CA PDF Page 1 of 110

Energy East Pipeline Ltd. Energy East Project Consolidated Application Volume 4: Pipeline Design

Appendix 4-4

Golder Associates Inc. Summary of Geohazards

April 2016

CA PDF Page 2 of 110

PHASE I GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ASSESSMENT NEW BUILD PORTION OF THE ENERGY EAST SYSTEM ALBERTA, SASKATCHEWAN, MANITOBA, ONTARIO,

QUÉBEC, AND NEW BRUNSWICK CANADA

Prepared For: TransCanada PipeLines Limited (TCPL) REPORT 450 – 1st Street S.W. Calgary, Alberta Canada, T2P 5H1

Prepared By: Golder Associates Inc. 18300 NE Union Hill Road, Suite 200 Redmond, WA 98052 USA

July 24, 2014 Project No. 14-00899 A world of capabilities delivered locally

Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 3 of 110

July 2014 i 14-00899

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Purpose and Scope ...... 1 1.2 Phased Approach to Geologic Hazards Assessment ...... 2 1.3 Summary ...... 4 1.4 Report Structure ...... 5 2.0 METHODOLOGY ...... 7 2.1 General ...... 7 2.2 Development of Hazard Identification and Classification Criteria ...... 7 2.2.1 Landslides ...... 7 2.2.2 Seismic (Ground Shaking) ...... 11 2.2.3 Seismic (Liquefaction) ...... 12 2.2.4 Seismic (Surface Fault Rupture) ...... 13 2.2.5 Subsidence (Karst) ...... 14 2.2.6 Subsidence (Underground Mining) ...... 16 2.2.7 Subsidence (Fluid Withdrawal) ...... 17 2.2.8 Collapsible or Expansive Soils ...... 19 3.0 PHYSIOGRAPHIC, GEOLOGIC, LANDSLIDE, AND SEISMIC SETTING ...... 22 3.1 Western Portion...... 22 3.1.1 Physiography and Geology ...... 22 3.1.2 Landslides ...... 23 3.1.3 Seismicity ...... 23 3.2 Eastern Portion...... 23 3.2.1 Physiography and Geology ...... 23 3.2.2 Landslides ...... 24 3.2.3 Seismicity ...... 25 4.0 RESULTS ...... 27 4.1 Landslide Hazards ...... 27 4.1.1 Alberta Centreline ...... 27 4.1.2 Cromer Lateral ...... 27 4.1.3 Ontario Centreline ...... 27 4.1.4 Québec Segment 1 ...... 28 4.1.5 Québec Segment 2 ...... 28 4.1.6 Saint John Extension ...... 28 4.2 Seismic Hazards ...... 29 4.2.1 Alberta Centreline ...... 29 4.2.2 Cromer Lateral ...... 30 4.2.3 Ontario Centreline ...... 30

EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 4 of 110

July 2014 ii 14-00899

4.2.4 Québec Segment 1 ...... 30 4.2.5 Québec Segment 2 ...... 30 4.2.6 Saint John Extension ...... 30 4.3 Subsidence Hazards ...... 30 4.3.1 Karst ...... 31 4.3.1.1 Alberta Centreline and Cromer Lateral ...... 31 4.3.1.2 Ontario Centreline ...... 31 4.3.1.3 Québec Segment 1 and Québec Segment 2 ...... 32 4.3.1.4 Saint John Extension ...... 32 4.3.2 Fluid Withdrawal...... 32 4.3.3 Mining ...... 33 4.3.3.1 Cromer Lateral ...... 33 4.3.3.2 Saint John Extension ...... 34 4.4 Collapsible or Expansive Soils ...... 34 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 35 5.1 Landslide Hazards ...... 35 5.1.1 High Hazard Landslides ...... 35 5.1.2 Moderate Hazard Landslides ...... 36 5.1.3 Low Hazard Landslides ...... 37 5.2 Seismic Hazards ...... 37 5.3 Subsidence Hazards ...... 38 5.4 Collapsible/Expansive Soils ...... 38 6.0 CLOSING ...... 39 7.0 REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 40 7.1 Alphabetical References ...... 40 7.2 References by Hazard Type ...... 47

List of Tables Table 1 New Build Energy East Phase I Geologic Hazards Classification Summary Table 2 Summary of Moderate and High Hazard Landslide Areas Table 3 Summary of Seismic Hazard Areas Table 4 Summary of Subsidence and Collapsible/Expansive Soil Areas Table 5 New Build Energy Phase I Geologic Hazards Recommendations Summary

List of Figures Figure 1 Project Overview - West Portion Figure 2 Project Overview - East Portion Figure 3 Peak Ground Acceleration, and Selected Historical Earthquakes – West Portion Figure 4 Peak Ground Acceleration, Seismic Zones, and Selected Historical Earthquakes – East Portion

EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 5 of 110

July 2014 iii 14-00899

Figure 5 Potential Landslide Hazard Areas – West Portion Figure 6 Potential Landslide Hazard Areas – East Portion Figure 7 Potential Landslide Hazard Areas – Québec Detail Map Figure 8 Potential Liquefaction Susceptible Soil Areas – West Portion Figure 9 Potential Liquefaction Susceptible Soil Areas – East Portion Figure 10 Potential Subsidence Hazard Areas and Collapsible/Expansive Soil Areas – West Portion Figure 11 Potential Subsidence Hazard Areas and Collapsible/Expansive Soil Areas – East Portion Figure 12 Potential Fluid Withdrawal Hazard Areas – West Portion

List of Appendices Appendix A Potential Landslide Hazard Areas Strip Map Appendix B Index of Map Sheets in Québec

EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 6 of 110

July 2014 iv 14-00899

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

CSZ Charlevoix Seismic Zone DEM digital elevation model g Earth’s gravitational acceleration GIS geographic information system HDD horizontal directional drilling km kilometres KP kilometre post m metres MTQ Ministère des Transports du Québec MRC Municipalité régionale de Comté NRCS National Resources Conservation Service NASZ Northern Appalachians Seismic Zone PGA peak ground acceleration QMF Gouvernement du Québec Ministère des Forêts Service des inventaires forestiers ROW right-of-way SLRS Saint Lawrence Rift System TQM Trans Québec and Maritimes System WQSZ Western Québec Seismic Zone yBP years before present

EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 7 of 110

July 2014 1 14-00899

1.0 INTRODUCTION This report is a summary of the results of a Phase I Geologic Hazards Assessment (Phase I Assessment) conducted by Golder Associates Inc. (Golder) for the proposed new build portion of the TransCanada PipeLines Limited (TransCanada) Energy East pipeline project. The proposed new build portion of the Energy East pipeline project is located in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Québec, and New Brunswick, Canada. Figures 1 and 2 show the extent and the geographic location of the new build portion of the Energy East pipeline project evaluated during this Phase I Assessment, which is approximately 1,600 kilometres (km) long.

The alignment evaluated for this Phase I Assessment was based on centrelines provided by TransCanada. For this report and for ease of use by the reader, the proposed new build portion of the Energy East pipeline is referred to simply as the “Energy East pipeline.” Six segments comprise the Energy East pipeline referred to (from west to east) as the Alberta Centreline, the Cromer Lateral, the Ontario Centreline, Québec Segment 1, Québec Segment 2, and the Saint John Extension (New Brunswick). The alignments for the Alberta Centreline, Cromer Lateral, Ontario Centreline, and Québec Segment 2 were sent to Golder on January 30, 2014. The alignment for Québec Segment 1 was sent to Golder on May 26, 2014, and the alignment for the Saint John Extension was sent to Golder on May 29, 2014.

1.1 Purpose and Scope The purpose of this Phase I Assessment is to complete a regional-scale identification and assessment of potential geologic hazards that may potentially affect the Energy East pipeline. The geologic hazards assessment is intended to be used by TransCanada for development of an inventory of potential geologic hazards that could affect the Energy East pipeline, which in turn may be used for route planning and hazard management during and after construction of the project. Additionally, this Phase I Assessment is intended to be used for identification of areas for possible additional investigation to more fully characterize and mitigate geologic hazards in subsequent phases of hazard assessment.

For the purposes of the Phase I Assessment and this report, a geologic hazard is a natural geologic condition, ongoing geologic process, or potential natural event that could adversely affect the operation or integrity of a pipeline. The primary deliverables for the Phase I Assessment are Geographic Information System (GIS) databases that contain mapped locations and qualitative hazard classifications of known or potential geologic hazards on, or proximal to the Energy East pipeline. Table 1 provides a summary of the hazard classification criterion and system. This report provides descriptions of the methodologies used for the identification and classification of geologic hazards, the results of the assessment, as well as recommendations for further work (as appropriate) regarding the various hazards identified.

EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 8 of 110

July 2014 2 14-00899

In conducting the Phase I Assessment, Golder considered the following potential hazards for the Energy East pipeline:

 Unstable slopes, such as landslides.  Seismic hazards, including ground shaking from a large earthquake, soil liquefaction resulting from earthquake shaking, and surface fault rupture.  Ground subsidence associated with operating and abandoned underground mines, from karst formations, and from underground fluid withdrawal associated with groundwater extraction and oil and gas development.  Collapsible or expansive soils.

Note that watercourse erosion (hydrotechnical) hazards and the potential for acid-rock drainage in Québec and New Brunswick will be addressed in separate reports. For each hazard identified during the Phase I Assessment, Golder assigned a qualitative hazard classification (low, moderate, or high) based on the criteria which includes, but is not limited to the proximity of the potential hazard to the pipeline, the level of activity of the geologic process that results in the potential hazard, the areal extent of the potential hazard, the perceived likelihood of the potential hazard affecting a pipeline during its service life, and the types of the potential consequences of the hazard to the respective pipeline (Table 1). The hazard classifications are relative to each individual hazard; for example, a high landslide hazard is not necessarily equivalent in potential severity or likelihood to a high subsidence hazard.

Identified hazards for this Phase I Assessment are generally limited to a corridor within 30 metres (m) of the pipeline centrelines provided by TransCanada. For example, potential liquefaction hazard areas outside of this 30 m corridor are not included in the GIS GeoDatabase, maps, or tables produced for this project. However, it should be noted that while hazards were not mapped outside of this corridor (generally), landslide hazards were assessed for an area up to 1 kilometre (km) from the pipeline centrelines to look for evidence of historical, large landslides that could indicate the possibility of similar landslides forming and retrogressing to the pipeline (for the reasons expounded upon in Sections 2.2.1 and 3.2.2). If such areas were identified during the course of this assessment, they were mapped and included with the project deliverables, even though they were outside of the 30 m corridor.

1.2 Phased Approach to Geologic Hazards Assessment As identified in Section 1.1., this project and report is a Phase I Assessment, which is the first step in the TransCanada-Golder phased approach to evaluating, characterizing, and ultimately (where needed), mitigating geologic hazards. The phased approach to the assessment of geologic hazards for pipelines is a systematic process that has been developed by TransCanada and its consultants over time (including Golder) that begins at a regional-scale (Phase I Assessment) and proceeds to a site-specific level (Phase II and III assessments, as needed).

EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 9 of 110

July 2014 3 14-00899

The purpose of the Phase I Assessment (as described in this report) is to provide an initial overview assessment of the proposed pipeline alignment, to consider a range of possible geologic and natural hazards that could affect a pipeline, and to develop an inventory of potential geologic hazards for further consideration. The Phase I Assessment provides initial identification of possible or known geologic hazards based on a desktop review of existing information and a helicopter reconnaissance, and is then used to establish the scope of work for more detailed investigations, where necessary (i.e., a Phase II Assessment).

It is important to reinforce that a Phase I Assessment is an initial identification of potential geologic hazards, completed with the purpose of identifying locations where further evaluation is recommended, and is based on limited information (no ground reconnaissance or subsurface investigations are conducted during a Phase I Assessment). Accordingly, the descriptions and classifications of potential geologic hazards identified during a Phase I Assessment may be revised as additional work is performed and further information is collected; e.g., a location identified as a “high” hazard during a Phase I Assessment may be reclassified as a “moderate” or “low” hazard, or even removed altogether from the hazard database as additional assessments are performed. Because a Phase I Assessment is based on limited information, the identification and classification of potential geologic hazards during this phase are generally conservative by necessity.

A Phase II Assessment consists of a detailed, typically non-intrusive, site-specific evaluation of possible or known geologic hazards identified during a Phase I Assessment that have been identified as having the potential for adverse impacts on the pipeline. Most Phase II assessments are conducted to further evaluate “high” and “moderate” hazard landslides identified during a Phase I Assessment. The information collected during a Phase II Assessment is used to establish whether further investigation is needed in order to characterize the hazard. If the information collected during a Phase II Assessment is sufficient to prepare mitigation recommendations (if required), then no further investigation is performed. In some cases, once the Phase II Assessment is complete the hazard may be removed altogether from the hazard database.

In cases where additional review is required, a Phase III Assessment can be completed. A Phase III Assessment consists of detailed, subsurface investigation and/or mitigation of an identified hazard, where needed. An example of a Phase III Assessment may include subsurface drilling and instrument installation at a landslide site to characterize and monitor the landslide. The scope of a Phase III Assessment is established based on the results of a Phase II Assessment. A Phase III Assessment is typically the last step in the phased approach. Most sites evaluated during a Phase II Assessment do not progress to a Phase III Assessment.

EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 10 of 110

July 2014 4 14-00899

1.3 Summary Based on the information reviewed for this Phase I Assessment, the primary integrity threats from geologic hazards to the Energy East pipeline are potential landslide hazard areas in Québec. Strong ground shaking from earthquakes in some parts of Québec may be a concern for surface facilities associated with the pipeline, although the threat will be mitigated through site specific investigation, engineering design and proper construction. Strong ground shaking from earthquakes may also affect the buried pipeline but direct effects will be of lesser concern than for surface facilities because modern, high strength steel pipelines with high quality electric arc welded joints perform well during earthquake shaking. Secondary effects from strong ground shaking such as the threat of induced landslides and liquefaction are discussed later in this report. Integrity threats resulting from other geologic hazards, such as naturally occurring subsidence in areas of karst terrain, expansive soils, or collapse of underground mines appear to have a low potential to affect the pipeline or associated facilites. The results of the Phase I Assessment are summarized below:

Landslides: Eleven (11) high hazard landslide areas, 22 moderate hazard landslide areas, and 69 low hazard landslide areas were identified during this assessment. All 11 of the identified high hazard landslide areas are found on the banks of 10 river and stream crossings (two of the high hazard landslide areas are located at the same crossing) incised into Champlain Sea marine deposits in Québec and Ontario on Québec Segment 1 between approximately Kilometre Post (KP) 177 and KP 335, and the Québec Segment 1 Lateral to Lévis. At all of these crossings, Golder observed evidence of current or historical landslide activity during the desktop review and/or the helicopter reconnaissance.

The 22 moderate hazard landslides are more widely distributed, and are found on the Ontario Centerline, Québec Segment 1 and Québec Segment 2. The moderate landslide hazards include:

 stream crossing locations where relatively small/shallow landslides were identified  locations where a government agency has mapped a zone of landslide risk (or similar terminology), but where Golder did not observe evidence of landslides during the LiDAR review or helicopter reconnaissance  locations where the alignment does not cross, but may be within the retrogression distance of a large landslide.

The 69 low hazard landslide areas include steep slope areas (i.e., areas steeper than 25 percent [14 degrees]). The majority (60 out of the 69) of the identified low hazard landslide areas are located in northern Québec (Québec Segment 2) and in New Brunswick (Saint John Extension), where the topography is generally undulating and steeper than other portions of the Energy East pipeline alignment.

Seismic: The most significant seismic hazards for the Energy East pipeline are found in Québec. Projected 475-year return period peak horizontal ground acceleration (PGA) values for the Energy East pipeline in Québec range from a low of about 0.08 g southeast of Québec City to a high of approximately

EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 11 of 110

July 2014 5 14-00899

0.35 g near Saint-Jean-Port-Joli, Québec. The threat to the pipeline from seismic activity in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and New Brunswick appears to be low, based on the reviewed references.

Relatively few areas of the alignment are underlain by potentially liquefiable soil (less than two percent overall). Only 0.04 percent of the alignment is underlain by areas mapped as a high liquefaction hazard (all in Québec), 0.77 percent of the alignment is underlain by areas mapped as a moderate liquefaction hazard (also all in Québec), and 1.03 percent of the alignment is underlain by areas mapped as a low liquefaction hazard.

Consistent with prior work by others, no evidence was found during this assessment of faults crossing or near the alignment with active surface rupture expression during the desktop review, the helicopter reconnaissance, or the literature review. In essence, no evidence was found of active faults that could affect the Energy East pipeline.

Subsidence: The overall threat to the Energy East pipeline from subsidence (i.e., from karst terrain, fluid withdrawal, and collapse of underground mine workings) appears to be low along the majority of the alignment, based on the references reviewed for this project. Portions of the alignment are underlain by potentially karst forming bedrock, are located near known or possible underground mine workings, or are located in areas with known oil and gas or groundwater withdrawal. However, no evidence was observed during this assessment of subsidence features with surficial expression, such as sinkholes.

Collapsible or Expansive Soils: Based on the references reviewed for this assessment, there are few areas of reported collapsible/expansive soils along the Energy East pipeline. Golder classified approximately 8 km of the Energy East pipeline in Alberta as having a moderate collapsible and expansive soil hazard. The rest of the alignment has been classified as having a low collapsible and expansive soil hazard.

1.4 Report Structure The Phase I Assessment report that follows includes the following major elements:

 A summary of the methods used to conduct the Phase I Assessment, including the criteria used to classify the various potential geologic hazards identified during the assessment, and the rationale for the development of the criteria used to identify the potential hazards (Section 2.0).  A description of the route followed by the Energy East pipeline, including a general description of the physiographic, geologic, and seismic conditions traversed by the pipeline (Section 3.0).  A summary of the results of the Phase I Assessment (Section 4.0).  Recommendations for additional work (as appropriate), based on the results of the assessment (Section 5.0).  Closing remarks for the Phase I Assessment (Section 6.0).  A bibliographic listing of the references that were collected and reviewed to conduct the Phase I Assessment (Section 7.0).

EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 12 of 110

July 2014 6 14-00899

 Detailed strip maps showing the location and spatial extent of possible landslide hazard areas (Appendix A).  An index of geologic maps referenced for this assessment in Québec (Appendix B).  Separately, Golder has transmitted electronically a pdf of this report, GIS layers and databases, and KMZ files generated for this project.

EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 13 of 110

July 2014 7 14-00899

2.0 METHODOLOGY

2.1 General To complete the Phase I Assessment, Golder relied on regional-scale maps and reports of geologic conditions and geologic hazards, review of aerial imagery and LiDAR topographic surveying provided by TransCanada, and a helicopter aerial reconnaissance along the Energy East pipeline. The maps and reports utilized for the assessment were collected from a variety of sources, but typically from government agencies. The maps and reports were acquired in GIS, other digital formats (such as pdf or jpg), and as hard copies. The Phase I Assessment helicopter aerial reconnaissance of the Energy East pipeline was conducted by one geologist and one engineer from Golder on May 15 and 16, 2014 (western portion) and May 20 and 21, 2014 (eastern portion).

References acquired and reviewed for the Phase I Assessment are listed in Section 7.0. In Section 7.1 they are in alphabetical order, while in Section 7.2 they are cross-referenced to the relevant hazards for which they were used. Note that an individual reference may have been used to assist in delineating several hazard types, depending on the information contained in that reference, and thus may be listed under multiple hazard categories in Section 7.2.

For each geologic hazard reviewed for this assessment, Golder assigned a relative hazard classification of low, moderate, or high, based on criteria developed to describe the severity of the hazard and the potential exposure of the pipeline to the hazard (Table 1). In general, the hazard classifications assigned for this Phase I Assessment are intended to be consistent with the hazard classifications for other Phase I Assessments performed for pipelines owned by TransCanada (e.g., conversion portion of the Energy East pipeline, ANR, PNGTS, TGT, GTN, Northern Border).

2.2 Development of Hazard Identification and Classification Criteria This section discusses the development of criteria, including the rationale, used to identify and classify each geologic hazard considered during this assessment. Table 1 is a summary of the classification criteria.

2.2.1 Landslides For the purpose of this project, a landslide is defined as the “movement of a mass of rock, debris, or earth down a slope,” and encompasses geologic processes such as debris or mud flows, rotational slides (slumps), translational slides, earth flows, rock falls, or debris slides (Cruden 1991; Cruden and Varnes 1996). Golder identified, assessed, and evaluated potential landslide hazards by the review of existing publically available maps and databases, through review of aerial imagery and LiDAR provided by TransCanada, and through the helicopter reconnaissance that was conducted in May 2014. Slope inclinations derived from the Natural Resources Canada Centre for Topographic Information 1:50,000

EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 14 of 110

July 2014 8 14-00899

scale digital elevation model (DEM) were also used to evaluate landslide hazards (Natural Resources Canada 2013b). A list of the references reviewed to identify landslides is provided in Sections 7.1 and 7.2.

The evaluation of landslide hazards for this assessment has focused on landslides occurring within Champlain Sea marine deposits because much of the alignment is underlain by these deposits, the landslide hazards identified for this assessment (excepting steep slopes) are found within these deposits, and landslides occurring within these deposits have resulted in considerable historical property damage and loss of life. The potential for large, rapidly forming landslides to occur within marine deposits of the Champlain Sea is an unusual condition not found in most areas of North America. Considerable effort has been expended by public agencies in Québec and Ontario to understand and delineate areas that may be at risk for these types of landslides. The hazard criteria for this project used for landslides within areas mapped as underlain by Champlain Sea marine deposits are based in part on these prior efforts.

Following major landslides in Québec during the 1990’s, the Québec government developed a comprehensive guideline for regulations on slope stability hazards. These regulations included determining landslide hazard zones for slopes within clayey or sandy deposits. Setbacks at the toe and at the top of the slope were also determined and shown on landslide hazard maps. Development, intervention or works are generally not permitted within these landslide hazard zones and corresponding setbacks unless a geotechnical study is completed. The landslide hazard maps were developed by geotechnical experts in slope stability assessments from the “Ministère des Transports du Québec” (MTQ). These maps developed by the MTQ were based on quantitative and qualitative methods using in situ soil information (Boreholes, CPTu, etc.), laboratory tests, LiDAR data, and aerial photography. Once finalized, the landslide hazard maps were then adopted and incorporated by the local regional authorities’ (i.e., Municipalité régionale de Comté, or MRC) land use planning regulations.

The detailed landslide zoning maps have only been developed for limited areas of some municipalities in Québec. Where the landslide maps do not exist, general and similar regulations have been adopted by most MRC (such as MRC Les Moulins “Règlement no. 97-23”, adopted on August 13, 2008 or Trois- Rivières “Règlement sur le lotissement [2012, chapitre 156”]) for calculating potentially landslide prone areas. In general, these regulations identify slopes steeper than 25 percent (14 degrees) and higher than 5 m as being potentially landslide prone areas. As shown below, these criteria have been incorporated into the landslide classification scheme.

The following describes the criteria used to classify landslide hazards for this assessment. Note that the criteria listed herein are consistent in intent and significance with previously prepared Phase I Assessments for TransCanada, such as for the conversion portion of the Energy East alignment (Golder 2014). However, because the primary landslide hazards that could affect the new build Energy East

EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 15 of 110

July 2014 9 14-00899

pipeline are located in the sensitive Champlain Sea marine deposits, the criteria have been modified accordingly. In addition, to simplify the discussion of landslide hazards in this report and for ease of use by the reader, only the criteria that are relevant to this particular assessment are listed and discussed. The criteria may be modified or expanded at a later time if additional landslide hazards are identified.

Low Hazard

Low hazard landslide areas are those areas with slopes greater than 25 percent (14 degrees) with no evidence of landslides identified during the desktop review or observed during the helicopter reconnaissance and no landslides or zones of landslide risk mapped by others1.

