐5. USACE Norfolk Stream USM Forms

Tetra Tech Mountain Valley Pipeline Project USACE Individual Permit Application February 2021

Attachment M‐6. Mitigation Affidavits & Purchase Agreements

Tetra Tech