Justification: Slopes with an inclination greater than 25 percent (~14 degrees), but with no mapped landslides are classified as low hazard landslide areas. It has been Golder’s experience that most post- construction landslides on recently constructed right-of-ways (ROWs) are the result of fill failures on steep slopes, often resulting from the construction practices used to build the ROW. Accordingly, although no landslide hazard is observed to currently be present at these slopes, Golder has identified them so that steep slope construction can be planned and designed. This is particularly important for construction on steep slopes in Champlain Sea marine deposits, which can be landslide prone and susceptible to landslide formation if disturbed. Twenty-five percent has been selected as the threshold slope inclination for evaluating terrain for landslide hazards, to be consistent with the MTQ guidelines, as described above. It should be noted that landslides may also occur on slopes with an inclination less than 25 percent.

Moderate Hazard

Moderate hazard landslide areas are those areas that met one or more of the following criteria. For the ease of discussion (specifically for the recommendations in Section 5), the moderate classification has been broken into “M1”, “M2,” and “M3” categories:

 M1: Stream crossings with evidence of recent or historical landslide activity, but where the river banks and/or the existing landslides appeared to be too shallow/low (nominally less than 5 m vertically from toe to head and less than 15 m long) to affect the proposed pipeline.  M2: An area mapped by an MRC as a zone of landslide risk (or similar terminology) with no evidence of current or past landslide activity observed during the desktop review or helicopter reconnaissance.  M3: An area within the possible propagation distance of a large landslide. Calculated as the greater of one of the following: 1) The length of the largest observed landslide within the vicinity of the pipeline, or 2) A horizontal distance of 20 times the height of a slope with evidence of historical landslides.

1 Based on the information available to Golder at the time of this report. If additional information becomes available showing mapped landslides at a low landslide hazard location, the landslide hazard classification should be adjusted accordingly.

EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 16 of 110

July 2014 10 14-00899

Justification: M1 type moderate hazard landslide areas are those locations where it appears that there may be the potential for pipeline construction to further destabilize stream banks that have shown evidence of past instability (thus potentially affecting water bodies, other infrastructure, and buildings), but where the potential to affect the pipeline appears to be low, because the landslides appear to be too small or shallow to impact the pipeline. The assessment of the landslide area as a moderate hazard landslide versus a high hazard landslide relies in part on the judgment of the analyst, but as a general guideline, a stream crossing with landslides that are generally less than 5 m in height (from toe to headscarp) and less than 15 m in length have been classified as moderate landslides.

M2 type moderate hazard landslide areas are those locations where an MRC has mapped a zone of landslide risk, but the information available to Golder does not indicate the presence of historical or current instability. These areas have been identified to acknowledge the prior work and to further evaluate the area to see if there is evidence of landslide activity that may not been evident from the data sources reviewed for this assessment (see the recommendations in Section 5.1.2).

M3 type moderate hazard landslide areas are those locations that may potentially be subject to impacts from a large landslide where the pipeline does not cross the potential landslide source area. Although the potential for such a landslide to form and impact a pipeline is low, if one were to form and reach the pipeline, the landslide movement would generally be transverse to the pipeline, rather than axial. This distance has been calculated using the criteria listed above based on the following justification:

 Kalsnes et al. (2014) states that a maximum slide length of 15 times the slope height difference is used as one input into mapping of landslide hazard areas in sensitive clay areas in Norway.  Similarly, Åhnberg et al. (2014) states that for assessment of possible landslide extent for quick clays in the Göta River valley of Sweden, a retrogression distance of 15 times the slope height was used for sensitive clays.  Demers et al. (2014) have calculated that the average length for large landslides in Champlain Sea marine deposits is approximately 9.1 to 9.5 times the bank height.

Consequently, as a conservative estimate, it has been assumed that the retrogression distance of a large landslide could be up to 20 times the bank height (similar ratio as assumed by Kalnes et al. [2014] and Åhnberg et al. [2014], and double the average length reported by Demers et al. [2014]), or the maximum length of historical large landslides in the vicinity of the pipeline, whichever is greater. For example, if the bank height of a stream with evidence of past large landslides is 10 m, the assumed retrogression distance would be at least 200 m, or the length of the largest observed landslide.

EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 17 of 110

July 2014 11 14-00899

High Hazard

High hazard landslides have been characterized as those areas where the alignment crosses slopes with evidence of historic or current landslides and where the vertical distance of the landslides from toe to head is greater than 5 m and/or the horizontal distance is longer than 15 m.

Justification: High hazard landslide areas are those stream crossings with evidence of unstable slopes where further landslide activity or increased landslide movement could have the potential to impact the pipeline or affect third-parties. The identification of a high hazard landslide area relies in part on the judgment of the geologist doing the work; as a guideline Golder has selected a nominal size of landslides that are at least 5 m high or higher (i.e., vertical difference between the elevation of the toe and head of the landslide), and/or 15 m or longer. The identification of an area as a high hazard landslide area does not mean that a landslide will affect the pipeline; rather it identifies the location for further evaluation to assess the actual potential for pipeline and third-party impacts.

2.2.2 Seismic (Ground Shaking) Strong ground shaking from earthquakes can potentially result in wave propagation damage to pipelines, caused by lateral and vertical ground movements, or accelerations (O’Rourke and Liu 1999, 2012). The potential hazard from earthquake wave propagation is commonly measured by the ground shaking parameter of peak horizontal ground acceleration (PGA), expressed as a percentage of the Earth’s gravitational acceleration (g). Earthquake induced strong ground shaking may also trigger liquefaction and lateral spreading of saturated soil (discussed in Section 2.2.3), as well as landslides. Sections 7.1 and 7.2 list seismic hazard references consulted for this project.

Based on empirical correlations of observed and reported earthquake shaking damage and corresponding PGAs, along with descriptions of the level of potential damage (University of Washington 2001), Golder developed earthquake acceleration thresholds and intervals to characterize low, moderate, and high hazards from potential wave propagation damage due to strong ground shaking. The database for earthquake acceleration used in this Phase I Assessment was the Canadian Geological Survey’s (Halchuk and Adams 2010) acceleration hazard mapping. The PGAs utilized were for a 10 percent probability of exceedance in a 50-year period, which represents a return period of 475 years.

The assigned earthquake strong ground shaking hazard classification levels, applied from the use of the Canadian Geological Survey’s (Halchuk and Adams 2010) mapping, are:

 Low Hazard: <0.15 g  Moderate Hazard: 0.15-0.25 g  High Hazard: >0.25 g

EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 18 of 110

July 2014 12 14-00899

Justification: Empirical correlations of potential damage related to PGAs by the University of Washington (2001) indicate that light damage to engineered surface structures generally does not occur until the acceleration range of 0.09-0.18 g. Moderate damage can occur in the acceleration range of about 0.18-0.34 g, and moderate to severe damage can occur at accelerations from 0.34 g to 1.24+ g if appropriate design mitigations are not in place. With these data, Golder conservatively selected the hazard categories listed above to reasonably represent potential “low,” “moderate,” and “high” hazards to both surface facilities and the buried pipeline resulting from earthquake shaking.

2.2.3 Seismic (Liquefaction) Liquefaction can occur during strong seismic shaking in saturated (e.g., shallow groundwater), loose, granular soils such as sand, fine gravel, and silty sand. During strong seismic shaking, pore pressure increases can occur, causing these soils to lose grain-to-grain contact and to develop a slurry-like consistency. Liquefaction can result in settlement or floating (buoyancy) of the pipeline, lateral spreading of the ground containing the pipeline, and slope instability. Lateral spreading is a process whereby liquefied ground cannot support even low to moderate height slopes, and the ground flows, or translates downhill, resulting in large lateral movements and ground cracking.

In order to assess the potential for soil liquefaction, it was assumed that all areas mapped as Holocene alluvium (geologically young [<10,000 years old] sediment deposited by flowing water) or lacustrine sediments (lake bed sediments) were saturated, loose, and composed of potentially liquefiable soil. References used to map alluvial, lacustrine sediments, and marine deposits are presented in Section 7.2.

The surficial geologic mapping available for much of the alignment ranged from good to poor resolution (e.g., from 1:20,000 scale to 1:500,000); thus, Golder identified and mapped areas that appeared to be underlain by potentially liquefiable deposits using a combination of available surficial geologic maps where these were of good quality (such as many areas of Québec), LiDAR, topographic maps, and aerial photographs. For areas where good quality surficial geologic mapping was not available, it was assumed that relatively flat, low-lying areas adjacent to rivers and lakes were underlain by liquefaction susceptible soil, i.e., alluvial or lacustrine deposits. The assumption that alluvial deposits are inherently liquefiable is conservative, because the thickness, grain size distribution and density of the materials in these deposits is not known, the depth to the groundwater table cannot be ascertained accurately from geologic and topographic maps, and these deposits may in fact be unsaturated part or most of a typical year.

In order to assign a relative hazard classification for liquefaction, Golder then matched the Canadian Geological Survey’s (Halchuk and Adams 2010) acceleration hazard mapping for the 475-year return period PGAs to the areas mapped as primarily underlain by Holocene alluvial or lacustrine deposits. The hazard classifications that follow have been assigned for consistency with other pipelines owned by TransCanada:

EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 19 of 110

July 2014 13 14-00899

 Low Hazard: Unconsolidated Holocene sediment primarily consisting of silt to gravel with PGAs less than 0.1 g, or groundwater deeper than about 9 m.  Moderate Hazard: Unconsolidated Holocene sediment primarily consisting of silt to gravel with PGAs between 0.1 g and 0.2 g and groundwater less than 9 m in depth.  High Hazard: Unconsolidated Holocene sediment primarily consisting of silt to gravel with PGAs greater than 0.2 g and groundwater less than 3 m in depth.

Justification: The probability of soil liquefaction can be assessed by considering the susceptibility of the soil to liquefaction (based on such parameters as soil density, cementation, particle size gradation, confining stress, layer thickness, and water content) and the magnitude and duration of shaking for various seismic event recurrence intervals (Youd et al. 2001). In the absence of actual soil and groundwater characterization and in the absence of estimated magnitude and duration recurrence intervals it was only practical to assign a qualitative soil liquefaction hazard based on interpreted soil type and published PGA levels for a given seismic event (the 475-year recurrence interval event with a probability of exceedance of 10 percent in 50 years). Therefore, while the evaluation of liquefaction hazards is based on scientific fundamentals, the hazards levels are qualitative and specific to this Phase I Assessment.

In order to assess the relative significance of liquefaction hazards to ground shaking hazards, Golder assumed that the hazard to the pipeline from liquefaction would be greater than that from strong ground shaking from an earthquake. Golder made this assumption, because most modern ductile, welded steel pipelines perform well under ground shaking conditions, but liquefaction related phenomena, such as lateral spreading, can create significant permanent ground deformation effects, and thus can induce much greater stress on a pipeline than shaking alone. Therefore, Golder used slightly lower PGA threshold values to define the low, moderate, and high liquefaction hazard levels than were used to define the strong ground shaking hazard levels. Golder also considered a depth to groundwater component in assessing liquefaction hazards, because areas with shallow groundwater are more likely to experience liquefaction than those with a deeper groundwater table.

2.2.4 Seismic (Surface Fault Rupture) Golder assessed potential surface fault rupture hazards primarily by reviewing available literature and mapping concerning the location of active (e.g., Quaternary) faults and seismic zones in Canada. In addition, Golder conducted an aerial reconnaissance on May 15 and 16, 2014 and May 20 and 21, 2014, to identify linear geomorphic features that could be representative of active or potentially active faults. As discussed in Section 4.2, no surface fault rupture hazards were identified for the Energy East pipeline. The hazard classifications for surface fault rupture summarized in Table 1 are based on, and modified from those used for the ANR system (Golder 2011).

EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 20 of 110

July 2014 14 14-00899

2.2.5 Subsidence (Karst) Some of the Energy East pipeline is underlain by bedrock known to be karst forming or potentially karst forming. Karst is a geological term referring to a type of topography that generally forms by the subsurface dissolution of carbonate rocks such as limestone and dolomite, and evaporite rocks such as gypsum and halite (salt)2. Features in karst topography include sinkholes, caves, and underground bodies of water. Karst topography represents a potential hazard to pipelines primarily because of the potential for the formation of sinkholes. Three types of sinkholes typically form in karst topography: dissolution, cover-subsidence, and cover-collapse. The descriptions below are summarized from Tihansky (1999):

Dissolution: All sinkholes are ultimately formed by dissolution, but “dissolution” sinkholes form when water percolates through relatively shallow soil cover to the karstic bedrock, or when groundwater in the bedrock is in contact with the atmosphere. Dissolution sinkholes typically form shallow pits or depressions on the surface which can fill with soil or water. Dissolution sinkholes are generally not a hazard to pipelines, because they rarely result in substantial subsidence or rapid collapse.

Cover-subsidence: Cover-subsidence sinkholes result from the formation of underground openings (i.e., caves), which intersect the surface of the bedrock. In cover-subsidence sinkholes, typically the overlying sediments gradually erode in the opening, causing a gradual settling or down-warping of the surface. These types of sinkholes typically occur in areas where there is some overburden, and the overburden is composed of a material that can easily erode, such as loose sand or silt. Continued down-warping can stress an overlying pipeline. The gradual down-warping may occur over months or years, and may be difficult to identify until the effects of the subsidence are felt by the pipeline or nearby structures. In some instances, a gradually subsiding area can also suddenly transition to a cover-collapse sinkhole, as described below.

Cover-collapse: Cover-collapse sinkholes form in a similar manner as cover-subsidence sinkholes, but result in the rapid collapse of the overburden, oftentimes in a period of hours. In cover-collapse sinkholes, the overlying overburden has some cohesiveness, and tends to erode by spalling, forming an arch shaped cavity in the sediments. Eventually, the cavity propagates to the surface, causing the sudden appearance of the sinkhole. If such a sinkhole opened underneath a pipeline, the pipeline would be unsupported, causing stress on the pipeline, and possible rupture if the sinkhole was large enough. This phenomenon can occur very quickly and is difficult to predict, but usually can be easily identified once it initiates.

2 Karst features that form in gypsum or salt are sometimes referred to as “pseudokarst.” In the strictest definition, karst refers to dissolution of carbonate bedrock such as limestone or dolomite.

EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 21 of 110

July 2014 15 14-00899

While the various types of sinkholes described above have very different manifestations, and represent varying levels of hazard to a pipeline, it can be difficult to distinguish between the three based solely on surface appearance as visible during an aerial reconnaissance or aerial photograph review. Therefore, for the purposes of this assessment, Golder has assumed that all possible sinkholes in the vicinity of the pipeline are potentially cover-collapse or cover-subsidence sinkholes.

Golder assessed subsidence hazards by reviewing previous mapping of bedrock geology, karst-prone areas, and karst features (e.g., sinkholes) compiled by government agencies, and the May 2014 helicopter reconnaissance. Individual karst features were identified through collection of publically available data and through an aerial photography and LiDAR review.

A list of references reviewed to evaluate karst hazards is provided in Sections 7.1 and 7.2.

Golder’s hazard classifications for karst subsidence hazards are as follows:

Low Hazard

Low potential hazard areas as those where carbonate or evaporite bedrock is exposed at the surface, or where they directly underlie unconsolidated surface deposits but where specific identification or mapping of karst features did not exist.

Justification: Areas underlain by potentially karst forming bedrock, such as limestone, dolomite, or gypsum, are areas where karst may be present; but are also areas where karst topography has not been identified, either during the aerial reconnaissance, or by the references reviewed for this project.

Moderate Hazard

Areas mapped by provincial or federal agencies as underlain by karst were classified as moderate karst hazard areas. Where karst mapping is not available, geologic units with documented karst features are included as areas with moderate potential karst hazards, when known features occur more than 160 m from the pipeline. Areas along the pipeline within 60 to 160 m from sinkholes or other karst phenomena indicating subsurface voids were also classified as moderate karst hazard areas.

Justification: Moderate karst hazard areas represent regional evidence of sinkholes or karst related subsidence, and are thus more likely to be impacted by karst phenomena than low karst hazard areas. Moderate karst hazard areas represent areas where future subsidence events could occur, or may already be in the process of formation, but are less likely to be affected than areas that already have observed evidence of karst related subsidence (i.e., high karst hazard areas).

EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 22 of 110

July 2014 16 14-00899

High Hazard

High karst hazard areas are those within 60 m of sinkholes or other karst phenomena indicating subsurface voids. High hazard areas are also those that have historically been impacted by sinkholes or other karst phenomena.

Justification: High karst hazard areas are where there is visible or mapped evidence of karst related subsidence. Evidence of past karst related subsidence indicates that these areas are where additional karst related subsidence could occur, with the probability likely higher than in areas mapped as moderate or low karst hazards. Additional subsidence could be by enlargement of existing sinkholes and other karst features; or it could occur as the formation of new sinkholes.

2.2.6 Subsidence (Underground Mining) Collapse or subsidence of underground voids left by underground mining can produce sinkholes or regional subsidence similar to those produced by karst. These sinkholes can result from collapse of overlying overburden into an underground mine cavern/void or the sudden or gradual collapse of the cavern itself (Whyatt and Varley 2008).

Like karst, sinkhole formation over underground mines can be very rapid, with sudden formation of an opening. Gradual regional subsidence of the ground surface, with only subtle physical identifiers, can also occur over underground mines. Similar to karst development, gradual subsidence can transition to rapid sinkhole formation.

To evaluate potential underground mining subsidence hazards, Golder relied on GIS-based, and hardcopy maps of underground mining areas. A list of references reviewed to evaluate underground mining hazards is provided in Sections 7.1 and 7.2.

Golder’s hazard classifications for potential underground mine related subsidence are as follows:

Low Hazard

Low underground mine related subsidence hazard areas are regions or areas where underground mining is occurring or has occurred, or are located in known resource zones where expansion of mining is planned or proposed, but are more than 160 m from mapped underground mines or related features, and there is no evidence of surface subsidence.

Justification: In evaluating potential subsidence from underground mines, the available references can range from well-located and well-defined maps of mining operations, to poorly located point data. The actual extent of underground mining can be larger than is depicted on the reviewed references because maps of mines can be incomplete, or in some cases, not available. Low underground mine hazard areas

EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 23 of 110

July 2014 17 14-00899

are areas where there is regional evidence of underground mining, but which are not specifically mapped as being underlain by a mine. Low mine hazard areas are also intended to capture areas where a pipeline could be potentially underlain by undocumented underground mining operations, or where future underground mining may occur.

Moderate Hazard

Moderate underground mine hazard areas are areas within 60 to 160 m of a mapped underground mine or underground mine related feature (such as an airshaft or mine entrance).

Justification: As discussed above in the underground mining low hazard section, maps of underground mines can be incomplete, or in some cases, nonexistent. Areas in close proximity to mapped underground mines are more likely to be underlain by undocumented underground mining operations. In addition, subsidence associated with underground mines may also affect the area outside the limits of the mapped mine area, depending on the severity and extent of the subsidence.

High Hazard

High underground mine hazard areas are defined as areas within 60 m of a mapped underground mine or underground mine related feature (such as an airshaft or mine entrance). High hazard areas also include those that have historically been impacted by subsidence of an underground mine.

Justification: Areas mapped as being underlain by underground mines have the highest probability of experiencing mine related subsidence. Subsidence from underground mines may also affect proximal areas to the mine. If additional information is collected on the condition of the underground mines, such as whether the mines have already collapsed, it may be appropriate to revise the classification of high mine hazard areas. Conversely, if new information indicates the presence of other underground mines in areas currently mapped as low or moderate hazards, it may be appropriate to add new high hazard areas.

2.2.7 Subsidence (Fluid Withdrawal) Withdrawal of underground fluids such as oil and gas or groundwater can cause subsidence over widespread areas. Examples of fluid withdrawal subsidence in North America include pumping of oil and gas that has caused up to 9 m of subsidence in Los Angeles County, California, and withdrawal of groundwater that has produced approximately 9 m of subsidence in Mexico City, Mexico and in the San Joaquin valley of California (Poland 1984; Galloway and Riley 1999). In some instances, subsidence as rapid as 15 centimetres per year has been recorded in the San Joaquin valley (Galloway and Riley 1999).

Noticeable or measurable fluid withdrawal subsidence occurs through drawdown of underground fluids in combination with geologic conditions favorable to subsidence (Poland 1984). Typically, fluid withdrawal

EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 24 of 110

July 2014 18 14-00899

subsidence occurs when the volume of fluids being removed from a subsurface aquifer is greater than the volume of fluids recharging the aquifer, and when soil or bedrock within the aquifer is compressible and consolidation occurs.

In most cases, subsidence from fluid withdrawal is spread over a large area, with little differential movement within the subsiding areas. In some instances, faults or fissures can form in response to fluid withdrawal, but these rarely experience more than 0.3 to 0.6 m of differential movement (Coplin and Galloway 1999; Pavelko et al. 1999). While gravity-dependent utilities, like sewer lines, or rigid structures such as homes or highways, can be damaged or rendered unusable, more flexible and pressurized utilities like natural gas pipelines typically feel little effect because the subsidence is usually spread out over several kilometres and the change in gradient does not affect pressurized systems.

To evaluate potential fluid withdrawal subsidence hazards for the Energy East pipeline, Golder relied on mapped locations of groundwater and oil and gas well fields. A list of the references consulted to evaluate fluid withdrawal subsidence is provided in Sections 7.1 and 7.2.

Golder’s hazard classifications for potential fluid withdrawal subsidence are as follows:

Low Hazard

Low potential fluid withdrawal subsidence hazards are those areas that contain well fields for oil and gas explorations, or areas with major groundwater aquifers, but with no reports of fluid withdrawal related subsidence.

Justification: Pumping of oil and gas or groundwater from subsurface aquifers is an essential precondition for fluid withdrawal subsidence. However, in most instances, pumping of underground fluids is not associated with noticeable or measurable subsidence because the local geologic conditions are not susceptible to subsidence. Golder has classified areas with oil and gas or known groundwater aquifers with no reports found of fluid withdrawal subsidence (at the time of this assessment) as low potential fluid withdrawal subsidence hazard areas. While subsidence could potentially occur in these areas, subsidence either is not occurring, is too small in magnitude to have been widely reported, or is located in too remote of an area to have been widely noticed.

Moderate Hazard

Moderate potential fluid withdrawal subsidence hazard areas are those areas that contain oil and gas or groundwater well fields with reports of fluid withdrawal subsidence, but with no reports of damage resulting from this subsidence.

EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 25 of 110

July 2014 19 14-00899

Justification: Areas with known or probable fluid withdrawal subsidence represent areas where this subsidence could potentially affect a pipeline. In densely populated areas, a lack of reports concerning damage resulting from this subsidence could indicate that the subsidence is relatively minor and is unlikely to significantly affect a pipeline. Conversely, in rural or remote areas, a lack of reports concerning damage could simply indicate that the area is too sparsely populated to have experienced widespread damage. Golder has classified these areas as moderate potential fluid withdrawal subsidence areas because they represent areas where a pipeline could potentially be affected, but the probability does not appear to be as significant as the high potential fluid withdrawal subsidence areas.

High Hazard

High potential fluid withdrawal subsidence hazard areas are those areas that contain oil and gas or groundwater well fields that have reported or documented evidence of damaging fluid withdrawal subsidence, such as subsidence that has damaged roads, structures, or utilities. The high hazard areas are also those with documented evidence of fluid withdrawal subsidence that has resulted in significant differential displacement, such as the formation of fissures or faults.

Justification: High potential fluid withdrawal subsidence hazard areas represent fluid withdrawal subsidence areas most likely to result in damage to a pipeline or associated facilities. While in most instances, fluid withdrawal subsidence is spread over a large area, the formation of features with significant differential displacement (such as fissures and faults), could result in stress on a pipeline.

2.2.8 Collapsible or Expansive Soils Collapsible or expansive soils may experience considerable volume change, usually related to an increase or decrease in water content. In some cases, significant expansion or contraction of a soil can damage buildings and infrastructure.

In the prairie provinces of Canada, soil containing clay minerals derived from erosion of shale formations can often exhibit collapsible or expansive behavior (Hamilton 1980; Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 2004; 2012). These clay minerals are commonly found within glacial soils, such as glaciolacustrine deposits, as well as in soils derived from erosion of glacial deposits, such as some alluvial or lacustrine deposits (Hamilton 1980). Some areas of expansive soils (i.e., soils of the Order Vertisolic [Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 2004; 2012]) are found in the vicinity of, and in some locations along the Energy East pipeline in Alberta. Volume changes in these expansive soils are reported to have caused damage to buildings and utilities in Winnipeg, Manitoba (Hamilton 1980).

Data from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (2004; 2012) were used to plot and assess the currently mapped extents of soils underlying the Energy East pipeline.

EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 26 of 110

July 2014 20 14-00899

Golder’s hazard classifications for collapsible or expansive soils are as follows:

Low Hazard

Low collapsible or expansive soil hazard areas are those areas along the alignment where mapped soils are not reported to have significant collapsible or expansive properties, and there is no reported damage to structures or infrastructure.

Justification: A national soil database that provides an estimated value of the collapsible and expansive properties for soil is not available in Canada. For Phase I Assessments that Golder has prepared for TransCanada’s pipelines in the United States, Golder referenced the US Department of Agriculture’s National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) database which provides estimates of soil expansive properties from low to moderate to high. For consistency with Phase I Assessments performed in the United States, Golder has classified all soil units along the Energy East pipeline as having low collapsible and expansive properties, provided there are no reports found of significant collapsible or expansive properties in the soil units. Soil collapse or expansion and associated structure damage could potentially occur in these areas; however, expansion of the soils is either not occurring, is too small in magnitude to have been widely reported, or is located in too remote of an area to have been widely noticed.

Moderate Hazard

Moderate collapsible or expansive soil hazards areas are those areas along the alignment where soils with reported expansive properties are mapped, but there is no reported damage to structures or infrastructure.

Justification: Golder has classified areas with expansive soils with no reports found of structural damages (at the time of this assessment) as moderate potential expansive soil hazard areas, because while damage could potentially occur in these areas, expansion of the soils is either not occurring, is too small in magnitude to have been widely reported, or is located in too remote of an area to have been widely noticed.

High Hazard

High collapsible or expansive soil hazards areas are those areas along the alignment where expansive soils are mapped, and where reports exist of structural damage associated with the expansive soil units.

Justification: Highly expansive soils have been found to cause structural damage to buildings and utilities; however, such occurrences are generally geographically isolated because they are also dependent on other factors such as climate, geology, and vegetation (Hamilton 1980). Golder classified areas with mapped expansive soils and reports of structural damage as high potential expansive soil

EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 27 of 110

July 2014 21 14-00899 hazard areas. This is because such soils are known to cause structural damage; thus, the soils represent areas where a pipeline could potentially be affected.

EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 28 of 110

July 2014 22 14-00899

3.0 PHYSIOGRAPHIC, GEOLOGIC, LANDSLIDE, AND SEISMIC SETTING The following sections (3.1 and 3.2) discuss the physiographic, geologic, landslide, and seismic setting for the Energy East pipeline. For ease of discussion, and because of commonalities in physiographic, geologic, landsliding, and seismic conditions, the discussion has been divided between the western portion of the alignment (the Alberta Centreline and Cromer Lateral), and the eastern portion of the alignment (the Ontario Centreline, Québec Segments 1 and 2 Centreline, and the Saint John Extension [New Brunswick]).

3.1 Western Portion

3.1.1 Physiography and Geology The western portion of the project is located in the Interior Plains Physiographic Region (Acton et al. 2013). The interior plains are characterized generally by low-relief terrain with steeper terrain found at major river crossings, such as where the Alberta segment crosses the Red Deer and South Saskatchewan Rivers (Acton et al. 2013). Surficial deposits underlying the western portion of the project mostly consist of glacial sediments, except for areas of alluvium at river crossings and scattered areas of lacustrine deposits. Glacial deposits underlying the Alberta Centreline and Cromer Lateral are glacial till, glaciolacustrine deposits, glaciofluvial deposits, morainal deposits, and some areas of glacial outwash (Shetsen 2002a, 2002b; SRC 2008; Matile and Keller 2004).

The bedrock underlying the surficial deposits consists of nearly flat-lying sedimentary rock of the Bearpaw Formation, Dinosaur Park, Oldman, and Foremost formations along the Alberta Segment (Prior et al. 2013), and the Riding Mountain Formation along the Cromer Lateral (Manitoba Innovation, Energy, and Mines 2013a). Because the bedrock units are mostly covered by a sequence of glacial deposits, they are rarely exposed at the surface along the Energy East pipeline. The Bearpaw Formation consists of shale and sandstone, and includes thin bentonite interbeds (Prior et al. 2013). The Dinosaur Park, Oldman, and Foremost formations consist of sandstone, siltstone, and mudstone, with coal found in the Dinosaur Park and Foremost formations (Prior et al 2013). The Riding Mountain Formation is composed of bentonitic siltstone and shale (Manitoba Innovation, Energy, and Mines 2013a).

Evaporite deposits containing bedded and laterally extensive deposits of halite, sylvite, and carnallite are found at varying depths along the Energy East pipeline. The deposits are Middle Devonian and commonly referred to as the Elk Point Group; the uppermost formation is called the Prairie Evaporite Formation. The Prairie Evaporite Formation contains well documented, widespread, consistent potash- bearing sub-members, which are the target of ongoing and prospective mining (NRE Ltd. and AAI 1997).

EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 29 of 110

July 2014 23 14-00899

3.1.2 Landslides Despite the overall low planar relief on the Interior Plains, landslides occur along the sides of valleys where creeks and rivers have incised down into geologic units that are susceptible to landslides. For similar projects for TransCanada performed by Golder, identified landslides are located at river and creek valleys where the slopes are generally steeper than the surrounding plains. These landslides were likely initiated as a result of stream erosion at the toe of valley slope. The landslides typically originate on the valley slopes as rotational or translational landslides, with semi-intact blocks in the landslide mass, but also often develop into earth flows with very little internal structure.

3.1.3 Seismicity Seismically, the western portion of the Energy East pipeline is located in a seismically quiescent region, based on historical seismicity and seismic modeling by Halchuk and Adams (2010). The projected 475- year return period PGA value for the western portion of the alignment is about 0.01 g (Figure 3).

3.2 Eastern Portion

3.2.1 Physiography and Geology The eastern portion of the Energy East pipeline is located within the Canadian Shield, St. Lawrence Lowlands, and Appalachians physiographic regions (Bostock 1967; Acton et al. 2013). The Ontario Centreline of the Energy East pipeline is located in the transition region from the Canadian Shield to the St. Lawrence Lowlands. The majority of the alignment in Ontario is located within a thick and continuous glacial till blanket, transitioning to mostly marine deposits of the Champlain Sea as the alignment approaches the Ontario/Québec border (Ontario Geological Survey 2010).

From the Ontario/Québec Border to a few kilometres east of Québec City, the alignment is located within the St. Lawrence Lowlands Physiographic Region (Québec Segment 1). This region is characterized by generally low relief and is underlain by marine silty clay to clayey silt deposits originating from the late glacial Champlain Sea (13,100 to 10,600 years before present, [yBP]) which extended along the Ottawa River to about Pembroke, Ontario, and along the St. Lawrence River from about Brockville, Ontario to about Québec City (L’Heureux et al. 2014). The Champlain Sea also extended from the Laurentian foothills to the north, to the Appalachian foothills to the southeast, and the Canadian Shield to the southwest. In some areas, alluvial deposits of stratified silt, sand, clay, and gravel, originating from floodplains, deltas and fan deposits are present above the marine deposits (L’Heureux et al. 2014).

To the east of Québec City, the Energy East pipeline (Québec Segment 2) transitions into and is generally underlain by a till blanket until about Rivière-du-Loup, Québec, where it enters into the Appalachian geologic region. The pipeline alignment into Rivière-du-Loup is expected to encounter fine grained marine deposits. Through the remaining portion of the Gaspe Peninsula, the Energy East

EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 30 of 110

July 2014 24 14-00899

pipeline is located within the Appalachian Physiographic Region (Bostock 1967) and the subsurface conditions are expected to consist of shallow bedrock covered by a thin glacial till veneer, with some areas of bedrock outcrop at the surface (Rampton 1984).

From the Québec/New Brunswick border (i.e., the Saint John Extension) to the end of the project at the Bay of Fundy near the Saint John, New Brunswick area, the subsurface conditions are mapped as a glacial till blanket with some areas of thinner glacial till veneer overlying bedrock, or with bedrock directly at the surface (Rampton 1984; Pronk and Allard 2003). Isolated lacustrine and organic deposits (such as peat) are also present along the alignment (Rampton 1984). The bedrock geology in New Brunswick crossed by the alignment generally consists of sedimentary bedrock, including some localized areas of carbonate bedrock in northwestern New Brunswick. The alignment also crosses bedrock mapped as intrusive igneous and volcanic (New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources 2008).

3.2.2 Landslides The Champlain Sea marine deposits that underlay much of the St. Lawrence Lowlands are well known in the geological and engineering literature to be highly prone to the formation of landslides (e.g., Potvin et al. 2014; Demers et al. 2014; Torrance 2012). These marine deposits are variously referred to as “sensitive clays,” “quick clays,” “Champlain Sea clay,” or “Leda clay” (e.g., Potvin et al. 2014; Torrance 2012, Lefebvre 1996; Quinn 2009). For this report, the term “Champlain Sea marine deposits” is used because this term is generally consistent with mapping of surficial deposits produced both by the Ontario Geological Survey (2010) and the Gouvernement du Québec Ministère des Forêts Service des inventaires forestiers [QMF] (various) and is simpler to apply for this Phase I Assessment.

Most of the landslides that form in these marine deposits are relatively small, rotational landslides (length of 10 m or less), but some very large, rapid landslides can also occur, with lengths of up to 1,340 m (Potvin et al. 2014; Demers et al. 2014). For the purposes of this assessment and for simplicity of discussion, these landslides are simply referred to as “large” landslides, and are defined as landslides that exceed twice the height of the original slope (or more than 40 m for any slope of 20 m or higher), consistent with the definition supplied by Demers et al. (2014). Most landslides in Champlain Sea marine deposits originate where watercourses have incised and eroded into these deposits, particularly on the cut banks of meanders (Demers et al. 2014; Potvin et al. 2014). Landslides also occur on cliffs formed by ancient marine terraces (Demers et al. 2014).

Quinn et al. (2011) concluded that large landslides tend to occur near where other large landslides have previously occurred, stating that 91 percent of all large landslides occur within 500 m of another large landslide (based on a literature review). Quinn (2009) concluded that most large landslides occur along deeply incised drainage features with high banks, and are more common along steeper (i.e., higher gradient) intermediate size rivers and streams, very rarely occurring on small (such as an unnamed

EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 31 of 110

July 2014 25 14-00899

intermittent stream) or large drainages (such as the St. Lawrence River). Quinn et al. (2011) also concluded that on average, between two and 25 large landslides occur per year in the Champlain Sea marine deposits in all of Québec and Ontario.

Common natural triggers for landslides in Champlain Sea marine deposits include erosion at the toe of the slope from watercourses, and higher water tables from spring melt and precipitation events (L’Heureux et al. 2014). Smaller, rotational landslides can sometimes precede or trigger large landslides (Quinn et al. 2012). Although less common, landslides within the Champlain Sea marine deposits have also been triggered by seismic events when earthquakes have had magnitudes exceeding approximately 5.9 to 6.0 (Aylsworth et al. 2000; Aylsworth and Lawrence 2003; Quinn et al. 2012). Human activity has been the cause of some recorded landslide events within the Champlain Sea marine deposits. Some of these activities include excavations at the toe of slopes, filling at the crest of slopes, blasting, and/or providing sources of water at the crest of the slopes which contributes to raising the water table (i.e., pools, septic fields, drainage swales, etc.) (L’Heureux et al. 2014; Demers et al. 2014).

3.2.3 Seismicity The portion of the alignment in Ontario and Québec is located within or near three regions of known earthquake/seismic zones: the Western Québec Seismic Zone (WQSZ), the Charlevoix Seismic Zone (CSZ), and the Northern Appalachians Seismic Zone (NASZ). Figure 4 summarizes the distribution and pattern of the 475-year return period PGA values along the Energy East pipeline, based on seismic hazard modeling by Halchuk and Adams (2010). Also plotted on Figure 4 are the location of historical earthquakes of magnitude 4.0 and larger, along with the known seismic zones discussed below. The WQSZ and the CSZ are associated with the Saint Lawrence Rift System (SLRS).

The SLRS, located in the St. Lawrence Valley, is composed of numerous, individual, mostly northeast- striking, normal-slip faults and fault zones that have been reactivated since their initial formation more than 500 million years ago (Mazzotti 2007; Tremblay and Lemieux 2001; Lemeiux et al. 2000; Wheeler 1995). Individual surface faults of the SLRS are devoid of geomorphic and geologic evidence of active surface displacement (Lamontagne et al. 2004).

The WQSZ covers a large region that encompasses the Ottawa River Valley from Montreal to Temiscaming, as well as the Laurentians and eastern Ontario (Figure 4). Earthquakes that occur in the WQSZ are concentrated in two primary sub-zones: one along the Ottawa River Valley, which is underlain by the Ottawa-Bonnechere graben; and the second, an apparently more active axis of seismicity stretching northwest from Montreal to Maniwaki (NRC 2009c). Significant historical earthquakes within the WQSZ (i.e., magnitude > 5.0) have included the September 16, 1732, local (Richter) magnitude (ML) 5.8 earthquake beneath Montreal located within about 18 km of the Energy East pipeline; the

November 1, 1935, moment magnitude (MW) 6.2 Temiscaming earthquake (the largest recorded

EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 32 of 110

July 2014 26 14-00899

earthquake in the WQSZ), located about 360 km northwest of the Energy East pipeline (not shown on

Figure 4); and the September 5, 1944, MW 5.6 Cornwall earthquake located about 8 km southwest of the Energy East pipeline (NRC 2013).

The CSZ is the most seismically active region in eastern Canada (NRC 2013). It straddles the St. Lawrence River Valley, and based on the seismic zone delineation of Atkinson (2006), is located about 20 km downstream of Québec City (Figure 4). The SLRS underlies the CSZ, and is the likely source of earthquakes in this seismic zone. The historical earthquake epicenters in the CSZ are concentrated in the La Malbaie and Rivière-du-Loup areas (NRC 2013). The CSZ has had five historical earthquakes of magnitude 6.0 or larger (NRC 2013), and about 13 of magnitude 5.0 or larger (Ouellet 1997). The largest recorded historical earthquake was the February 5, 1663, magnitude 7.0 Charlevoix earthquake (NRC 2013), which was located about 35 km east of the Energy East pipeline (Figure 4).

The NASZ provides an additional source of seismicity for the portion of the pipeline in New Brunswick, but the projected 475-year return period PGA values for the portion of the alignment in New Brunswick have a maximum value of about 0.07 g at the New Brunswick/Québec border; thus, the contribution to the seismic hazard for the Energy East pipeline from the NASZ is relatively low (Halchuk and Adams 2010; NRC 2013). The largest historical earthquake in the NASZ was a magnitude 5.7 that occurred near Miramichi, New Brunswick in 1982, approximately 65 km north from the Energy East pipeline (NRC 2013; Figure 4).

EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 33 of 110

July 2014 27 14-00899

4.0 RESULTS In the following sections, the results for each hazard type are summarized by providing a brief discussion along with an overview map (if applicable) that illustrates the geomorphic distribution of the relevant hazard types. The results of the Phase I Assessment are also summarized in Table 2 (summary and recommendations for moderate and high landslides), Table 3 (summary of seismic hazards), and Table 4 (summary of subsidence and collapsible/expansive soils). Detailed strip maps showing the location of landslide hazards are provided in Appendix A. Detailed mapping of all assessed geologic hazards has been provided to TransCanada separately as a GIS database.

In the summary discussions that follow, it should be noted that the hazard classifications are relative to each hazard. For example, a portion of the pipeline underlain by soils classified as a “high” hazard with respect to collapsible or expansive soils does not necessarily mean that the pipeline is at a high potential for damage in these areas, but rather that the hazard from collapsible or expansive soils is higher than in areas identified as low or moderate hazards. In the case of high hazard landslide areas further investigation and/or monitoring is likely needed. The methods used to identify and classify each hazard are presented in Section 2.

4.1 Landslide Hazards Based on the results of this Phase I Assessment, 11 high hazard landslide areas, 22 moderate hazard landslide areas, and 69 low hazard landslide areas were identified. Table 2 provides summary descriptions, locations, and recommendations for the individual identified moderate and high hazard landslide areas. Figures 5, 6, and 7 provide overview maps showing the distribution of the identified landslide hazards. Strip maps depicting the locations of the individual landslide hazards are provided in Appendix A. The locations for the low hazard landslide areas are provided on Figures 5, 6, and 7, the accompanying strip maps, and in the GIS files provided to TransCanada. Summaries of the landslide hazard results by pipeline segment are provided below.

4.1.1 Alberta Centreline No moderate or high landslides were identified for the Alberta Centreline. Two low landslide hazard locations were identified, one at the crossing of the South Saskatchewan River and one at the crossing of the Red Deer River.

4.1.2 Cromer Lateral No landslide hazards were identified for the Cromer Lateral.

4.1.3 Ontario Centreline Two moderate landslide hazards (one M1 and one M3) were identified for the Ontario Centreline. The M1 landslide (EE-LS-230), located at a small stream crossing incised into Champlain Sea marine deposits,

EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 34 of 110

July 2014 28 14-00899

has evidence of possible, smaller rotational landslides, but these landslides appeared from the remote sensing review to be too small/shallow to affect a pipeline. The M3 landslide (EE-LS-229) is located on a portion of the alignment in proximity to the Rivière à la Graisse with possible evidence of past, large landslides, and may be within the retrogression distance of a future large landslide. No low or high hazard landslide areas were identified for the Ontario Centreline.

4.1.4 Québec Segment 1 All 11 of the identified high hazard landslide areas are found on the banks of 10 river and stream crossings (two of the high hazard landslide areas are located at the same crossing) incised into Champlain Sea marine deposits on Québec Segment 1 between approximately KP 177 and KP 335 and the Québec Segment 1 lateral to Lévis. At all of these crossings, Golder observed evidence of current or historical landslide activity during the desktop review and/or the helicopter reconnaissance. River and stream crossings where high hazard landslides were identified include: Petite Rivière du Loup (EE-LS-245), Rivière Chacoura (EE-LS-247), Rivière du Loup (EE-LS-248), Rivière Champlain (EE-LS-265), Rivière Batiscan (EE-LS-266), Rivière Sainte-Anne (EE-LS-268), Rivière Portneuf (EE-LS-272), Rivière Aulneuse (EE-LS-278), Rivière Penin (EE-LS-284), and Rivière Etchemin (EE-LS-287 and EE-LS-288). The characteristics of the individual high hazard landslide areas are described in Table 2.

Seventeen of the moderate hazard landslides are found on Québec Segment 1, including five M1 type landslide hazard areas, eleven M2 type landslide hazard areas, and one M3 type hazard area. The M1 type landslide hazard areas are found on the banks of streams incised into Champlain Sea marine deposits with evidence of recent or historical, but apparently shallow, landslide activity. The M2 type landslide hazard areas are locations where a government agency has mapped a zone of landslide risk (or similar terminology), but where Golder did not observe evidence of landslides during the LiDAR review or helicopter reconnaissance. The M3 type landslide hazard area (EE-LS-274) may be within the retrogression distance of a future large landslide originating at the bank of the Rivière aux Pommes.

Six low hazard landslide areas were identified for Québec Segment 1.

4.1.5 Québec Segment 2 Three moderate hazard landslide areas were identified for Québec Segment 2, all M2 type (i.e., government agency mapped). Sixteen low hazard landslide areas were identified, and no high hazard landslide areas were identified for Québec Segment 2.

4.1.6 Saint John Extension No high or moderate landslide hazard areas were identified for the Saint John Extension. The majority of the low hazard landslide areas (45 out of the 69 total) identified for this assessment are located on the

EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 35 of 110

July 2014 29 14-00899

Saint John Extension, because the topography is generally hillier and steeper than other portions of the alignment.

4.2 Seismic Hazards Based on the results of this assessment, the most significant seismic hazards for the Energy East pipeline and associated surface facilities are found in parts of Québec. The results of the seismic hazard assessment are summarized in Table 3 and shown on Figures 3, 4, 8, and 9. Projected 475-year return period PGA values for the Energy East pipeline in Ontario and Québec range from a low of about 0.08 g southeast of Québec City to a high of approximately 0.35 g near Saint-Jean-Port-Joli, Québec, based on seismic hazard modeling by Halchuk and Adams (2010) (Figure 4). The threat from seismic activity in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and New Brunswick appears to be low, based on the reviewed references. Projected 475-year return period PGA values are very low in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba at about 0.01 g (Halchuk and Adams 2010), and range from about 0.04 g to about 0.07 g in New Brunswick (Halchuk and Adams 2010).

Relatively few areas of the Energy East pipeline are underlain by potentially liquefiable soil. Only 0.04 percent of the alignment is underlain by areas mapped as a high liquefaction hazard (all in Québec), 0.77 percent of the alignment is underlain by areas mapped as a moderate liquefaction hazard (also all in Québec), and 1.03 percent of the alignment is underlain by areas mapped as a low liquefaction hazard. The relative paucity of potentially liquefiable soils is because most of the rivers crossed by the alignment are incised into glacial deposits or bedrock, and few have large floodplains; therefore, there are few areas where extensive areas of loose soils with a shallow groundwater table are present.

Consistent with prior work by others (as discussed in Section 2.2.4), Golder did not find evidence of faults crossing or near the alignment with surface rupture expression during the desktop review, the helicopter reconnaissance, or the literature review. Similar results were found during Golder’s prior review of possible seismic hazards for TransCanada’s Trans Québec and Maritimes System (TQM) in 2009 (Golder 2010), which parallels or is located within a few km for about 280 km of the Energy East pipeline alignment in Québec. Summaries of the seismic hazard results by pipeline segment are provided below.

4.2.1 Alberta Centreline Projected 475-year return period PGA are at about 0.01 g for the Alberta Centreline, based on the modeling by Halchuk and Adams (2010) (i.e., low ground shaking hazard area). About 1.9 percent of this segment is underlain by areas mapped as a low liquefaction hazard. No moderate or high ground shaking hazard areas or liquefaction hazard areas were identified.

EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 36 of 110

July 2014 30 14-00899

4.2.2 Cromer Lateral Projected 475-year return period PGA are at about 0.01 g for the Cromer Lateral (i.e., low ground shaking hazard area). About 5.4 percent of this segment is underlain by areas mapped as a low liquefaction hazard. No moderate or high ground shaking hazard areas or liquefaction hazard areas were identified.

4.2.3 Ontario Centreline Projected 475-year return period PGA ranges from 0.09 g to 0.12 g for the Ontario Centreline (i.e., low ground shaking hazard area). No moderate or high ground shaking hazard areas or liquefaction hazard areas were identified for this segment.

4.2.4 Québec Segment 1 Projected 475-return period PGA ranges from 0.08 g to 0.12 g for Québec Segment 1 (i.e., low ground shaking hazard area). Approximately 0.05 percent of this segment is underlain by areas mapped as a low liquefaction hazard and 2.73 percent by areas mapped as a moderate liquefaction hazard. No moderate or high ground shaking hazard areas or high liquefaction hazard areas were identified.

4.2.5 Québec Segment 2 The most significant seismic hazards for the Energy East pipeline are located along Québec Segment 2. Projected 475-return period PGA ranges from 0.07 g to 0.35 g for Québec Segment 2 (i.e., low to high ground shaking hazard areas). About 0.76 percent of this segment is underlain by areas mapped as a high liquefaction hazard, 0.52 percent by areas mapped as a moderate liquefaction hazard, and 0.2 percent by areas mapped as a low liquefaction hazard.

4.2.6 Saint John Extension Projected 475-year return period PGA ranges from 0.04 g to 0.07 g for the Saint John Extension (i.e., low ground shaking hazard area). About 1.25 percent of this segment is underlain by areas mapped as a low liquefaction hazard. No moderate or high ground shaking hazard areas or liquefaction hazard areas were identified.

4.3 Subsidence Hazards The overall threat to the Energy East pipeline from subsidence (i.e., from karst terrain, fluid withdrawal, and collapse of underground mine workings) appears to be low along the majority of the alignment, based on the references reviewed for this project. These references are listed in Sections 7.1 and 7.2. The results of the subsidence hazard assessment are summarized in Table 4 and shown on Figures 10, 11, and 12.

EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 37 of 110

July 2014 31 14-00899

4.3.1 Karst Portions of the alignment in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Québec, and New Brunswick are underlain by carbonate and evaporite bedrock (Manitoba Innovation, Energy, and Mines 2014a; Mossop and Shetsen 1994; Ontario Geological Survey 2011; New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources 2008; Moseley 1996; Atlas Géoscientifique du Québec 2014). Carbonate and evaporite bedrock in some areas can be associated with the formation of karst, but with the exception of some areas in Ontario (classified as moderate hazard karst subsidence areas), none of the references reviewed for this project discussed or identified karst in these areas, and no evidence of karst topography was observed during Golder’s review of aerial photographs and LiDAR; thus, these areas have been classified as low hazard karst subsidence areas.

4.3.1.1 Alberta Centreline and Cromer Lateral Based on available regional-scale geologic maps, Middle Devonian evaporite deposits of the Elk Point Group and the Upper Devonian dolomite deposits of the Wabamun Group are found at varying depths across eastern Alberta, much of Saskatchewan, and western Manitoba (Mossop and Shetsen 1994). The Elk Point Group underlies the entire portion of the project in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba at depth. Where these deposits underlie the alignment, they are located at depths that range from approximately 100 m to over 1,000 m below ground surface. In some areas of Saskatchewan (e.g., Lake Howe and Saskatoon), large karst features exist where evaporites dissolved approximately 1,000 m below the surface and resulted in collapse structures that extended to ground surface (Ford and Williams 2007). The Wabamun Group overlies the Elk Point Group and underlies approximately the southern half of the alignment in Alberta (Alberta Centreline), and all of the alignment in Saskatchewan and Manitoba (Cromer Lateral). No surficial evidence of karst was observed during the remote sensing review or helicopter reconnaissance. These deposits have been classified as low hazard karst subsidence areas.

4.3.1.2 Ontario Centreline The portions of the alignment in Ontario from approximately KP 11 to KP 28 and KP 72 to KP 86 are mapped as areas of potential karst (Brunton and Dodge 2008) and have been classified as moderate hazard karst subsidence areas. During the review of available LiDAR and aerial photographs for this assessment and during the May, 2014 helicopter reconnaissance, no surficial evidence of karst was observed along the alignment, such as possible sinkholes. The remaining portions of the alignment in Ontario are underlain by carbonate bedrock, but do not appear to be associated with the surficial formation of karst features. The areas underlain by carbonate bedrock have been classified as low hazard karst subsidence areas. As mentioned above, portions of the alignment have been mapped as areas of potential karst by others (i.e., Brunton and Dodge 2008); however, the overall threat from karst appears to be low, since no sinkholes were observed on or near the alignment during this assessment.

EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 38 of 110

July 2014 32 14-00899

4.3.1.3 Québec Segment 1 and Québec Segment 2 Golder did not identify any mapped karst in the immediate vicinity of the Energy East pipeline in Québec (i.e., Québec Segments 1 and 2), and no surficial evidence of karst was observed during the remote sensing review or helicopter reconnaissance. Portions of the alignment in Québec are underlain by carbonate bedrock, but these do not appear to be associated with the surficial formation of karst features. The areas underlain by carbonate bedrock have been classified as low hazard karst subsidence areas.

4.3.1.4 Saint John Extension Golder did not identify any mapped karst in the immediate vicinity of the Energy East pipeline in New Brunswick. However, some karst generating rocks from the Mississippian Period were identified northeast of the Energy East pipeline in southern New Brunswick. Karst generating rocks were also identified within the Plaster Rock Basin, located east of the Energy East pipeline in northwestern New Brunswick. The Mississippian deposits of the Windsor Group host the thickest and most widespread evaporite deposits in eastern North America (Webb 2010), which are known to be karst generating. Karst caverns formed within the Windsor Group have been mapped in Kings and Albert Counties of New Brunswick. The closest known caverns in the Windsor Group to the Energy East pipeline include Kitts Cave located near Hillsdale, New Brunswick (about 15 km northeast of the proposed alignment) and Howes Cave located in Saint John, New Brunswick (about 10 km northwest of the proposed alignment) (Thompson 1976).

In northwestern New Brunswick, deposits of the Early Carboniferous Mabou Group are located in the center of the Plaster Rock Basin (Webb 2001), which are also considered to be karst generating. However, no indication or mention of caves, sinkholes, or karst was found in the available literature. The proposed alignment will be located at the western fringes of the Plaster Rock Basin.

During the review of available LiDAR and aerial photographs for this assessment and during the May, 2014 helicopter reconnaissance, no surficial evidence of karst was observed along this segment, such as possible sinkholes. Portions of the alignment underlain by carbonate and evaporite bedrock in New Brunswick have been classified as low hazard karst subsidence areas.

4.3.2 Fluid Withdrawal The Energy East pipeline appears to have a low potential to be affected by fluid withdrawal subsidence and the only areas identified that may be susceptible to fluid withdrawal subsidence are found in the vicinity of the Alberta Centreline and Cromer Lateral. The Energy East pipeline is located in the vicinity of several oil and gas fields in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba (i.e., the Alberta Centreline and Cromer Lateral) (Government of Alberta, Alberta Energy 2014; Manitoba Innovation, Energy, and Mines 2011; Mossop and Shetsen 1994; Saskatchewan Industry and Resources 2003). However, no areas of

EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 39 of 110

July 2014 33 14-00899

reported or apparent fluid withdrawal subsidence were identified in the vicinity of the Energy East pipeline, based on Golder’s search and review of available references for this Phase I Assessment.

Golder has classified the hazard to portions of the Energy East pipeline from subsidence due to fluid withdrawal as low, because although the alignment crosses through several oil and gas fields, there is a lack of evidence of currently existing or developing subsidence features associated with any of these regions.

4.3.3 Mining Based on available data, Golder did not identify any active or historic mines in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, or Québec (Saskatchewan Energy and Resources 2013; Mossop and Shetsen 1994; Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines 2013; Ontario Prospectors Association 2012; MRN 2013a; MRN 2013b; MRN 2013c; MRN 2013d; MRN 2013e; MRN 2013f) in the vicinity of the alignment. The only mining hazards that were identified are present in the vicinity of the Cromer Lateral and the Saint John Extension.

Evaporite deposits containing bedded and laterally extensive deposits of halite, sylvite, and carnallite are found at varying depths along the Energy East pipeline. The deposits are Middle Devonian in age and commonly referred to as the Elk Point Group; the uppermost formation is called the Prairie Evaporite Formation. The Prairie Evaporite Formation contains well documented, widespread, consistent potash- bearing sub-members, which are the target of ongoing and prospective mining (NRE Ltd. and AAI 1997).

Evidence for catastrophic failures of evaporite mines exists within Saskatchewan. Between 1962 and the end of 1989, 21 mining induced seismic events with magnitudes between 2.3 and 3.6 were recorded. The events are likely attributable to failure and/or rupture in the competent bedrock overlying mined voids (Whyatt and Varley 2008). Well documented cases of subsidence resulting from solution mining have been reported (e.g., Centre of Mining Environment 2006; Virginia Division of Mineral Resources 2007); however, no areas of reported subsidence were identified in the vicinity of the Energy East pipeline, based on Golder’s search and review of available references for this Phase I Assessment.

4.3.3.1 Cromer Lateral The Energy East pipeline crosses mapped potash withdrawal fields in western Manitoba (i.e., the Cromer Lateral) (Manitoba Innovation, Energy, and Mines 2014b). Areas within 60 m of each field were classified as high underground mining subsidence hazard areas, and areas between 60 and 160 m of each field were classified as moderate underground mining subsidence hazard areas. Based on the data reviewed, Golder did not identify any other types of active or historic mines in Manitoba (Manitoba Innovation, Energy, and Mines 2014c) in the vicinity of the alignment.

EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 40 of 110

July 2014 34 14-00899

4.3.3.2 Saint John Extension The Energy East pipeline is located in the vicinity of two underground mines in New Brunswick near KP 162 of the Saint John Extension (New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources 2014). No evidence of subsidence from underground mine workings has been observed at these locations. The area within 60 m of each mine was classified as a high underground mining subsidence hazard area, and the area between 60 and 160 m of each mine was classified as a moderate underground mining subsidence hazard area.

Two coal fields were also identified in the vicinity of the Saint John Extension in New Brunswick (Canada Department of Mines 1914). Although no active or abandoned mines in these fields were identified in the vicinity of the Energy East pipeline, underground mining may have occurred historically in these regions or may occur in the future; thus, the two coal fields were assigned as low underground mining subsidence hazard areas.

4.4 Collapsible or Expansive Soils Based on the references reviewed for this assessment, there are few areas of reported collapsible/expansive soils along the Energy East pipeline. Golder classified approximately 8 km of the Energy East pipeline in Alberta (i.e., the Alberta Centreline) as having a moderate collapsible and expansive soil hazard (Figures 10 and 11 and Table 4) because of the presence of soils of the Vertisolic Order, which are characterized by shrinking and swelling clays (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 2004), but where there is no reported damage to structures or infrastructure. No high collapsible and expansive soil hazards were identified along the Energy East pipeline. The remaining portions of the project have been classified as low collapsible or expansive soil hazard areas because there are no reports of soils (according to the references reviewed) with significant collapsible or expansive properties, and there is no reported damage to structures or infrastructure.

EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 41 of 110

July 2014 35 14-00899

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS In this section, recommended actions for each of the hazard types discussed in this report are provided. The recommendations are both general and tailored to the hazard type, hazard classification and location, as appropriate. In addition, the recommendations take into account Golder’s qualitative understanding of the relative severity of the hazards to the pipeline. The recommendations are also summarized in Table 2 (summary of high and moderate hazard landslide areas) and Table 5 (recommendations for all geohazards).

5.1 Landslide Hazards Potential landslide hazards that were identified in the Phase I Assessment for the Energy East pipeline include 11 “high” hazard landslides, 22 “moderate” hazard landslides, and 69 “low” hazard landslides. General recommendations for each category of hazard classification are described briefly in the following sections. Specific recommendations for individual landslides are provided in Table 2, except for “low” hazard landslides identified solely on the basis of slope steepness (i.e., slopes steeper than 25 percent with no observed landslide indicators).

5.1.1 High Hazard Landslides High hazard landslide areas are those areas where the alignment or ROW is projected to cross a slope with existing evidence of past landslides where construction triggered or naturally occurring landslides may be large/deep enough to affect the pipeline and/or to impact third-parties, such as water bodies, other infrastructure, and buildings. As summarized in Section 4.1., all of the high hazard landslide areas identified for this assessment are located within Champlain Sea marine deposits at river crossings on Québec Segment 1 between approximately KP 177 and KP 335 and the Québec Segment 1 lateral to Lévis. The purpose of the recommended actions summarized in this section is to initiate the first steps in an approach that will ultimately aim to reduce the potential for construction or post-construction landslides to impact the pipeline or third-parties. It is Golder’s understanding that at most crossings in Champlain Sea marine deposits, either conventional trenching methods or horizontal directional drilling (HDD) methods will be used to install the pipeline.

Accordingly, Golder recommends that site-specific ground reconnaissance (i.e., a Phase II Assessment) be performed by a qualified geologist or geotechnical engineer experienced in landslide characterization and evaluation to prepare detailed evaluations of the geomorphic characteristics of all potential high hazard landslide areas including the relative age of the landslides, their movement mechanism and geometry (and thus likely depth), and rate of movement (if deductible). The information collected during these ground reconnaissances will be used as input into site-specific, detailed construction designs intended to minimize the disturbance to the landslide hazard area and reduce the potential for construction or post-construction landslides to impact third-parties or the pipeline (if needed). For crossings where the planned method of installation is HDD, the information collected can be used to

EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 42 of 110

July 2014 36 14-00899

prepare contingency designs in the event the HDD is not feasible (e.g., due to the topographic or geologic conditions) or has issues during construction.

It should also be noted that some of these high hazard landslide areas may also be areas where the MTQ has previously conducted investigations or completed prior remedial activities. Accordingly, it is recommended to consult with the MTQ to see if they have additional information that may be useful for project design and construction.

5.1.2 Moderate Hazard Landslides As summarized in Section 2.2.1, moderate hazard landslides are areas meeting one of the following criteria, divided into M1, M2, and M3 categories for ease of discussion: M1) Stream crossings with evidence of recent or historical landslide activity, but where the river banks and/or the landslides appeared to be too shallow/low (nominally less than 5 m in height and less than 15 m in length) to affect the pipeline; M2) Areas identified by an MRC as a zone of landslide risk (or similar terminology), but where no evidence of landslides was observed during either the helicopter reconnaissance or the desktop review; and M3) Areas where the alignment is in the vicinity of a stream with past evidence of landslides and may be within the propagation distance of a large landslide, should one form (using the criteria described in Section 2.2.1.).

For areas that are ranked as moderate hazard landslides, there is some uncertainty regarding the presence/existence of a landslide and whether (and/or the extent to which) the landslide could affect the proposed pipeline. Therefore, some moderate landslide hazard areas are recommended for a Phase II Assesssment. For moderate hazard landslide areas, Golder recommends that TransCanada consider conducting site-specific ground reconnaissances at representative M1, M2 and M3 moderate hazard landslides (i.e., 6 to 10 moderate hazard locations in a limited Phase II Assessment).

The purpose of these representative ground reconnaissances would be to field-calibrate (i.e., spot-check) the observations and conclusions made during the performance of the Phase I Assessment and to evaluate if further observations and assessments are appropriate at all remaining or selected remaining moderate hazard landslide locations. For the representative M1 landslides, the reconnaissance would be to confirm that the landslides are in fact shallower than the proposed pipeline, and thus will not affect the pipeline. For the representative M2 landslides, the reconnaissance would be verify the existence or absence of landslides across the proposed pipeline and re-classify the hazard accordingly. For representative M3 landslides, the reconnaissance would be to evaluate the potential for significant retrogression.

EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 43 of 110

July 2014 37 14-00899

5.1.3 Low Hazard Landslides For the purposes of this assessment, low hazard landslide areas represent steep slope areas (i.e., steeper than 25 percent [14 degrees]) where no landslide hazards were identified by Golder during the helicopter reconnaissance and desktop review, or by others (e.g., the MTQ). For these areas, no further evaluation is recommended at this time (from a landslide perspective) unless further information is collected that indicates there may be landslide hazards within these locations.

It is Golder’s experience that the majority of post-construction landslides that form on a ROW and that affect third parties (such as streams and private property), are the result of improperly placed fill (i.e., fill failures) and/or poor surface and trench drainage installation on steep slopes. During the construction planning and implementation phases, it will be important that best construction/management practices (BMPs) are used to reduce the potential for post-construction fill failures.

Examples of such practices include minimizing the size of cuts and fills, not stockpiling fill on steep slopes, capturing and discharging surface and subsurface water at the base of the slope or off the ROW, not filling preexisting drainages, and to the extent possible, performing construction in steep slope areas during the late spring, summer, and early fall months. Following construction, it is recommended that periodic visual inspections be conducted to evaluate the stability of construction on steep slope areas, such as during an annual aerial reconnaissance. It is also important to note that post-construction fill failures can also occur on slopes less steep than 25 percent.

5.2 Seismic Hazards Much of the alignment in Québec is located in the vicinity of two known seismic zones, the WQSZ and the CSZ. It is important to note that prior studies have found that modern high strength steel pipelines with electric arc-welded joints (such as the Energy East pipeline), essentially remain undamaged from seismic wave propagation effects at Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) 7 or less, roughly equivalent to ground shaking up to 0.34 g, which is close to the maximum PGA for the 10 percent exceedance in 50 years scenario for the Energy East pipeline (USGS 2013; O’Rourke and Liu 1999). Accordingly, no specific mitigation measures are likely needed for the proposed buried pipeline itself to account for seismic shaking hazards; thus, no further investigation is needed at this time to evaluate seismic shaking hazards with respect to the pipeline, unless further information becomes available that changes the conclusions of this report (i.e., it does not appear that a Phase II Seismic Assessment is necessary).

Potential effects to surface facilities from seismic shaking hazards can be mitigated through site-specific investigation, engineering design and proper construction. Specific analysis and engineering for surface facilities are being performed separately by TransCanada; thus, recommendations for investigation, design and construction of surface facilities are not included in this document.

EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 44 of 110

July 2014 38 14-00899

In the event of an earthquake of magnitude 5 or greater in the vicinity of the Energy East pipeline, Golder recommends that the ROW (assuming construction has been completed by this time) be inspected for evidence of impacts or damage. This inspection should focus on: 1) surface facilities, and 2) areas underlain by liquefaction susceptible soils (identified as “low,” “moderate,” and “high” liquefaction hazard areas), including areas adjacent to stream and river crossings (landslide hazard areas) which are the areas that generally will be most likely to be affected by an earthquake.

5.3 Subsidence Hazards Based on the results of this assessment, the potential for subsidence hazards to affect the Energy East pipeline appears to be generally low, but not non-existent. Formation of subsidence hazards, by their nature, can be difficult to predict and identify, since most of the genesis and development of a subsidence feature occurs underground until the ground surface is breached. While predicting the formation or expansion of subsidence hazards is difficult, there are usually some indicators of an imminent hazard. Indicators such as the formation of ground cracks, sudden changes in streams, or depressed ground, can all indicate that a sinkhole is propagating to the surface or that an existing sinkhole is expanding. Potential subsidence hazard areas can be visually inspected annually, such as during an aerial reconnaissance to evaluate if there are indicators of developing subsidence features.

5.4 Collapsible/Expansive Soils Approximately 8 km of the alignment in Alberta is classified as having a moderate collapsible and expansive soil hazard. The remainder of the alignment is classified as low collapsible or expansive soil hazard areas. Golder suggests that TransCanada evaluate the sensitivity of the Energy East pipeline to soil volume changes. Depending on the results of this evaluation, it may be worthwhile to reassess the hazard classification for collapsible and expansive soils.

EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 45 of 110

July 2014 39 14-00899

6.0 CLOSING The Phase I Assessment is intended to serve as a preliminary regional assessment of geologic hazards for the Energy East pipeline. The identification of geologic hazards and assignment of levels of relative severity are based on the information Golder reviewed for this assessment, as discussed in Section 2.0, and listed in the bibliography section (Section 7.0). The potential hazard classifications derived for this Phase I Assessment are relative to the assessment, and based on the criteria described herein.

The Phase I Assessment, being preliminary and regional in scale, is intended to be used by TransCanada and its representatives for identification of areas for possible additional investigation to more fully characterize and mitigate geologic hazards in subsequent phases of hazard assessment. The ultimate purpose is to reduce the potential for geologic hazards to affect construction or operation of the proposed Energy East pipeline and to provide a general database and inventory of potential hazards for planning purposes. It is possible that geologic hazards may be present locally and may not have been identified during the Phase I Assessment, because of the regional-scale nature of the assessment.

The Phase I Assessment should not be considered to be a site-specific investigation, and should not be used for design purposes. The Phase I Assessment was performed based on the regional-scale information and conditions present at the time of the assessment. This assessment was also based on site specific studies performed by others and as such represents site conditions present at the time of those studies. Site conditions may change because of natural processes and phenomena (e.g., geologic and climatic), or human activities.

GOLDER ASSOCIATES INC.

Bailey Theriault, LG Alexander McKenzie-Johnson, LEG Senior Project Geologist Senior Geologist

Donald O. West, LEG Program Leader, Engineering Geologist

BT/AMJ/DOW/MN/sb

EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 46 of 110

July 2014 40 14-00899

7.0 REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

7.1 Alphabetical References Acton, D.F., Ryder, J.M., French, H., Brookes, I.A., Slaymaker, Olav. 2013. Physiographic Regions. The Canadian Encyclopedia 2013, accessed March 4, 2014 at http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/en/article/physiographic-regions/.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. 2012. Soil Order Map of Canada version 2.2/3.1. Digital map and database at 1:1 million scale, published by Esri Canada 2012.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. 2004. Canadian Soil Information Service, Soil Landscapes of Canada (SLC) Version 3.1.1 (GIS Data, polygon features). Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada available http://sis.agr.gc.ca/cansis/nsdb/slc/v3.1.1/intro.html, scale 1:1,000,000.

Åhnberg, H., Löfrtoh, H., Lundström, K. 2014. Management of Quick Clay Areas in Slope Stability Investigations – The Göta River Valley in Landslides in Sensitive Clays: From Geosciences to Risk Management, Advances in Natural and Technological Research 36, J.-S. L’Heureux et al. (eds), 2014.

Anglin, F. and Buchbinder, G., 1981. Microseismicity in the Mid-St. Lawrence Valley Charlevoix Zone, Québec: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 71, n. 5, p. 1553-1560.

Atkinson, G.M., 2006. Earthquake Hazard Analysis: Final Report, Gros-Cacouna, Québec: for Sandwell Engineering Inc., February 2006.

Atlas Géoscientifique du Québec. 2014. Geology, Système d’Information Géominière du Québec (SIGÉOM), digital data, 1:50,000.

Aylsworth, J.M., and Lawrence, D.E. 2003. Earthquake-induced landsliding east of Ottawa: a contribution to the Ottawa Valley Landslide Project. In Proceedings of Geohazards 2003. P. 57-64.

Aylsworth, J.M., Lawrence, D.E., and J.Guertin. 2000. Did two massive earthquakes in the Holocene induce widespread landsliding and near-surface deformation in part of the Ottawa Valley, Canada?: Geology, v. 28, no. 10, p. 903-906.

Bent, A.L., 1992. A re-examination of the 1925 Charlevoix, Québec, earthquake: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 82, n. 5, p. 2097-2113.

Bent, A.L., 1996. Source parameters of the damaging Cornwall-Massena earthquake of 1944 from regional waveforms: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 86, n. 2, p. 489-497.

Betcher, R., G. Grove, and C. Pupp. 1995. Groundwater in Manitoba: Hydrogeology, Quality Concerns, Management. Environmental Sciences Division, National Hydrology Research Institute. NHRI Contribution No. CS-93071, March.

Bostock, H.S. (Compiler). 1967. Physiographic Regions, Map, Physiographic Regions of Canada. 1254A. Geological Survey of Canada. Scale 1:5,000,000.

Brunton, F.R. and J.E.P. Dodge. 2008. Karst of southern Ontario and Manitoulin Island; Ontario Geological Survey, Groundwater Resources Study 5. Digital dataset accessed 5/31/2013 from http://www.mndm.gov.on.ca/en/mines-and-minerals/applications/ogsearth.

Canada Department of Mines. 1914. Coal fields of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, Geological Survey Map Series 126A.

EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 47 of 110

July 2014 41 14-00899

Centre of Mining Environment, 2006. A Newsletter of the ENVIS Centre on Environmental Problems of Mining Areas, September 2006, p. 94.

Communauté métropolitaine de Montréal (CMM), 2011. Geomorphology hazard, Map 10, p. 92 in Plan métropolitain d’aménagement et de développement, 177 p., Tables, Appendices.

Coplin, L.S., and D. Galloway. 1999. Houston-Galveston, Texas; Managing coastal subsidence, in Galloway, D., Jones, D.R., and Ingebritsen, S.E., eds., 1999, Land subsidence in the United States: U. S. Geological Survey Circular 1182, p. 35-48.

Cruden, D.M. 1991. A simple definition of a landslide: Bulletin of the International Association of Engineering Geology, No. 43, p. 27-29.

Cruden, D.M., and D.J. Varnes. 1996. Landslide types and processes, in Turner, K.A., and Schuster, R.L., Landslides – Investigation and Mitigation: Special Report 247, Washington, D.C., National Academy Press.

Demers, D., Robitaille, D., Locat, P., Potvin, J. 2014. Inventory of Large Landslides in Sensitive Clay in the Province of Québec, Canada: Preliminary Analysis, in Landslides in Sensitive Clays: From Geosciences to Risk Management, Advances in Natural and Technological Research 36, J.-S. L’Heureux et al. (eds), 2014.

Ford, D. and Williams, P., 2007. Karst Hydrogeology and Geomorphology, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, West Sussex, England, September 2007.

Fytte, L.R., Richard. D.M. 2007. Lithological map of New Brunswick. New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources: Minerals, Policy and Planning Division. Plate 2007-18. Scale 1:600,000.

Galloway, D. and F.S Riley. 1999. San Joaquin Valley, California; largest human alteration of the Earth’s surface, in Galloway, D., Jones, D.R., and Ingebritsen, S.E., eds., 1999, Land subsidence in the United States: U. S. Geological Survey Circular 1182, p. 23-34.

Geological Survey of Canada, 1993. Surficial materials of Canada, Map 1880A, 1:5,000,000 map scale, Government of Canada.

Golder Associates Inc. (Golder). 2011. Updated Phase I Geologic Hazards Assessment, ANR Pipeline Company, Midwestern and Southern United States: produced for TransCanada PipeLines Limited, November, 2011.

Government of Alberta, Alberta Energy, 2014. Map of Natural Gas Fields and Natural Gas in Coal Potential, available from http://www.energy.alberta.ca/NaturalGas/940.asp, accessed February 2014.

Halchuk, S. and J. Adams. 2010. (unpublished). Seismic hazard maps of Canada: Maps and grid values to be used with the 2010 National Building Code of Canada: Geological Survey of Canada, Open File XXXX.

Hamilton, J.J. 1980. Behavior of expansive soils in western Canada: National Research Council Canada, DBR Paper No. 1015, 19 p.

Kalsnes, B., Gjelsvik, V., Jostad, H.P., Lacasse, S., Nadim, F. 2014. Risk Assessment for Quick Clay Slides – The Norwegian Practice, in Landslides in Sensitive Clays: From Geosciences to Risk Management, Advances in Natural and Technological Research 36, J.-S. L’Heureux et al. (eds), 2014.

EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 48 of 110

July 2014 42 14-00899

L’Heureux, J.-S., Locat, A., Leroueil, S., Demers, D., Locat, J. 2014. Landslides in Sensitive Clays – From GeoSciences to Risk Management, in Landslides in Sensitive Clays: From Geosciences to Risk Management, Advances in Natural and Technological Research 36, J.-S. L’Heureux et al. (eds), 2014.

Lamontagne, M., 1987. Seismic activity and structural features in the Charlevoix region, Québec: Canadian Journal of Earth Science, v. 24, p. 2118-2129.

Lamontagne, M. and Ranalli, G., 1997. Faults and Spatial Clustering of Earthquakes near La Malbaie, Charlevoix Seismic Zone, Canada: Seismological Research Letters, v. 68, n. 2, p. 337-352.

Lamontagne, M., Beauchemin, M., Toutin, T., 2004. Earthquakes of the Charlevoix Seismic Zone, Québec: CSEG Recorder, October 2004, p. 41-44.

Lamontagne, M., Hasegawa, H.S., Forsyth, D.A., Buchbinder, GG.R., and Cajka, M., 1994. The Mont- Laurier, Québec, Earthquake of 19 October 1990 and Its Seismotectonic Environment: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 84, n. 5, p. 1506-1522.

Lefebvre, G. 1996. Soft Sensitive Clays, in Turner, K.A., and Schuster, R.L., Landslides – Investigation and Mitigation: Special Report 247, Washington, D.C., National Academy Press.

Lemieux, Y, Tremblay, A., and Lavoie, D., 2000. Stratigraphy and structure of the St. Lawrence Lowland in the Charlevoix area, Québec: relationships to impact cratering: Geological Survey of Canada Current Research, 2000-D2.

Locat, A., Leroueil, S., Bernander, S., Demers, D., Jostad, H.P., Ouehb, Lyes. 2011. Progressive Failures in eastern Canadian and Scandinavian sensitive clays. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, v. 48, p. 1696-1712.

Manitoba Innovation, Energy, and Mines, 2011. Oil Field Boundaries, digital dataset: Innovation, Energy and Mines, Petroleum Branch, available from http://www.gov.mb.ca/iem/petroleum/gis/index.html, scale 1:125,000, accessed February 2014.

Manitoba Innovation, Energy, and Mines, 2014a. Bedrock Geology 1:1,000,000, digital dataset: Innovation, Energy and Mines, Mineral Resources Division, available from http://web15.gov.mb.ca/mapgallery/mgm-d.html, accessed February 2014.

Manitoba Innovation, Energy, and Mines, 2014b. Potash Withdrawls, digital dataset: Innovation, Energy and Mines, Mineral Resources Division, available from http://web15.gov.mb.ca/mapgallery/mgm- d.html, accessed February 2014.

Manitoba Innovation, Energy, and Mines, 2014c. Mine Sites, digital dataset: Innovation, Energy and Mines, Mineral Resources Division, available from http://web15.gov.mb.ca/mapgallery/mgm-md.html, accessed February 2014.

Matile, G.L.D. and Keller, G.R., 2004. Surficial Geology Compilation Map Series (SGCMS) (GIS data, polygon features), Maps SGCMS_62F and SGCMS_62K. Published by Manitoba Innovation, Energy, and Mines, Manitoba Geological Survey, available http://www.gov.mb.ca/stem/mrd/geo/gis/surfgeomap.html, scale 1:250,000.

Mazzotti, S., 2007. Geodynamic models for earthquake studies in intraplate North America, in Stein, S. and Mazzotti, S., eds., Continental Intraplate Earthquakes: Science, Hazard, and Policy Issues: Geological Society of America Special Paper 425, p. 17-33.

EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 49 of 110

July 2014 43 14-00899

Ministère des Ressources naturelles du Québec, various years. Atlas Géoscientifique du Québec, 28 sheets – 1 :50,000 vector data, Système d’Information Géominière du Québec (SIGÉOM), downloaded from the website : http://sigeom.mrn.gouv.qc.ca/signet/classes/I1102_indexAccueil?l=f [see attached index in Appendix B]

Ministère des Ressources Naturelles du Québec (MNR), 2010. Cartes de contraintes pour MRC Assomption – Zones exposées aux glissements de terrain, scale 1/5,000. Digital dataset available online from Géoboutique Québec (MNR) http://geoboutique.mrn.gouv.qc.ca/edel/pages/recherche/critereRechercheEdel.faces, accessed February 2014.

Ministère des Ressources Naturalles (MRN). 2013a. Activités minières - Région de Chaudières- Appalaches (12). Accessed 2/25/2013 from https://www.mrn.gouv.qc.ca/cartes/index.jsp.

MRN. 2013b. Activités minières - Région de Lanaudière (14). Accessed 2/25/2013 from https://www.mrn.gouv.qc.ca/cartes/index.jsp.

MRN. 2013c. Activités minières - Région de la Mauricie (04). Accessed 2/25/2013 from https://www.mrn.gouv.qc.ca/cartes/index.jsp.

MRN. 2013d. Activités minières - Région de la Capitale-Nationale (03). Accessed 2/25/2013 from https://www.mrn.gouv.qc.ca/cartes/index.jsp.

MRN. 2013e. Activités minières - Région de Laval (13) - Montréal (06) - Montérégie (16). Accessed 2/25/2013 from https://www.mrn.gouv.qc.ca/cartes/index.jsp.

MRN. 2013f. Activités minières - Région des Laurentides (15). Accessed 2/25/2013 from https://www.mrn.gouv.qc.ca/cartes/index.jsp.

Morozov. I., G. Chubak, and L. Litwin. 2007. Rebuilding a Regional Seismograph Network in Southern Saskatchewan: in Summary of Investigations 2007, Volume 1, Saskatchewan Geological Survey, Sask. Industry Resources, Misc. Report 2007-4.1, Paper A-1, 7 p.

Moseley, M. 1996. The gypsum karsts and caves of the Canadian Maritimes in Cave and Karst Science, The Transactions of the British Cave Research Association. Vol. 23 No. 1, June 1996.

Mossop, G. and Shetsen, I., 1994. Geological Atlas of the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin (online version, last modified September 9, 2009). Published by Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists and Alberta Research Council, 1994, available http://www.ags.gov.ab.ca/publications/wcsb_atlas/atlas.html (accessed February 25, 2014).

Municipalité régionale de Comté d’Argenteuil, 2007. Natural and anthropogenic hazards, and sensitive environments, Map A in Schéma d’aménagement et de développement révisé (SADR), 376 p., Maps.

Municipalité régionale de Comté de D’Autray, 1986. Landslides risk area in Schéma d’aménagement, 144 p. including Maps, Tables, Appendices.

Municipalité régionale de Comté de Bellechasse, 2000. Zones soumises à des contraintes particulières, Map 7, in Schéma d’aménagement révisé, 273 p., Appendices.

Municipalité régionale de Comté de Des Chenaux, 2007. Landslide risk area, Map 7.2 in Schéma d’aménagement et de développement révisé (SADR), 127 p., Tables, Maps, Appendices.

Municipalité régionale de Comté de Kamouraska, 2013. Natural hazard area, Map 11.5 in Schéma d’aménagement et de développement révisé (SADR), 369 p., Maps, Tables, Figures, Appendices.

EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 50 of 110

July 2014 44 14-00899

Municipalité régionale de Comté de Lévis, 2008. Landslides areas, Map 5 in Schéma d’aménagement et de développement révisé (SADR), 60 p., Maps, Appendices.

Municipalité régionale de Comté de L’Islet, 2010. Index of natural hazard area, Map 9-1 in Schéma d’aménagement et de développement révisé (SADR), Report with 16 sections and Appendices.

Municipalité régionale de Comté de Maskinongé, 2008. Landslide risk area, Maps 3A to 3P in Schéma d’aménagement et de développement révisé (SADR), Report with 19 sections and Tables, Maps, Figures, Appendices.

Municipalité régionale de Comté de Montmagny, 2009. Unstable soil area, Map 47 in Schéma d’aménagement révisé, 77 p., Tables, Maps, Appendices.

Municipalité régionale de Comté de Montcalm, 2009. Landslide risk area, Appendice 2 in Schéma d’aménagement révisé. 224 p., Tables, Maps, Appendices.

Municipalité régionale de Comté de Portneuf, 2008. Landslide risk area, Map 7.14 in Schéma d’aménagement et de développement, Report with 9 sections and Tables, Figures and Appendices.

Municipalité régionale de Comté de Rivière-du-Loup, 1987. Risk area, Plan 9 to 17 in Schéma d’aménagement, 173 p., Tables, Maps.

Municipalité régionale de Comté du Témiscouata, 2010. Schéma d’aménagement et de développement révisé, 317 p.

Municipalité régionale de Comté de Vaudreuil-Soulanges, 2004. Les contraintes à l’aménagement du territoire, Plan 28 in Schéma d’aménagement révisé, 283 p.

Natural Resources Canada. 2013a. Physiographic Regions. Atlas of Canada 6th Edition (archival version).

Natural Resources Canada (NRC). 2013b. Centre for Topographic Information; 1:50,000 scale topographic mapping: Natural Resources Canada website, available at http://maps.nrcan.gc.ca/index_e.php.

Natural Resources Canada (NRC), 2013c. Earthquake Zones in Eastern Canada: Canadian Hazard Information Service, Earthquakes Canada, http://earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca/zones/eastcan- eng.php, accessed February 6, 2014.

New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources. 2008. Bedrock Geology of New Brunswick. Minerals and Planning Division, Map NR-1 (2008 Edition). Scale 1:500 000 (revised December 2008).

New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources. 2014. New Brunswick Mineral Occurrence Database. Online: http://dnre-mrne.gnb.ca/mineraloccurrence/ (accessed February 28, 2014).

NRE Ltd. and AAI (North Rim Exploration Ltd. and Agapito Associates, Inc.), 1997. An Overview of the Geology of Solution Mining of Potash in Saskatchewan, Solution Mining Research Institute, Fall 2007 Conference, 8-9 October 2007, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, p. 18.

O’Rourke, M.J. and X. Liu. 1999. Response of buried pipelines subject to earthquake effects: Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research Monograph Series MCEER-99-MN03.

O’Rourke, M.J., and X. Liu. 2012. Seismic of buried and offshore pipelines: Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research Monograph Series MCEER-12-MN04.

EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 51 of 110

July 2014 45 14-00899

Ontario Geological Survey. 2010. Surficial geology of Southern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Release--Data 128-REV. Digital dataset accessed 5/31/2013 from http://www.mndm.gov.on.ca/en/mines-and-minerals/applications/ogsearth. Scale 1:50,000.

Ontario Geological Survey. 2011. 1:250 000 Scale Bedrock Geology of Ontario-Revision 1. Digital dataset accessed 5/31/2013 from http://www.mndm.gov.on.ca/en/mines-and- minerals/applications/ogsearth. Scale 1:250,000.

Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. 2013. Abandoned Mines. Digital dataset accessed 8/21/2013 from http://www.geologyontario.mndm.gov.on.ca/.

Ontario Prospectors Association. 2012. Ontario Mining & Exploration Directory 2012: An Official Publication of the Ontario Prospectors Association.

Ouellet, M., 1997. Lake sediments and Holocene seismic hazard assessment within the St. Lawrence Valley, Québec: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 109, n. 6, p. 631-642.

Pavelko, M.T, D.B. Wood and R. J. Laczniak. 1999. Las Vegas, Nevada; Gambling with water in the desert, in Galloway, D., Jones, D.R., and Ingebritsen, S.E., eds., 1999, Land subsidence in the United States: U. S. Geological Survey Circular 1182, p. 49-64.

Poland, J.F. 1984. Guidebook to studies of land subsidence due ground-water withdrawal: Prepared for the International Hydrological Programme, Working Group 8.4, United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 340 p.

Potvin, J., Thibault, C., Demers, D., Bilodeau, C. 2014. An Overview of the Mapping of Landslide-Prone Areas and Risk Management Strategies in the Province of Québec, Canada. in Landslides in Sensitive Clays: From Geosciences to Risk Management, Advances in Natural and Technological Research 36, J.-S. L’Heureux et al. (eds), 2014.

Prior, G.J., Hathaway, B., Glombick, P.M., Pana, D.I., Banks, C.J., Hay, D.C., Schneider, C.L., Grobe, M., Elgr, R., Weiss., J.A. 2013. Map 600: Bedrock Geology of Alberta. Accessed February 24, 2014 from http://www.ags.gov.ab.ca/publications/abstracts/MAP_600.html. Scale 1:1,000,000.

Pronk, A.G. and Allard, S. (2003). Landscape map of New Brunswick. New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources and Energy; Minerals, Policy and Planning Division, Map NR-9. (scale 1: 770 000).

Quinn, P.E. 2009. Large Landslides in Sensitive Clay in Eastern Canada and the Associated Hazard and Risk to Linear Infrastructure. PhD Thesis, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario. 465 p.

Quinn, P.E., Diederichs, M.S. Hutchinson, D.J., and Rowe, R.K. 2007. An Exploration of the Mechanics of Retrogressive Landslides in Sensitive Clay: 60th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, Ottawa, October, p. 721-727.

Quinn, P.E., Diederichs, M.S., Rowe, R.K., Hutchinson, D.J. 2012. A new model for large landslides in sensitive clay using a fracture mechanics approach. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, v. 49, p. 1151- 1162.

Quinn, P.E., Hutchinson, D.J., Diederichs, M.S., and Rowe, R.K. 2011. Characteristics of large landslides in sensitive clay in relation to susceptibility, hazard, and risk. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, v. 48, p. 1212-1232.

Rampton, V.N. 1984. Generalized surficial geology map of New Brunswick. Department of Natural Resources and Energy: Minerals, Policy and Planning Division. NR-8 (scale 1:500,000).

EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 52 of 110

July 2014 46 14-00899

Render, F.W. 1969. Geohydrology of the metropolitan Winnipeg area as related to groundwater supply and construction. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 7, No. 3, 1970.

Saskatchewan Energy and Resources, 2013. Mine Locations – information on active and historic mines, digital dataset available from http://www.infomaps.gov.sk.ca/website/SIR_Geological_Atlas/viewer.htm, accessed February 2014.

Saskatchewan Industry and Resources, 2003. Oil and Gas Pools, digital dataset, available from http://www.infomaps.gov.sk.ca/website/SIR_Geological_Atlas/viewer.htm, accessed February 2014.

Service des inventaires forestiers du Québec, 2006 to 2013. 54 sheets – 1 :20,000 vector data. Ministère des Ressources naturelles du Québec, FORGEN-TERGEN, downloaded from the website : http://geoboutique.mrn.gouv.qc.ca/ [see attached index in Appendix A]

Shetsen I., 2002a. Quaternary Geology of Southern Alberta – Deposits (GIS data, polygon features): Alberta Energy and Utilities Board and Alberta Geological Survey, DIG 2007-0012, available http://www.ags.gov.ab.ca/publications/DIG/ZIP/DIG_2007_0012.zip, scale 1:500,000.

Shetsen I., 2002b. Quaternary Geology of Central Alberta – Deposits (GIS data, polygon features): Alberta Energy and Utilities Board and Alberta Geological Survey, DIG 2007-0018, available http://www.ags.gov.ab.ca/publications/abstracts/DIG_2007_0018.html, scale 1:500,000.

Thompson, P (Ed.). 1976. Cave Exploration in Canada. The Canadian Caver, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada pp. 8-18.

Tihansky, A.B. 1999. Sinkholes, west-central Florida, in Galloway, Devin, Jones, D.R., Ingebritsen, S.E., eds., Land subsidence in the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1182, p. 121-140.

Torrance, J.K., 2012. Landslides in Quick Clay, in Landslides: Types, Mechanisms and Modeling, J.J. Clague and Stead, D., (eds).

Tremblay, A. and Lemieux, Y., 2001. Supracrustal faults of the St. Lawrence rift system between Cap- Tourmente and Baie-Saint-Paul, Québec: Geological Survey of Canada Current Research 2001-D15.

University of Washington. 2001. Background Information on the ShakeMaps: Pacific Northwest ShakeMap: About the Maps, http://www.ess.washington.edu/shake/about.html, accessed 2/9/2005.

US Environmental Protection Agency. 1994. Acid Mine Drainage Prediction, Technical Document, December 1994.

US Geological Survey. 2014. Earthquake Hazards Program: ShakeMap. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/shakemap/#accmaps, accessed July 21, 2014.

Ville de Lévis, 2008. Landslides areas, Map 5 in Règlement RV-2008-07-60 – Schéma d’aménagement et de développement, 62 p., Maps, Appendices.

Ville de Trois-Rivières, 2011. Landslide risk area, Maps 1 to 8 in Règlement 2010, Chapitre 25 sur le Plan d’urbanisme, Appendice V, 130 p., Appendices.

Virginia Division of Mineral Resources. 2007. Sinkholes, Virginia Department of Mines Minerals and Energy, April 2007, p. 3.

Walker, J.D., and J.W. Geissman, compilers. 2009. Geologic Time Scale: Geological Society of America, doi: 10.1130/2009.CTS004R2C. ©2009 The Geological Society of America.

EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 53 of 110

July 2014 47 14-00899

Webb, T.C. 2001. Geology, development history, and exploration alternatives for gypsum near Plaster Rock (Part of NTS 21 J/14), Victoria County, northwestern New Brunswick. New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources and Energy, Minerals and Energy Division, Open File 2001-3, 29 p.

Webb, T.C. 2010. Geology and economic development of Early Carboniferous marine evaporites, southeastern New Brunswick. New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources; Lands, Minerals and Petroleum Division, Field Guide No. 6, 71 p.

Wheeler, R.L., 1995. Earthquakes and the cratonward limit of Iapetan faulting in eastern North America: Geology, v. 23, n. 2, p. 105-108.

Whyatt, J. and F. Varley. 2008. Catastrophic Failures of Underground Evaporite Mines, Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining, July 29 – July 31, 2008, Morgantown, West Virginia. West Virginia University, 2008. NIOSH – Spokane Research Laboratory, Spokane, WA.

Yeats, R.S., Sieh, K., and Allen, C.R., 1997. The Geology of Earthquakes: Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 568 p.

Youd, T.L., I.M. Idriss, R.D. Andrus, I. Arango, G. Castro, J.T. Christian, R. Dobry, W.D. Finn, L.F. Harder Jr., M.E. Hynes, K. Ishihara, J.P. Koester, S.S.C. Liao, W.F. Marcuson III, G.R. Martin, J.K. Mitchell, Y. Moriwaki, M.S. Power, P.K. Robertson, R.B. Seed, and K.H. Stokoe II. 2001. Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, v. 127, no. 10, p. 817-833.

7.2 References by Hazard Type Landslide

Åhnberg, H., Löfrtoh, H., Lundström, K. (2014)

Aylsworth, J.M., D.E. Lawrence, J. Guertin. (2000)

Bruce Geotechnical Consultants Inc. (1998a, 1998b, 1998c, 1999a 1999b)

Cruden, D.M. (1991)

Cruden, D.M. and D.J. Varnes. (1996)

Demers, D., Robitaille, D., Locat, P., Potvin, J. (2014).

Kalsnes, B., Gjelsvik, V., Jostad, H.P., Lacasse, S., Nadim, F. (2014).

L’Heureux, J.-S., Locat, A., Leroueil, S., Demers, D., Locat, J. (2014)

Lefebvre, G. (1996)

Locat, A., Leroueil, S., Bernander, S., Demers, D., Jostad, H.P., Ouehb, Lyes. (2011)

MRC Mapping (various)

Potvin, J., Thibault, C., Demers, D., Bilodeau, C. (2014)

Quinn, P., M.S. Diederichs, D.J. Hutchinson, and R.K. Rowe. (2007)

EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 54 of 110

July 2014 48 14-00899

Quinn, P.E. (2009)

Quinn, P.E., Diederichs, M.S., Rowe, R.K., Hutchinson, D.J. (2012)

Quinn, P.E., Hutchinson, D.J., Diederichs, M.S., and Rowe, R.K. (2011)

Torrance, J.K. (2012)

Seismic

Anglin, F. and Buchbinder, G. (1981)

Atkinson, G.M. (2006)

Aylsworth, J.M., and Lawrence, D.E. (2003)

Aylsworth, J.M., Lawrence, D.E., and J.Guertin. (2000)

Bent, A.L. (1992)

Bent, A.L. (1996)

Halchuk, S. and J. Adams. (2010)

Lamontagne, M. (1987)

Lamontagne, M., Beauchemin, M., Toutin, T. (2004)

Lamontagne, M. and Ranalli, G. (1997)

Lamontagne, M., Hasegawa, H.S., Forsyth, D.A., Buchbinder, GG.R., and Cajka, M. (1994)

Lemieux, Y, Tremblay, A., and Lavoie, D. (2000)

Mazzoti, S. (2007)

Morozov. I., G. Chubak, and L. Litwin. (2007)

O’Rourke, M.J. and X. Liu. (1999)

O’Rourke, M.J. and X. Liu. (2012)

Ouellet, M. (1997)

Quinn, P., M.S. Diederichs, D.J. Hutchinson, and R.K. Rowe. (2007)

Tremblay, A., Lemiuex, Y. (2001)

University of Washington. (2001)

US Geological Survey (2014)

Wheeler, R.L. (1995)

EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 55 of 110

July 2014 49 14-00899

Yeats, R.S., Sieh, K., Allen, C.R. (1997).

Youd et al. (2001)

Subsidence: Karst

Atlas Géoscientifique du Québec (2014)

Ford, D. and Williams, P. (2007)

Brunton, F.R. and J.E.P. Dodge. (2008)

Moseley, M. (1996)

Mossop, G. and Shetsen, I. (1994)

Manitoba Innovation, Energy, and Mines (2014a)

New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources (2008)

Ontario Geological Survey (2011)

Webb, T.C. (2010)

Webb, T.C. (2001)

Tihansky, A.B. (1999)

Thompson, P (Ed.). (1976)

Subsidence: Underground Mine

Canada Department of Mines (1914)

Centre of Mining Environment (2006)

Manitoba Innovation, Energy, and Mines (2014b)

Manitoba Innovation, Energy, and Mines (2014c)

Ministère des Ressources Naturalles (MRN) (2013a)

Mossop, G. and Shetsen, I. (1994)

MRN (2013b)

MRN (2013c)

MRN (2013d)

MRN (2013e)

MRN (2013f)

EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 56 of 110

July 2014 50 14-00899

New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources (2014)

NRE Ltd. and AAI (North Rim Exploration Ltd. and Agapito Associates, Inc.) (1997)

Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (2013)

Ontario Prospectors Association (2012)

Saskatchewan Energy and Resources (2013)

Virginia Division of Mineral Resources (2007)

Whyatt, J. and Varley, F. (2008)

Subsidence: Fluid Withdrawal

Coplin, L.S., and D. Galloway. (1999)

Galloway, D. and F.S. Riley. (1999)

Government of Alberta, Alberta Energy (2014)

Manitoba Innovation, Energy, and Mines (2011)

Mossop, G. and Shetsen, I. (1994)

Natural Resources Canada. (2013)

Pavelko, M.T, D.B. Wood, and R.J. Laczniak. (1999)

Poland, J.F. (1984)

Saskatchewan Industry and Resources (2003)

Collapsible/Expansive Soils

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. (2004)

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. (2012)

Hamilton, J.J. (1980)

EE4930-GAL-C_RP_0001_Phase I Geologic Hazards Assmnt_0.docx CA PDF Page 57 of 110

TABLES CA PDF Page 58 of 110

July 2014 14-00899 Page 1 of 2

Table 1: New Build Energy East Phase I Geologic Hazards Classification Summary

Hazard Classification Hazard Type Comments Low Moderate High A landslide hazard area meeting one of the following criteria:

- Stream crossings with evidence of recent or historical landslide activity, but where the river banks and/or the landslides appeared to be too shallow/low (nominally less than 5 m vertically Areas where the alignment crosses slopes with evidence Explanations and justifications for the landslide Slopes greater than 25 percent (14 degrees) with from toe to head and less than 15 m long) to of historic or current landslides where the vertical hazard classification criteria are provided in no evidence of landslides identified during the affect the pipeline (M1). distance of the landslides from toe to head is greater Section 2.2.1 of the report. The classification desktop review or observed during the helicopter criteria provided is project specific, but is Landslides - An area mapped by an MRC as a zone of than 5 m and/or the horizontal distance is longer than 15 reconnaissance and no landslides or zones of landslide risk (or similar terminology) with no m consistent in intent and significance with the landslide risk mapped by others evidence of current or past landslide activity criteria for landslide hazards for other observed during the desktop review or TransCanada Phase I Geologic Hazards helicopter reconnaissance (M2). Assessments. - An area within the possible retrogression distance of a large landslide. Calculated as the greater of one of the following: 1) The length of the largest observed landslide within the vicinity of the pipeline, or 2) A horizontal distance of 20 times the height of a slope with evidence of historical landslides (M3). Seismic Assuming probabilistic seismic hazard ground shaking (Earthquake Shaking) < 0.15 g peak ground acceleration (PGA) 0.15 g to 0.25 g PGA > 0.25 g PGA risk level of 10% probability of exceedance in a 50-year period (475-year return period). Unconsolidated Holocene sediment primarily consisting of silt to gravel meeting the following Unconsolidated Holocene sediment primarily criteria: Unconsolidated Holocene sediment primarily consisting of silt Seismic (Liquefaction consisting of silt to gravel meeting one of the following - 0.1 g to 0.2 g PGA. Assuming probabilistic seismic hazard ground shaking to gravel both of the following criteria: [buoyancy, settlement criteria: - Groundwater less than 9 m deep. risk level of 10% probability of exceedance in a 50-year - > 0.2 g PGA. and lateral spreading]) - < 0.1 g PGA. period (475-year return period) combined with Or - Groundwater less than about 3 m deep. - Groundwater deeper than about 9 m. interpretations of nature, age, and saturation of soil. - > 0.2 g PGA. -Groundwater between 3 and 9 m deep. - Geomorphic lineaments observed on aerial - Faults reported as active within the Quaternary, but photographs, or during aerial reconnaissance, that with no information as to age of most recent displace Holocene or Late Pleistocene deposits. movement or slip-rate. - Faults with most recent movement between - Faults reported as having experienced movement within the 130,000 and 750,000 years ago, and slip-rate of last 15,000 years (i.e., Holocene or historic movement). Seismic - Faults active in the Quaternary with the most recent Faults meeting one of the preceding set of criteria 0.2 to 1 mm/year. (Fault Rupture) movement 130,000 years ago or older, and slip-rate of - Faults reported as having a slip-rate greater than 5 mm/year within 60 m of a pipeline centerline were included in the less than 0.2 mm/year. - Faults active in the Quaternary with most recent - Faults with most recent movement between 15,000 and database. - Faults active in the Quaternary with most recent movement 750,000 years ago or older, and slip- 750,000 years ago, and slip-rate of 1 to 5 mm/year. movement 750,000 years ago or older, and slip-rate of rate between 1 to 5 mm/year. less than 1 mm/year. - Growth faults with evidence of historical displacement.

072214amj1_table 1_amj_energy east-alt 1.docx CA PDF Page 59 of 110

July 2014 14-00899 Page 2 of 2

Table 1: New Build Energy East Phase I Geologic Hazards Classification Summary

Hazard Classification Hazard Type Comments Low Moderate High - Sinkholes or areas with evidence of subsurface voids (e.g., disappearing streams) between 60 and 160 m of pipeline. - Areas mapped as karst by federal or provincial - Mapped sinkholes or evidence of subsurface voids (e.g., - Areas where carbonate or evaporite bedrock is agencies, but with no mapped sinkholes or disappearing streams) within 60 m of pipeline. Subsidence (Karst) exposed at the surface or where it directly underlies evidence of sinkholes in aerial photographs. unconsolidated surface deposits but where specific - Pipeline areas historically impacted by sinkholes or other - Areas where karst mapping is not available, but identification or mapping of karst features did not exist. karst phenomena. geologic units underlying the pipeline have documented karst features which occur more than 160 m from the pipeline

- Within region or area of underground mines, but - Evidence of, or maps of underground mines directly below Subsidence pipeline is greater than 160 m from mapped - Evidence of, or maps of underground mines, within pipeline, or within 60 m of pipeline. (Underground Mine) underground mine, and there is no geomorphic 60 to 160 m of pipeline. - Pipeline areas historically impacted by subsidence resulting evidence of surface subsidence. from underground mines. - Areas that contain oil and gas or groundwater well fields that have documented evidence of fluid withdrawal caused - Areas that contain well fields for oil and gas subsidence that has damaged roads and structures (e.g., - Areas that contain oil and gas or groundwater well Subsidence exploration and development or areas with major roads frequently repaired from subsidence, badly damaged fields that have reported subsidence, but with no (Fluid Withdrawal) groundwater aquifers, but with no reports of fluid buildings, damaged utilities). reported damage resulting from this subsidence. withdrawal related subsidence. - Areas that have documented evidence of fluid withdrawal subsidence that has resulted in the formation of fissures or faults. - Areas along the alignment where mapped soils are - Areas along the alignment where soils with - Areas along the alignment where expansive soils are Collapsible/Expansive not reported to have significant collapsible or reported expansive properties are mapped, but mapped, and where reports exist of structural damage Soils expansive properties, and there is no reported there is no reported damage to structures or associated with the expansive soil units. damage to structures or infrastructure. infrastructure.

072214amj1_table 1_amj_energy east-alt 1.docx CA PDF Page 60 of 110

July 2014 14-00899 Page 1 of 5

Table 2: Summary of Moderate and High Landslide Hazard Areas

Hazard ID Start Lat1 Start Long1 End Lat1 End Long1 Start KP End KP Pipeline Segment Hazard Class Description Stream Name The alignment is in the vicinity of the Rivière à la Graisse with evidence of numerous large landslides, including at least one with a length of 150 EE-LS-229 45.44149 -74.42104 45.44867 -74.41896 97.41 98.23 Ontario CL Moderate (M3) m that is within 70 m of the alignment. Rivière à la Graisse

The alignment crosses a creek incised into Champlain Sea deposits. During the LiDAR review and helicopter reconnaissance, several possible smaller rotational landslides were observed. These appeared EE-LS-230 45.45460 -74.42015 45.45500 -74.42007 98.95 99.00 Ontario CL Moderate (M1) to be subdued and weathered during the helicopter reconnaissance. Unknown The alignment crosses a steep-sided escarpment mapped as a zone of landslide risk by CMM. No landslides observed on LiDAR at this location. During the helicopter reconnaissance, this escarpment was densely vegetated and difficult to observe. No landslides were observed EE-LS-235 45.79757 -73.58671 45.79715 -73.58651 90.66 90.71 Québec CL Segment 1 Moderate (M2) from the helicopter. None No LiDAR coverage for this area. The alignment crosses a zone mapped as a zone of landslide risk by CMM. The alignment crosses the Ruisseau de la Cabane Ronde at this location. During the helicopter reconnaissance, this crossing looked essentially flat-lying, with no visible EE-LS-236 45.78080 -73.54881 45.78012 -73.54489 94.79 95.10 Québec CL Segment 1 Moderate (M2) evidence of landslides. Ruisseau de la Cabane Ronde

The alignment crosses a steep escarpment in Champlain Sea deposits. During the helicopter reconnaissance, the escarpment looked smooth and undisturbed by landslide movement. The escarpment is also EE-LS-243 46.23195 -73.02933 46.23223 -73.02816 169.82 169.91 Québec CL Segment 1 Moderate (M2) mapped as a zone of medium risk (ZRM) by the MRC de Maskinonge. Unknown The alignment crosses the Rivière Maskinonge, which is incised into Champlain Sea deposits. The stream is mapped as a zone of elevated risk (ZRE) by the MRC de Maskinonge. During the helicopter reconnaissance and landslide review, the slopes looked smooth and EE-LS-244 46.23386 -73.02116 46.23392 -73.02091 170.48 170.50 Québec CL Segment 1 Moderate (M2) undisturbed with no observed evidence of landslides. Rivière Maskinonge

The alignment crosses the Petitie Rivière du Loup, which is incised into Champlain Sea deposits with evidence of past landslides upstream and downstream of the crossing. Most of these landslides appear to be smaller, rotational type landslides up to about 35 m long, but there may be subdued evidence of larger landslides as well. This area is also mapped as a zone of elevated risk (ZRE) by the MRC de Maskinonge. During the helicopter reconnaissance, abundant slumps and apparently shallow landslides were observed up and downstream of the crossing. Most of these landslides appeared to have been active within the past EE-LS-245 46.26569 -72.96894 46.26604 -72.96848 176.33 176.38 Québec CL Segment 1 High year. Petite Rivière du Loup The alignment crosses the Rivière Chacoura with evidence of numerous, large landslides upstream from the crossing. The exact sizes of the landslides are difficult to tell, but may be up to 200 m long. The approach slopes to the river are also mapped as a zone of elevated risk (ZRE) by the MRC de Maskinonge. During the helicopter reconnaissance, the southwest side of the bank appeared to be unstable, but was difficult to clearly observe because of dense EE-LS-247 46.28007 -72.92105 46.28009 -72.92060 180.77 180.81 Québec CL Segment 1 High vegetation. Rivière Chacoura

072214amj1_Table 2_Landslides_Mod and High Only_rev a.xlsx CA PDF Page 61 of 110

July 2014 14-00899 Page 2 of 5

Table 2: Summary of Moderate and High Landslide Hazard Areas

Hazard ID Start Lat1 Start Long1 End Lat1 End Long1 Start KP End KP Pipeline Segment Hazard Class Description Stream Name

The alignment crosses the Rivière du Loup with evidence of numerous small rotational landslides near the alignment (possibly up to 30 m long) observable both during the LiDAR review and during the helicopter reconnaissance. Many of the landslides appear to have been active within the past year. The northeastern side of the river is also mapped as a zone of elevated risk (ZRE) by the MRC de Maskinonge, while the EE-LS-248 46.27785 -72.89682 46.27840 -72.89585 182.88 182.98 Québec CL Segment 1 High southwest side is mapped as a zone of medium risk (ZRM). Rivière du Loup

The alignment crosses the Petite Rivière Yamachiche, which is slightly incised (generally about 5 m or less) into Champlain Sea deposits with evidence of past, relatively small, rotational landslides (about 15 m long or less) observed both during the LiDAR review and helicopter reconnaissance. The banks of the stream are also mapped as a zone EE-LS-249 46.30172 -72.82117 46.30179 -72.81993 189.83 189.93 Québec CL Segment 1 Moderate (M1) of elevated risk (ZRE) by the MRC de Maskinonge. Petite Rivière Yamachiche

The alignment crosses the Rivière Yamachiche, which is slightly incised (generally about 5 m or less) into Champlain Sea deposits with evidence of past, relatively small, rotational landslides (about 15 m long or less) observed both during the LiDAR review and helicopter reconnaissance. The southwestern stream bank is mapped as a zone of elevated risk EE-LS-250 46.30370 -72.80285 46.30379 -72.80231 191.32 191.36 Québec CL Segment 1 Moderate (M1) (ZRE) by the MRC de Maskinonge. Rivière Yamachiche

The alignment crosses a small creek with a small portion of the southern bank mapped as a zone of landslide risk in zoning mapping for the Ville de Trois Rivières. During the helicopter reconnaissance and EE-LS-251 46.32997 -72.77245 46.33063 -72.77195 195.16 195.24 Québec CL Segment 1 Moderate (M2) LiDAR review, no landslides were observed at this crossing. Unknown The alignment crosses and is located proximally to a slightly incised creek. During the helicopter reconnaissance, the creek appeared to have very low, relatively flat banks with no observed landslides. The creek banks are also mapped as a zone of landslide risk in zoning EE-LS-252 46.33659 -72.76637 46.33712 -72.76550 196.10 196.19 Québec CL Segment 1 Moderate (M2) mapping for the Ville de Trois Rivières. Unknown

The alignment crosses and is located proximally to an escarpment mapped as a zone of landslide risk in zoning mapping for the Ville de Trois Rivières. No obvious landslides observed on LiDAR or during the helicopter reconnaissance. At the time of the helicopter EE-LS-253 46.40768 -72.72465 46.40829 -72.72551 205.24 205.33 Québec CL Segment 1 Moderate (M2) reconnaissance, the escarpment was densely vegetated and treed. None Crossing of the Rivière Saint-Maurice. The river is incised into Champlain Sea deposits with steep-sided banks. No evidence of obvious landslides at this location, but the southwestern side of the crossing is mapped as a zone of landslide risk in zoning mapping for the EE-LS-256 46.41567 -72.68445 46.41570 -72.68379 210.01 210.06 Québec CL Segment 1 Moderate (M2) Ville de Trois Rivières. Rivière Saint-Maurice

072214amj1_Table 2_Landslides_Mod and High Only_rev a.xlsx CA PDF Page 62 of 110

July 2014 14-00899 Page 3 of 5

Table 2: Summary of Moderate and High Landslide Hazard Areas

Hazard ID Start Lat1 Start Long1 End Lat1 End Long1 Start KP End KP Pipeline Segment Hazard Class Description Stream Name

The alignment crosses an escarpment mapped as a zone of landslide risk in zoning mapping for the Ville de Trois Rivières. No obvious landslides observed on LiDAR near the alignment at this location. During the helicopter reconnaissance, the escarpment was difficult to observe directly because of thick tree cover. Close to the alignment were at least two gullies that had eroded into predominantly sand soil, EE-LS-257 46.41950 -72.66866 46.41976 -72.66830 211.39 211.43 Québec CL Segment 1 Moderate (M2) based on observations from the helicopter. None The alignment crosses an escarpment mapped as a zone of landslide risk in zoning mapping for the Ville de Trois Rivières. No obvious landslides observed on LiDAR or during the helicopter reconnaissance near the alignment at this location. At the time of the helicopter reconnaissance, the escarpment was densely treed and it was difficult EE-LS-258 46.43277 -72.64957 46.43326 -72.64888 213.47 213.55 Québec CL Segment 1 Moderate (M2) to observe the ground conditions directly. None

The alignment crosses a creek incised into Champlain Sea deposits. There does not appear to be evidence of large landslides at this crossing, but during the helicopter reconnaissance, relatively small landslides that appeared to have been active recently (possibly within Unnamed Tributary of Rivière EE-LS-260 46.46315 -72.58823 46.46279 -72.58772 220.25 220.30 Québec CL Segment 1 Moderate (M1) the past year) were observed up and downstream of the crossing. Champlain The alignment crosses a tributary of the Rivière Champlain with possible evidence of numerous past landslides at and near the crossing. The stream at this location is also crossed by a highway, and it appears that the stream characteristics have likely been modified by highway construction. During the helicopter reconnaissance, the crossing appeared to be relatively flat, but the crossing was densely treed and Unnamed Tributary of Rivière EE-LS-261 46.42607 -72.53234 46.42509 -72.52927 226.36 226.64 Québec CL Segment 1 Moderate (M1) difficult to observe clearly. Champlain

The alignment crosses the meandering Rivière Champlain with extensive evidence of historical or prehistorical large landslide failures. During the helicopter reconnaissance, abundant landslides that appeared to have been active within the past year were observed, upstream and downstream of the crossing. This crossing is also EE-LS-265 46.47728 -72.33699 46.48040 -72.32608 243.28 244.33 Québec CL Segment 1 High mapped as a landslide zone by the MRC des Chenaux. Rivière Champlain The alignment crosses the Rivière Batiscan. On the south side of the crossing, the alignment crosses steep banks of the river, and may cross through an active rotational landslide that has formed on this bank, observed during the helicopter reconnaissance. The river banks at this crossing are also mapped as a landslide zone by the MRC des EE-LS-266 46.51848 -72.28548 46.52197 -72.28383 249.83 250.24 Québec CL Segment 1 High Chenaux. Rivière Batiscan The alignment crosses a steep, but relatively low bank at the north side of the crossing of a tributary of the Rivière Batiscan. During the helicopter reconnaissance and in the LiDAR review, the bank appeared to have evidence of active and historical landslides. However, these Unnamed Tributary of Rivière EE-LS-267 46.52497 -72.28242 46.52655 -72.28167 250.59 250.78 Québec CL Segment 1 Moderate (M1) landslides appeared to be relatively small/shallow. Batiscan

072214amj1_Table 2_Landslides_Mod and High Only_rev a.xlsx CA PDF Page 63 of 110

July 2014 14-00899 Page 4 of 5

Table 2: Summary of Moderate and High Landslide Hazard Areas

Hazard ID Start Lat1 Start Long1 End Lat1 End Long1 Start KP End KP Pipeline Segment Hazard Class Description Stream Name

The alignment crosses the southwest bank of the Rivière Sainte-Anne with evidence of numerous rotational landslides at and upstream and downstream of the crossing observed during the LiDAR review and the helicopter reconnaissance. Many of these appear to been active within the past year. In some areas, there appears to have been previous repair efforts, as evidenced by concrete mats on the bank. The largest landslide visible on the LiDAR is about 50 m long (to the east of the crossing), while the landslides at the crossing itself appear to be about EE-LS-268 46.58157 -72.22477 46.58181 -72.22443 258.97 259.01 Québec CL Segment 1 High 20 to 25 m long. Rivière Sainte-Anne

The alignment crosses the Rivière Portneuf with extensive evidence of past landslides upstream and downstream of crossing. The alignment on the east bank is located adjacent to the left lateral flank of a past landslide that is 120 m long. On the west bank, the alignment crosses through an artificially smooth looking area, which may be a previous landslide that has been mitigated. The largest landslides visible on the available LiDAR are approximately 225 m long. At the time of the helicopter reconnaissance, the crossing was densely vegetated, which made specific observation of the ground surface difficult, but the overall observations made from the air appeared consistent with those made EE-LS-272 46.70198 -71.88908 46.70131 -71.88268 289.33 289.86 Québec CL Segment 1 High during the LiDAR review. Rivière Portneuf

The alignment is located in the vicinity of the Rivière aux Pommes with evidence of numerous, large past landslides. The largest of these landslides in proximity to the pipeline is about 200 m long. At its closest EE-LS-274 46.69092 -71.72339 46.69238 -71.71172 303.37 304.30 Québec CL Segment 1 Moderate (M3) point, the current alignment is within about 135 m of the river. Rivière aux Pommes

The alignment crosses the Rivière Aulneuse with evidence of past large landslides upstream and downstream of crossing. The crossing itself passes through the apparent scar of a possible 220 m long landslide, which appears to be about the maximum length of the landslides at this crossing. At the time of the helicopter reconnaissance, this crossing EE-LS-278 46.67997 -71.41028 46.67906 -71.40845 333.22 333.39 Québec CL Segment 1 High was thickly vegetated and the ground could not be directly observed. Rivière Aulneuse Crossing of the Rivière Penin with evidence of subdued landslide scars up and downstream of the crossing. The landslides appeared to be older and subdued during both the LiDAR review and helicopter Québec CL Segment 1 - Lévis reconnaissance. The alignment may cross through a subdued, EE-LS-284 46.72009 -71.17162 46.72069 -71.17078 2.63 2.72 Lateral High weathered appearing landslide. Rivière Penin The alignment crosses an apparent large landslide scar on the southeast side of the Rivière Etchemin. The toe of the landslide has been eroded by the river. The landslide is about 480 m long at its longest, and about 660 m wide. The surface of the landslide appears to have been modified by human activities, and it appears as if a boat dock has been placed at the base of the slope. There are numerous similar Québec CL Segment 1 - Lévis landslides in the vicinity of this location but this landslide is the largest EE-LS-287 46.73846 -71.18506 46.74086 -71.18798 5.41 5.77 Lateral High one visible on LiDAR. Rivière Etchemin

072214amj1_Table 2_Landslides_Mod and High Only_rev a.xlsx CA PDF Page 64 of 110

July 2014 14-00899 Page 5 of 5

Table 2: Summary of Moderate and High Landslide Hazard Areas

Hazard ID Start Lat1 Start Long1 End Lat1 End Long1 Start KP End KP Pipeline Segment Hazard Class Description Stream Name

Major river crossing of the Rivière Etchemin with evidence of numerous landslides upstream and downstream of the crossing location, including at the alignment. At the alignment, it appears that the proposed pipeline crosses an approximately 100 m long landslide. The southeastern bank of the river is mapped as a zone of elevated landslide risk by the Québec CL Segment 1 - Lévis Ville de Lévis. Note that on the northwest bank of the crossing, bedrock EE-LS-288 46.74265 -71.19057 46.74555 -71.19137 6.08 6.41 Lateral High is exposed at the surface. Rivière Etchemin

River crossing of the Rivière Etchemin. Mapped as a zone of elevated landslide risk by the Ville de Lévis. At the time of the assessment, there was no LiDAR available for this crossing. During the helicopter reconnaissance, it was observed that the south bank is steep and bedrock was present in the bed of the channel. No landslides were EE-LS-291 46.72294 -71.13462 46.72753 -71.12790 365.58 366.30 Québec CL Segment 1 Moderate (M2) observed during the helicopter reconnaissance. Rivière Etchemin

Crossing of the Rivière Boyer at this location. At the time of the assessment, there was no LiDAR available for this crossing. During the helicopter reconnaissance, no landslides were observed at the crossing itself, but there were some apparently shallow landslides observed upstream. The crossing is also mapped as a zone of elevated EE-LS-292 46.74931 -70.95399 46.74634 -70.94971 12.99 13.48 Québec CL Segment 2 Moderate (M2) landslide risk by the MRC de Bellechasse. Rivière Boyer The alignment crosses the Rivière des Perdirix. The river is slightly incised into mapped Champlain Sea deposits, but appeared to have very low, subdued banks during the helicopter reconnaissance. The river also runs nearly parallel to the alignment for approximately 1.1 km. This area is also mapped as a zone of landslide risk by the MRC de EE-LS-296 46.98963 -70.46911 46.99235 -70.46384 60.97 61.50 Québec CL Segment 2 Moderate (M2) Montmagny. Rivière des Perdrix

The alignment crosses the Rivière Verte, which appears to have very low banks on LiDAR. No evidence of landslide was observed at this crossing during the LiDAR review or helicopter reconnaissance. The valley of the Rivière Verte (which appears near-flat lying) is mapped as EE-LS-303 47.86133 -69.41037 47.86216 -69.41170 200.32 200.45 Québec CL Segment 2 Moderate (M2) a landslide zone by the MRC de Rivière du Loup. Rivière Verte Notes: 1 North American Datum of 1983

072214amj1_Table 2_Landslides_Mod and High Only_rev a.xlsx CA PDF Page 65 of 110

July 2014 14-00899 Page 1 of 3

Table 3: Summary of Seismic Hazard Areas

Hazard Hazard ID Start Lat1 Start Long1 End Lat1 End Long1 Start KP End KP Pipeline Segment Classification Description Source Seismic Shaking EE-SM-02 44.88963 -75.29504 45.49604 -74.40243 0.00 104.06 Ontario CL Low PGA <0.15g, 10% in 50 years probability Halchuk and Adams, 2010 Ottawa River Crossing EE-SM-02 45.54307 -74.37075 45.57112 -74.34899 0.00 4.10 Option A Low PGA <0.15g, 10% in 50 years probability Halchuk and Adams, 2010 Ottawa River Crossing EE-SM-02 45.52631 -74.37133 45.57112 -74.34899 0.00 6.04 Option B Low PGA <0.15g, 10% in 50 years probability Halchuk and Adams, 2010 EE-SM-02 45.49604 -74.40243 45.52632 -74.37133 0.00 4.37 Quebec CL Segment 1 Low PGA <0.15g, 10% in 50 years probability Halchuk and Adams, 2010 EE-SM-02 45.51488 -74.39643 46.73570 -71.10683 0.00 368.69 Quebec CL Segment 1 Low PGA <0.15g, 10% in 50 years probability Halchuk and Adams, 2010 Quebec CL Segment 1 - EE-SM-02 45.77669 -73.53153 45.64974 -73.53974 0.00 17.13 Montreal Lateral Low PGA <0.15g, 10% in 50 years probability Halchuk and Adams, 2010 Quebec CL Segment 1 - EE-SM-02 46.69909 -71.16299 46.76548 -71.19745 0.00 9.90 Lévis Lateral Low PGA <0.15g, 10% in 50 years probability Halchuk and Adams, 2010 EE-SM-02 46.73567 -71.10680 46.96009 -70.52840 0.00 55.23 Quebec CL Segment 2 Low PGA <0.15g, 10% in 50 years probability Halchuk and Adams, 2010 EE-SM-03 46.96009 -70.52840 47.10581 -70.28380 55.23 80.68 Quebec CL Segment 2 Moderate PGA 0.15g - 0.25g, 10% in 50 years probability Halchuk and Adams, 2010 EE-SM-04 47.10581 -70.28380 47.56750 -69.51818 80.68 162.57 Quebec CL Segment 2 High PGA >0.25g, 10% in 50 years probability Halchuk and Adams, 2010 EE-SM-05 47.56750 -69.51818 47.92040 -69.47602 162.57 210.40 Quebec CL Segment 2 Moderate PGA 0.15g - 0.25g, 10% in 50 years probability Halchuk and Adams, 2010 EE-SM-05 47.92055 -69.47581 47.67279 -69.29328 0.00 35.44 Quebec CL Segment 2 Moderate PGA 0.15g - 0.25g, 10% in 50 years probability Halchuk and Adams, 2010 EE-SM-06 47.92936 -69.48166 47.93638 -69.51458 0.00 3.27 Quebec CL Segment 2 Moderate PGA 0.15g - 0.25g, 10% in 50 years probability Halchuk and Adams, 2010 EE-SM-07 47.67279 -69.29328 47.55488 -68.38297 35.44 114.49 Quebec CL Segment 2 Low PGA <0.15g, 10% in 50 years probability Halchuk and Adams, 2010 EE-SM-08 47.55422 -68.38312 45.22556 -65.99575 0.00 410.50 Saint John Extension CL Low PGA <0.15g, 10% in 50 years probability Halchuk and Adams, 2010 EE-SM-09 52.66364 -111.27130 50.67882 -109.97384 0.00 284.09 Alberta CL Low PGA <0.15g, 10% in 50 years probability Halchuk and Adams, 2010 EE-SM-10 49.76267 -101.25150 50.20138 -101.47526 0.00 59.55 Cromer Lateral CL Low PGA <0.15g, 10% in 50 years probability Halchuk and Adams, 2010 Potentially Liquefaction Susceptible Soils Possible alluvium adjacent to stream. LiDAR unavailable at time of assessment (PGA between 0.1 EE-LI-293 45.53374 -74.37216 45.53440 -74.37108 3.21 3.32 Quebec CL Segment 1 Moderate g and 0.15 g) Delineated by Golder from Google Earth, WMS-Toporama. Possible alluvium adjacent to Ottawa River. LiDAR unavailable at time of assessment (PGA EE-LI-294 45.55001 -74.37540 45.55563 -74.37113 5.27 6.07 Quebec CL Segment 1 Moderate between 0.1 g and 0.15 g) Delineated by Golder from Google Earth Possible alluvium adjacent to river. LiDAR unavailable at time of assessment (PGA between 0.1 g EE-LI-295 45.57510 -74.34963 45.57795 -74.35010 9.03 9.35 Quebec CL Segment 1 Moderate and 0.15 g) Delineated by Golder from Google Earth. Quebec CL Segment 1 - EE-LI-296 45.69932 -73.55711 45.69033 -73.53997 9.59 11.50 Montreal Lateral Moderate Possible alluvial deposits (PGA between 0.1 g and 0.15 g) Delineated by Golder from LiDAR Quebec CL Segment 1 - EE-LI-297 45.68812 -73.53835 45.68409 -73.53540 11.78 12.28 Montreal Lateral Moderate Alluvial deposits (PGA between 0.1 g and 0.15 g) Delineated by Golder from LiDAR Quebec CL Segment 1 - EE-LI-298 45.68116 -73.53325 45.67169 -73.52612 12.65 13.85 Montreal Lateral Moderate Possible alluvial deposits in densely urbanized area (PGA between 0.1 g and 0.15 g) Delineated by Golder from LiDAR EE-LI-299 46.42177 -72.71271 46.41984 -72.66819 207.55 211.44 Quebec CL Segment 1 Moderate Possible alluvial deposits adjacent to river (PGA between 0.1 g and 0.15 g) Delineated by Golder from LiDAR EE-LI-300 46.42611 -72.53240 46.42509 -72.52920 226.35 226.64 Quebec CL Segment 1 Moderate Possible alluvial deposits (PGA between 0.1 g and 0.15 g) Delineated by Golder from LiDAR EE-LI-301 46.47779 -72.32971 46.48026 -72.32635 243.92 244.30 Quebec CL Segment 1 Moderate Possible alluvial deposits (PGA between 0.1 g and 0.15 g) Delineated by Golder from LiDAR Possible alluvium. Region is erosional, but this channel has depositional landforms (PGA between Delineated by Golder from LiDAR, WMS-Toporama, and ArcGIS EE-LI-302 46.58181 -72.22443 46.58497 -72.21794 259.01 259.63 Quebec CL Segment 1 Moderate 0.1 g and 0.15 g) world imagery EE-LI-303 46.70116 -71.88600 46.70116 -71.88346 289.59 289.80 Quebec CL Segment 1 Moderate Alluvial deposits in river (PGA between 0.1 g and 0.15 g) Delineated by Golder from LiDAR EE-LI-304 46.68706 -71.74681 46.68775 -71.74332 301.39 301.67 Quebec CL Segment 1 Moderate Possible alluvial deposits (PGA between 0.1 g and 0.15 g) Delineated by Golder from LiDAR EE-LI-305 46.63416 -71.34855 46.63266 -71.34737 340.43 340.62 Quebec CL Segment 1 Low Possible alluvial deposits (PGA <0.1 g) Delineated by Golder from LiDAR EE-LI-306 47.05774 -70.36138 47.06190 -70.35748 72.33 73.03 Quebec CL Segment 2 High Possible alluvial sediments (PGA between 0.2 g and 0.25 g) Delineated by Golder from LiDAR EE-LI-307 47.92872 -69.49712 47.93638 -69.51458 1.55 3.27 Quebec CL Segment 2 Moderate Likely saturated anthropogenic fill or alluvial deposits (PGA between 0.15 g and 0.20 g) Delineated by Golder from LiDAR EE-LI-308 47.59670 -68.91950 47.59672 -68.91704 66.96 67.14 Quebec CL Segment 2 Low Fluvial deposit adjacent to river (PGA <0.1 g) Delineated by Golder based on LiDAR and Google Earth. Delineated by Golder from LiDAR, WMS-Toporama, and ArcGIS EE-LI-309 47.50574 -68.53058 47.51111 -68.50240 100.97 103.29 Quebec CL Segment 2 Low Possible alluvial valley, very flat bottom (PGA <0.1 g) world imagery

EE-LI-310 47.54535 -68.24606 47.54587 -68.24496 11.35 11.46 Saint John Extension CL Low Alluvium adjacent to Richards Brook (PGA <0.1 g) Delineated by Golder from LiDAR, Google Earth, WMS-Toporama.

EE-LI-311 47.54803 -68.22057 47.54802 -68.21930 13.39 13.49 Saint John Extension CL Low Alluvium adjacent to Green River (PGA <0.1 g) Delineated by Golder from LiDAR, Google Earth, WMS-Toporama. Delineated by Golder from LiDAR, WMS-Toporama, and ArcGIS EE-LI-312 47.30668 -67.83578 47.30249 -67.83437 59.92 60.42 Saint John Extension CL Low Alluvium in river valley (PGA <0.1 g) world imagery EE-LI-313 47.26231 -67.77516 47.26146 -67.77407 66.81 66.94 Saint John Extension CL Low Alluvium in stream channel (PGA <0.1 g) Delineated by Golder from LiDAR EE-LI-314 47.20581 -67.70422 47.20493 -67.70323 75.53 75.65 Saint John Extension CL Low Alluvium in stream channel (PGA <0.1 g) Delineated by Golder from LiDAR

EE-LI-315 47.17218 -67.66772 47.17178 -67.66531 80.34 80.53 Saint John Extension CL Low Alluvium adjacent to 10 Mile Brook (PGA <0.1 g) Delineated by Golder from LiDAR, Google Earth, WMS-Toporama.

072214amj1_Table 3_Seismic.xlsx CA PDF Page 66 of 110

July 2014 14-00899 Page 2 of 3

Table 3: Summary of Seismic Hazard Areas

Hazard Hazard ID Start Lat1 Start Long1 End Lat1 End Long1 Start KP End KP Pipeline Segment Classification Description Source Alluvium and older flood plain deposits associated with Salmon River Alluvium also confirmed by Delineated by Golder from LiDAR, Google Earth, New Brunswick EE-LI-317 47.06393 -67.55619 47.06255 -67.55323 96.83 97.10 Saint John Extension CL Low New Brunswick surficial geology (PGA <0.1 g) DNR Surficial Geology, WMS-Toporama

EE-LI-318 46.87195 -67.45462 46.87135 -67.45415 121.27 121.35 Saint John Extension CL Low Alluvium adjacent to Three Brooks River (PGA <0.1 g) Delineated by Golder from LiDAR, Google Earth, WMS-Toporama EE-LI-319 46.86855 -67.45194 46.86807 -67.45156 121.71 121.77 Saint John Extension CL Low Possible alluvium in stream channel (PGA <0.1 g) Delineated by Golder from LiDAR Delineated by Golder from New Brunswick DNR Surficial Geology, EE-LI-320 46.85039 -67.43163 46.84523 -67.41768 124.51 125.72 Saint John Extension CL Low Alluvium adjacent to large river (PGA <0.1 g) LiDAR, Google Earth, WMS-Toporama

EE-LI-321 46.80105 -67.40272 46.80019 -67.40225 130.87 130.97 Saint John Extension CL Low Alluvium adjacent to river (PGA <0.1 g) Delineated by Golder from LiDAR, Google Earth, WMS-Toporama Delineated by Golder from LiDAR, Google Earth, New Brunswick EE-LI-322 46.56567 -67.27475 46.56419 -67.27395 159.79 159.97 Saint John Extension CL Low Alluvium adjacent to South Branch Southwest Miramichi River (PGA <0.1 g) DNR Surficial Geology.

EE-LI-323 46.42256 -66.82894 46.42227 -66.82794 199.72 199.81 Saint John Extension CL Low Alluvium adjacent to stream (PGA <0.1 g) Delineated by Golder from LiDAR, Google Earth, WMS-Toporama EE-LI-324 46.10132 -65.84831 46.10065 -65.84691 290.73 290.86 Saint John Extension CL Low Possible alluvium in stream channel (PGA <0.1 g) Delineated by Golder from LiDAR EE-LI-325 46.04722 -65.82718 46.04685 -65.82651 297.13 297.19 Saint John Extension CL Low Alluvium in stream channel (PGA <0.1 g) Delineated by Golder from LiDAR

EE-LI-326 45.88755 -65.78045 45.88437 -65.78021 316.85 317.21 Saint John Extension CL Low Alluvium in river channel (PGA <0.1 g) Delineated by Golder from LiDAR, Google Earth, WMS-Toporama EE-LI-327 45.70845 -65.78651 45.70528 -65.78688 337.15 337.52 Saint John Extension CL Low Alluvium in river channel (PGA <0.1 g) Delineated by Golder from LiDAR, WMS-Toporama

EE-LI-328 45.68187 -65.78691 45.68065 -65.78702 340.22 340.36 Saint John Extension CL Low Possible alluvium in river channel (PGA <0.1 g) Delineated by Golder from LiDAR, Google Earth, WMS-Toporama. Delineated by Golder from New Brunswick DNR Surficial Geology, EE-LI-329 45.58132 -65.77660 45.57399 -65.78046 351.99 352.86 Saint John Extension CL Low Alluvium in river channel (PGA <0.1 g) LiDAR, Google Earth, WMS-Toporama Possible alluvium which is being incised by stream channel with poorly defined boundaries (PGA EE-LI-331 45.46073 -65.72401 45.46049 -65.72306 368.05 368.13 Saint John Extension CL Low <0.1 g) Delineated by Golder from LiDAR, WMS-Toporama Alluvium in river channel. Uncertain boundaries since LiDAR unavailable at time of assessment EE-LI-334 52.43534 -110.81053 52.43394 -110.80821 45.26 45.48 Alberta CL Low (PGA <0.1 g) Delineated by Golder from WMS-Toporama, Alberta aerial imagery

EE-LI-335 51.97196 -110.63748 51.97105 -110.63858 101.62 101.74 Alberta CL Low Alluvium in stream channel (PGA <0.1 g) Delineated by Golder from LiDAR, WMS-Toporama, aerial imagery Delineated by Golder from Alberta Surficial Geology, LiDAR, Google EE-LI-336 51.96547 -110.63914 51.95520 -110.63173 102.40 103.69 Alberta CL Low Alluvium in river channel (PGA <0.1 g) Earth, WMS-Toporama

EE-LI-337 51.93370 -110.61885 51.92938 -110.61695 106.36 106.86 Alberta CL Low Alluvium in stream channel (PGA <0.1 g) Delineated by Golder from LiDAR, Google Earth, WMS-Toporama Delineated by Golder from LiDAR, Google Earth, WMS-Toporama, EE-LI-338 51.91041 -110.60847 51.90419 -110.60613 109.33 110.04 Alberta CL Low Alluvium in river floodplain. Fluvial deposit indicated just east of centerline (PGA <0.1 g) Alberta Surficial Geology Delineated by Golder from LiDAR, Alberta Geology, Google Earth, EE-LI-339 51.88239 -110.60137 51.88153 -110.60080 112.56 112.66 Alberta CL Low Alluvium in stream channel (PGA <0.1 g) WMS-Toporama

EE-LI-340 51.86268 -110.58622 51.86096 -110.58508 115.21 115.42 Alberta CL Low Alluvium in stream channel (PGA <0.1 g) Delineated by Golder from LiDAR, Google Earth, WMS-Toporama

EE-LI-341 51.80099 -110.55481 51.79921 -110.55440 122.56 122.76 Alberta CL Low Alluvium in stream channel (PGA <0.1 g) Delineated by Golder from LiDAR, Google Earth, WMS-Toporama Alluvium in river channel. Boundaries uncertain. LiDAR unavailable at time of assessment (PGA EE-LI-342 51.58002 -110.53343 51.57574 -110.53077 147.96 148.48 Alberta CL Low <0.1 g) Delineated by Golder from Google Earth, WMS-Toporama Alluvium in stream channel. Uncertain about boundaries since LiDAR unavailable at time of EE-LI-343 51.55675 -110.53261 51.55560 -110.53261 150.67 150.80 Alberta CL Low assessment (PGA <0.1 g) Delineated by Golder from Google Earth, WMS-Toporama

EE-LI-344 51.10308 -110.51894 51.10138 -110.51864 202.86 203.05 Alberta CL Low Possible alluvium in stream channel (PGA <0.1 g) Delineated by Golder from LiDAR, WMS-Toporama, aerial imagery

EE-LI-345 51.00417 -110.49952 51.00262 -110.49883 214.12 214.31 Alberta CL Low Alluvium in stream channel (PGA <0.1 g) Delineated by Golder from LiDAR, WMS-Toporama, aerial imagery Delineated by Golder from LiDAR, Google Earth, Alberta Surficial EE-LI-346 50.88524 -110.45632 50.88064 -110.44383 228.56 229.57 Alberta CL Low Alluvium in river channel (PGA <0.1 g) Geology Possible alluvium in stream channel and point bar. LiDAR unavailable at time of assessment (PGA EE-LI-347 50.19808 -101.45150 50.19809 -101.45506 57.70 57.95 Cromer Lateral CL Low <0.1 g) Delineated by Golder from Google Earth, WMS-Toporama

EE-LI-348 50.17769 -101.44354 50.17881 -101.44361 55.07 55.19 Cromer Lateral CL Low Possible alluvium in stream channel. LiDAR unavailable at time of assessment (PGA <0.1 g) Delineated by Golder from WMS-Toporama, aerial imagery

EE-LI-349 50.16590 -101.44573 50.16659 -101.44582 53.69 53.76 Cromer Lateral CL Low Possible alluvium in stream channel. LiDAR unavailable at time of assessment (PGA <0.1 g) Delineated by Golder from WMS-Toporama, aerial imagery EE-LI-350 50.10412 -101.44494 50.10500 -101.44248 46.65 46.85 Cromer Lateral CL Low Alluvium in stream channel. LiDAR unavailable at time of assessment (PGA <0.1 g) Delineated by Golder from Google Earth, WMS-Toporama EE-LI-351 50.09357 -101.44085 50.10412 -101.44494 45.29 46.65 Cromer Lateral CL Low Possible flood plain alluvium. LiDAR unavailable at time of assessment (PGA <0.1 g) Delineated by Golder from Google Earth, WMS-Toporama

EE-LI-352 50.07574 -101.44237 50.07619 -101.44258 43.28 43.33 Cromer Lateral CL Low Possible alluvium in stream channel. LiDAR unavailable at time of assessment (PGA <0.1 g) Delineated by Golder from Google Earth, WMS-Toporama

072214amj1_Table 3_Seismic.xlsx CA PDF Page 67 of 110

July 2014 14-00899 Page 3 of 3

Table 3: Summary of Seismic Hazard Areas

Hazard Hazard ID Start Lat1 Start Long1 End Lat1 End Long1 Start KP End KP Pipeline Segment Classification Description Source

EE-LI-353 50.04752 -101.44246 50.04914 -101.44296 40.04 40.23 Cromer Lateral CL Low Possible alluvium in stream channel. LiDAR unavailable at time of assessment (PGA <0.1 g) Delineated by Golder from Google Earth, WMS-Toporama Alluvium in river channel. Boundaries uncertain since LiDAR unavailable at time of assessment EE-LI-354 49.98842 -101.38040 49.99488 -101.38116 30.99 31.71 Cromer Lateral CL Low (PGA <0.1 g) Delineated by Golder from Google Earth, WMS-Toporama Alluvium in stream channel. Boundaries uncertain since LiDAR unavailable at time of assessment EE-LI-355 49.95759 -101.38284 49.95856 -101.38254 27.49 27.60 Cromer Lateral CL Low (PGA <0.1 g) Delineated by Golder from WMS-Toporama, aerial imagery

EE-LI-356 49.92877 -101.37406 49.93017 -101.37409 23.85 24.01 Cromer Lateral CL Low Possible alluvium in stream channel. LiDAR unavailable at time of assessment (PGA <0.1 g) Delineated by Golder from Google Earth, WMS-Toporama. Notes 1 North American Datum of 1983

072214amj1_Table 3_Seismic.xlsx CA PDF Page 68 of 110

July 2014 14-00899 1 of 4

Table 4: Summary of Subsidence and Collapsible/Expansive Soil Hazard Areas

Hazard ID Start Lat1 Start Long1 End Lat1 End Long1 Start KP End KP Pipeline Segment Hazard Classification Description Source Subsidence Hazards - Karst Ontario Geological Survey 2011. Bedrock Geology EE-KT-109 44.88963 -75.29504 44.94112 -75.17113 0.00 11.35 Ontario CL Low Carbonate Bedrock of Ontario. Brunton and Dodge 2008. Karst of southern Ontario EE-KT-110 44.94112 -75.17113 45.01719 -74.99256 11.35 27.86 Ontario CL Moderate Area of Potential Karst and Manitoulin Island. Ontario Geological Survey 2011. Bedrock Geology EE-KT-111 45.01719 -74.99256 45.24559 -74.55425 27.86 71.84 Ontario CL Low Carbonate Bedrock of Ontario. Brunton and Dodge 2008. Karst of southern Ontario EE-KT-112 45.24559 -74.55425 45.34141 -74.45794 71.84 85.58 Ontario CL Moderate Area of Potential Karst and Manitoulin Island.

EE-KT-113 45.34141 -74.45794 45.49601 -74.40250 85.58 104.06 Ontario CL Low Carbonate Bedrock Atlas Géoscientifique du Québec, 1:50K Geology

EE-KT-114 45.50005 -74.40057 45.52238 -74.37771 0.51 3.70 Quebec CL Segment 1 Low Carbonate Bedrock Atlas Géoscientifique du Québec, 1:50K Geology

EE-KT-115 45.51488 -74.39643 45.52668 -74.37631 0.00 2.10 Quebec CL Segment 1 Low Carbonate Bedrock Atlas Géoscientifique du Québec, 1:50K Geology

EE-KT-116 45.53219 -74.37376 45.53311 -74.37318 2.98 3.11 Quebec CL Segment 1 Low Carbonate Bedrock Atlas Géoscientifique du Québec, 1:50K Geology

EE-KT-117 45.54307 -74.37075 45.56110 -74.34960 0.00 2.86 Ottawa River Crossing Option A Low Carbonate Bedrock Atlas Géoscientifique du Québec, 1:50K Geology

EE-KT-117 45.53671 -74.37072 45.67922 -74.11899 3.64 35.56 Quebec CL Segment 1 Low Carbonate Bedrock Atlas Géoscientifique du Québec, 1:50K Geology

EE-KT-117 45.56288 -74.34786 45.57112 -74.34899 3.16 4.10 Ottawa River Crossing Option A Low Carbonate Bedrock Atlas Géoscientifique du Québec, 1:50K Geology

EE-KT-117 45.56288 -74.34786 45.57112 -74.34899 5.11 6.04 Ottawa River Crossing Option B Low Carbonate Bedrock Atlas Géoscientifique du Québec, 1:50K Geology

EE-KT-118 45.66648 -74.08657 45.80391 -73.79782 38.91 70.34 Quebec CL Segment 1 Low Carbonate Bedrock Atlas Géoscientifique du Québec, 1:50K Geology

EE-KT-119 45.80448 -73.79489 46.00003 -73.26036 70.58 136.97 Quebec CL Segment 1 Low Carbonate Bedrock Atlas Géoscientifique du Québec, 1:50K Geology Quebec CL Segment 1 - EE-KT-119 45.77669 -73.53153 45.64974 -73.53974 0.00 17.13 Montreal Lateral Low Carbonate Bedrock Atlas Géoscientifique du Québec, 1:50K Geology

EE-KT-120 46.23752 -73.00001 46.50002 -72.30233 172.21 247.29 Quebec CL Segment 1 Low Carbonate Bedrock Atlas Géoscientifique du Québec, 1:50K Geology

EE-KT-121 46.60196 -72.14445 46.67023 -71.95261 265.84 282.89 Quebec CL Segment 1 Low Carbonate Bedrock Atlas Géoscientifique du Québec, 1:50K Geology

EE-KT-122 46.67180 -71.94514 46.73227 -71.56954 283.55 317.51 Quebec CL Segment 1 Low Carbonate Bedrock Atlas Géoscientifique du Québec, 1:50K Geology

EE-KT-123 46.73992 -71.54016 46.73655 -71.52952 320.03 321.05 Quebec CL Segment 1 Low Carbonate Bedrock Atlas Géoscientifique du Québec, 1:50K Geology

EE-KT-124 46.71626 -71.50000 46.70278 -71.48025 324.35 326.48 Quebec CL Segment 1 Low Carbonate Bedrock Atlas Géoscientifique du Québec, 1:50K Geology

EE-KT-125 46.70136 -71.47817 46.68688 -71.43912 326.71 330.54 Quebec CL Segment 1 Low Carbonate Bedrock Atlas Géoscientifique du Québec, 1:50K Geology

EE-KT-126 46.73857 -71.03547 46.74390 -71.00000 5.80 8.62 Quebec CL Segment 2 Low Carbonate Bedrock Atlas Géoscientifique du Québec, 1:50K Geology

072214amj1_Table 4_Subsidence and Soil Hazards.xlsx CA PDF Page 69 of 110

July 2014 14-00899 2 of 4

Table 4: Summary of Subsidence and Collapsible/Expansive Soil Hazard Areas

Hazard ID Start Lat1 Start Long1 End Lat1 End Long1 Start KP End KP Pipeline Segment Hazard Classification Description Source

EE-KT-127 46.75245 -70.97636 46.75001 -70.95498 10.70 12.88 Quebec CL Segment 2 Low Carbonate Bedrock Atlas Géoscientifique du Québec, 1:50K Geology

EE-KT-128 46.92100 -70.58113 46.92783 -70.57295 48.67 49.84 Quebec CL Segment 2 Low Carbonate Bedrock Atlas Géoscientifique du Québec, 1:50K Geology

EE-KT-129 46.92852 -70.57393 46.94063 -70.55697 49.95 52.09 Quebec CL Segment 2 Low Carbonate Bedrock Atlas Géoscientifique du Québec, 1:50K Geology

EE-KT-130 47.00003 -70.45009 47.04175 -70.38330 62.87 69.89 Quebec CL Segment 2 Low Carbonate Bedrock Atlas Géoscientifique du Québec, 1:50K Geology

EE-KT-131 47.04573 -70.37816 47.04779 -70.37526 70.49 70.81 Quebec CL Segment 2 Low Carbonate Bedrock Atlas Géoscientifique du Québec, 1:50K Geology

EE-KT-132 47.05980 -70.35933 47.18056 -70.19759 72.71 91.50 Quebec CL Segment 2 Low Carbonate Bedrock Atlas Géoscientifique du Québec, 1:50K Geology

EE-KT-134 47.68077 -69.30752 47.67313 -69.29382 34.05 35.39 Quebec CL Segment 2 Low Carbonate Bedrock Atlas Géoscientifique du Québec, 1:50K Geology

EE-KT-135 47.65812 -69.26949 47.65281 -69.26158 37.95 38.80 Quebec CL Segment 2 Low Carbonate Bedrock Atlas Géoscientifique du Québec, 1:50K Geology

EE-KT-136 47.59681 -68.96205 47.59678 -68.95560 63.75 64.23 Quebec CL Segment 2 Low Carbonate Bedrock Atlas Géoscientifique du Québec, 1:50K Geology

EE-KT-137 47.59610 -68.89145 47.50004 -68.58546 69.10 96.49 Quebec CL Segment 2 Low Carbonate Bedrock Atlas Géoscientifique du Québec, 1:50K Geology

EE-KT-138 47.50003 -68.55143 47.51471 -68.50000 99.22 103.73 Quebec CL Segment 2 Low Carbonate Bedrock Atlas Géoscientifique du Québec, 1:50K Geology NBDNR 2008. Bedrock Geology of New Brunswick. EE-KT-139 47.37760 -67.88712 47.36068 -67.87928 50.26 52.44 Saint John Extension CL Low Carbonate Bedrock Map NR-1 NBDNR 2008. Bedrock Geology of New Brunswick. EE-KT-140 47.30781 -67.83598 47.23160 -67.73707 59.79 71.53 Saint John Extension CL Low Carbonate Bedrock Map NR-1 NBDNR 2008. Bedrock Geology of New Brunswick. EE-KT-141 47.17265 -67.67055 47.06632 -67.56132 80.12 96.35 Saint John Extension CL Low Carbonate Bedrock Map NR-1 Mississippian beds (gypsum, limestone, Moseley 1996. The gypsum karsts and caves of the EE-KT-142 46.88665 -67.45574 46.82393 -67.40956 119.49 128.22 Saint John Extension CL Low sandstone, shale) Canadian Maritimes. Mississippian beds (gypsum, limestone, Moseley 1996. The gypsum karsts and caves of the EE-KT-143 45.49228 -65.74837 45.43827 -65.71452 363.29 370.89 Saint John Extension CL Low sandstone, shale) Canadian Maritimes. Mossop and Shetsen 1994. Geological Atlas of the EE-KT-144 52.66364 -111.27130 50.67882 -109.97384 0.00 284.09 Alberta CL Low Evaporite Deposits Elk Point Group Western Canada Sedimentary Basin. Mossop and Shetsen 1994. Geological Atlas of the EE-KT-145 49.76267 -101.25150 50.20138 -101.47526 0.00 59.55 Cromer Lateral CL Low Evaporite Deposits Elk Point Group Western Canada Sedimentary Basin. Subsidence Hazards - Underground Mines NBDNR. 2014. New Brunswick Mineral Occurrence EE-UM-59 46.54424 -67.26005 46.54105 -67.25671 162.51 162.96 Saint John Extension CL Moderate Biggar Ridge & Beaver Brook Database Canada Department of Mines. 1914. Coal Fields of EE-UM-61 46.35565 -66.59910 46.19461 -66.03881 219.06 270.90 Saint John Extension CL Low Coal Field Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, Map 126A Canada Department of Mines. 1914. Coal Fields of EE-UM-62 46.17042 -65.99756 45.78840 -65.78458 275.89 327.92 Saint John Extension CL Low Coal Field Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, Map 126A 60-160 m from Manitoba Potash Manitoba Innovation, Energy, and Mines, 2014a. EE-UM-63 50.19803 -101.44794 50.19808 -101.44934 57.44 57.54 Cromer Lateral CL Moderate Withdrawals Potash Withdrawals. 0-60 m from Manitoba Potash Manitoba Innovation, Energy, and Mines, 2014a. EE-UM-64 49.76267 -101.25150 50.19803 -101.44794 0.00 57.44 Cromer Lateral CL High Withdrawals Potash Withdrawals.

072214amj1_Table 4_Subsidence and Soil Hazards.xlsx CA PDF Page 70 of 110

July 2014 14-00899 3 of 4

Table 4: Summary of Subsidence and Collapsible/Expansive Soil Hazard Areas

Hazard ID Start Lat1 Start Long1 End Lat1 End Long1 Start KP End KP Pipeline Segment Hazard Classification Description Source Subsidence Hazards - Fluid Withdrawal Mossop and Shetsen 1994; Government of Alberta, EE-FW-04 52.66364 -111.27130 52.63459 -111.16424 0.00 8.76 Alberta CL Low Alberta Oil and Gas Fields Alberta Energy 2014

Government of Alberta, Alberta Energy 2014. Natural EE-FW-05 52.63459 -111.16424 52.55099 -111.00868 8.76 23.99 Alberta CL Low Alberta Natural Gas Field Gas Fields and Natural Gas in Coal Potential Mossop and Shetsen 1994; Government of Alberta, EE-FW-06 52.55099 -111.00868 52.52222 -110.96702 23.99 28.35 Alberta CL Low Alberta Oil and Gas Fields Alberta Energy 2014

Government of Alberta, Alberta Energy 2014. Natural EE-FW-07 52.52222 -110.96702 52.46813 -110.84999 28.35 39.66 Alberta CL Low Alberta Natural Gas Field Gas Fields and Natural Gas in Coal Potential Mossop and Shetsen 1994; Government of Alberta, EE-FW-08 52.46813 -110.84999 51.99451 -110.63372 39.66 98.84 Alberta CL Low Alberta Oil and Gas Fields Alberta Energy 2014

Government of Alberta, Alberta Energy 2014. Natural EE-FW-09 51.99451 -110.63372 51.92229 -110.61492 98.84 107.93 Alberta CL Low Alberta Natural Gas Field Gas Fields and Natural Gas in Coal Potential

Government of Alberta, Alberta Energy 2014. Natural EE-FW-10 51.71632 -110.55110 51.36355 -110.52397 132.30 172.74 Alberta CL Low Alberta Natural Gas Field Gas Fields and Natural Gas in Coal Potential

Government of Alberta, Alberta Energy 2014. Natural EE-FW-11 51.17288 -110.52536 51.10531 -110.51913 194.86 202.61 Alberta CL Low Alberta Natural Gas Field Gas Fields and Natural Gas in Coal Potential

EE-FW-12 51.03346 -110.50211 50.66545 -110.00480 210.73 280.89 Alberta CL Low Alberta Natural Gas Field Government of Alberta, Alberta Energy 2014 Saskatchewan Industry and Resources 2003. Oil EE-FW-13 50.66545 -110.00480 50.67882 -109.97384 280.89 284.09 Alberta CL Low Saskatchewan Gas Pools and Gas Pools. Manitoba Innovation, Energy, and Mines 2011. Oil EE-FW-14 49.76267 -101.25150 50.04164 -101.44199 0.00 39.38 Cromer Lateral CL Low Manitota Oil Field Boundary Field Boundaries. Expansive/Collapsible Soils Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 2012. Soil Order EE-SO-30 44.88963 -75.29504 45.49604 -74.40243 0.00 104.06 Ontario CL Low Mapped Non-Expansive Soils Map of Canada. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 2012. Soil Order EE-SO-30 45.54307 -74.37075 45.57112 -74.34899 0.00 4.10 Ottawa River Crossing Option A Low Mapped Non-Expansive Soils Map of Canada. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 2012. Soil Order EE-SO-30 45.52631 -74.37133 45.57112 -74.34899 0.00 6.04 Ottawa River Crossing Option B Low Mapped Non-Expansive Soils Map of Canada. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 2012. Soil Order EE-SO-30 45.49604 -74.40243 45.52632 -74.37133 0.00 4.37 Quebec CL Segment 1 Low Mapped Non-Expansive Soils Map of Canada. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 2012. Soil Order EE-SO-30 45.51488 -74.39643 46.73570 -71.10683 0.00 368.69 Quebec CL Segment 1 Low Mapped Non-Expansive Soils Map of Canada. Quebec CL Segment 1 - Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 2012. Soil Order EE-SO-30 45.77669 -73.53153 45.64974 -73.53974 0.00 17.13 Montreal Lateral Low Mapped Non-Expansive Soils Map of Canada. Quebec CL Segment 1 - Lévis Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 2012. Soil Order EE-SO-30 46.69909 -71.16299 46.76548 -71.19745 0.00 9.90 Lateral Low Mapped Non-Expansive Soils Map of Canada. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 2012. Soil Order EE-SO-30 46.73567 -71.10680 47.92040 -69.47602 0.00 210.40 Quebec CL Segment 2 Low Mapped Non-Expansive Soils Map of Canada. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 2012. Soil Order EE-SO-30 47.92055 -69.47581 47.55488 -68.38297 0.00 114.49 Quebec CL Segment 2 Low Mapped Non-Expansive Soils Map of Canada.

072214amj1_Table 4_Subsidence and Soil Hazards.xlsx CA PDF Page 71 of 110

July 2014 14-00899 4 of 4

Table 4: Summary of Subsidence and Collapsible/Expansive Soil Hazard Areas

Hazard ID Start Lat1 Start Long1 End Lat1 End Long1 Start KP End KP Pipeline Segment Hazard Classification Description Source Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 2012. Soil Order EE-SO-30 47.92936 -69.48166 47.93638 -69.51458 0.00 3.27 Quebec CL Segment 2 Low Mapped Non-Expansive Soils Map of Canada. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 2012. Soil Order EE-SO-30 47.55422 -68.38312 45.22556 -65.99575 0.00 410.50 Saint John Extension CL Low Mapped Non-Expansive Soils Map of Canada. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 2012. Soil Order EE-SO-31 52.66364 -111.27130 50.95614 -110.49343 0.00 219.56 Alberta CL Low Mapped Non-Expansive Soils Map of Canada. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 2004. Canadian EE-SO-32 50.95614 -110.49343 50.89092 -110.46816 219.56 227.51 Alberta CL Moderate Alberta Vertisol Soil Information Service, Soil Landscapes of Canada Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 2012. Soil Order EE-SO-33 50.89092 -110.46816 50.67882 -109.97384 227.51 284.09 Alberta CL Low Mapped Non-Expansive Soils Map of Canada. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 2012. Soil Order EE-SO-34 49.76267 -101.25150 50.20138 -101.47526 0.00 59.55 Cromer Lateral CL Low Mapped Non-Expansive Soils Map of Canada. Notes 1 North American Datum of 1983

072214amj1_Table 4_Subsidence and Soil Hazards.xlsx CA PDF Page 72 of 110

July 2014 14-00899 Page 1 of 1

Table 5: New Build Energy East Phase I Geologic Hazards Recommendations Summary Recommendation Hazard Type Low Hazard Moderate Hazard High Hazard Use of best practice pipeline construction methods to reduce potential for construction and post-construction Conduct site-specific ground reconnaissance for all high hazard Landslide landslide formation. Consider conducting site-specific ground reconnaissance for landslide areas (Phase II). Periodic visual inspection, such as during annual aerial selected moderate hazard landslide areas (Phase II). reconnaissance.

Earthquake (Shaking) In the event of an earthquake of magnitude 5 or greater in the vicinity of the Energy East pipeline, inspect alignment for evidence of impacts or damage.

Earthquake (Liquefaction [buoyancy, settlement and lateral spreading]) Field inspection of liquefaction susceptible areas following earthquake of magnitude 5 or greater in vicinity of the Energy East pipeline.

Earthquake (Fault Rupture) No fault hazards identified.

Stay well-informed of mining activities in the region and determine whether any underground mines are planned in the vicinity of the proposed alignment. Subsidence Conduct annual inspection of potential subsidence hazard areas, such as during annual aerial reconnaissance.

Collapsible/Expansive Soils Only low and moderate hazard areas identified along the Energy East pipeline. No additional assessment recommended at this time.

072214amj1_Table 5_EE - Recommendations_Rev1.Docx CA PDF Page 73 of 110

FIGURES CA PDF Page 74 of 110 Smoky Cold Lake Lake Redwater Northwest Bon Bonnyville KEY MAP LEGEND Morinville Accord Yukon Territories Gibbons 50 ! St. Fort Kilometre Post and Number Saskatchewan Albert Lamont St. Paul Snow Spruce British Flin Lake Grove Edmonton Elk Columbia Flon Point Energy East Centerline Two Meadow Flin Hills Flon

Lake Alberta

Devon Manitoba Beaumont Ontario Alberta Centerline Saskatchewan Leduc Vegreville Québec Tofield Cromer Lateral Centerline

Millet Nova Scotia Wetaskiwin Vermilion Camrose

Viking Lloydminster A l b e r t a Lloydminster

Killam

Wainwright

Shellbrook Prince Albert Nipawin Stettler 0 Carrot River North Battleford Battleford

50 Provost Macklin Unity Melfort Wilkie Rosthern Tisdale Hudson Bay

Langham 100 Dalmeny Hanna Martensville Drumheller Warman Kerrobert Biggar Saskatoon Humboldt

150 Kelvington Saskatchewan Kindersley Swan M a n i t o b a Rosetown Lanigan Wadena River Preeceville Bassano Watrous 200 Outlook Wynyard

Foam Eston Lake

Canora Brooks Davidson Kamsack

250

280 Yorkton Roblin

Dauphin 0 30 60 120 Medicine Melville Hat Fort Taber Bow Redcliff Qu'Appelle Island Lumsden Swift Langenburg 1:3,000,000 KILOMETRE Current Gull Russell Moose Maple Lake Indian Jaw Head Esterhazy Creek Regina Pilot Balgonie Butte Grenfell NOTE 1. ALIGNMENT SEGMENTS RECEIVED FROM TRANSCANADA ON 01/30/2014 Shaunavon Gravelbourg

Kipling Minnedosa REFERENCES Moosomin Neepawa 50 1. SERVICE LAYER CREDITS: COPYRIGHT:© 2014 ESRI

Assiniboia Rivers COPYRIGHT: ©2014 ESRI, DELORME, HERE 2. COORDINATE SYSTEM: CANADA LAMBERT CONFORMAL Weyburn Virden CONIC, DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN 1983 Brandon Carberry 0 Carlyle

Souris CLIENT TRANSCANADA C a n a d a C a n a d a PROJECT Oxbow Estevan Melita Carnduff NEW BUILD ENERGY EAST U n i t e d S t a t e s Boissevain Deloraine Killarney PHASE I GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ASSESSMENT TITLE PROJECT OVERVIEW

WEST PORTION IF THISMEASUREMENT DOES NOT MATCH WHATIS SHOWN, THE SHEET SIZEHAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM: CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2014-06-12 M o n t a n a in1 PREPARED DCH

DESIGN DCH North Dakota REVIEW AMJ APPROVED DOW PROJECT No. Rev. FIGURE 1400899 0

Path: G:\Trans_Canada\Energy_East\99_PROJECTS\1400899_Energy_East_Phase1_Geologic_Assessment\03_PRODUCTION\MXD\FIGURE\PhaseI_Report\Rev0\1400899_2000_003_Rev0_EnergyEast_Overview_West.mxd 1 0 Chaleur CA PDF Page 75 of 110 Matane Bay New Northwest Richmond KEYBonaventure MAP Gulf of St. LEGEND Gulf of St Yukon TerritoriesShippagan CaraquetLawrence 50 Lawrence ! Kilometre Post and Number Amqui Causapscal Dalhousie British Mont-Joli Columbia Tracadie-Sheila UV11 Energy East Centerline Forestville Campbellton Beresford Pointe-au-Père Alberta Bathurst Manitoba P r i n c e Ontario Centerline Rimouski Ontario Saskatchewan Chibougamau E d w aQuébec r d Alberton Ottawa River Crossing Option A Centerline I s l a n d Nova I s l a n d Scotia Ottawa River Crossing Option B Centerline Kensington Miramichi Summerside Trois-Pistoles Québec Segment 1 Dolbeau-Mistassini Saint-Quentin Richibucto Québec Segment 2 Normandin UV8 Chicoutimi Bouctouche Alma Jonquière La Baie 210 Lac St. 200 Saint-Félicien Saint John Extension Centerline Jean Rivière-du-Loup Cabano Notre-Dame-du-Lac Shediac Roberval 30 0 Desbiens 0 N e w Métabetchouan 110 Edmundston N e w 20 50 St. Leonard 100 Grand Moncton 50 Falls Oxford B r u n s w i c k Dieppe Sackville Amherst La Riverview Malbaie--Pointe-au-Pic 100 Springhill Clermont UV20 150

La Pocatière 150 UV2 Baie-Saint-Paul Q u é b e c 200 250 Parrsboro Maquapit 300 Lake Sussex 100 Fredericton Oromocto Wolfville Woodstock Kentville Nackawic Beaupré 350 Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupré Montmagny Berwick La Tuque Château-Richer 50 Rothesay

Beauport Middleton 400 Québec Saint Saint-Raymond Bridgetown 10 0 1 Pont-Rouge 0 UV John 360 Lac-Etchemin Donnacona Portneuf 350 Sainte-Marie St. Saint-Joseph-de-Beauce Saint-Tite 300 Stephen Saint UV20 Beauceville Andrews Digby Saint-Georges Grand-Mère

250 Thetford Plessisville Mines Shawinigan Black M a i n e Princeville Lake N o v a 200 Victoriaville Disraeli Louiseville S c o t i a Saint-Gabriel Warwick

Lac-Mégantic Shelburne

Danville Sorel Drummondville Fleuve St Laurent Asbestos Mont-Laurier 150 Yarmouth Joliette Richmond East 0 30 60 120 Windsor Angus Acton Cookshire Vale Bromptonville Saint-Jovite L'Épiphanie UV55 1:3,000,000 KILOMETRE Sherbrooke Maniwaki Sainte-Adèle Laurentides Valcourt Saint-Hyacinthe Lennoxville Fleurimont Terrebonne 100 Rock Lafontaine 0 Mont-Saint-Hilaire Forest Saint-Jérôme Granby Waterloo Magog Beloeil Coaticook Saint-Antoine 10 Otterburn Park Laval Longueuil Marieville Richelieu Saint-Césaire Lachute 50Montréal NOTE L'Île-Bizard Farnham Cowansville Saint-Luc Iberville 1. ALIGNMENT SEGMENTS RECEIVED FROM TRANSCANADA Hawkesbury L'Île-Perrot Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu ON 01/30/2014, 05/26/2014, AND 05/29/14 Bedford Saint-Rémi 0 Pincourt Thurso Saint-Timothée REFERENCES Buckingham 100 Salaberry-de-Valleyfield Masson-Angers CC a a n n a a d d a a 1. SERVICE LAYER CREDITS: COPYRIGHT:© 2014 ESRI Ottawa River COPYRIGHT: ©2014 ESRI, DELORME, HERE Ottawa Gloucester Huntingdon Atlantic Ocean Hull 417 2. COORDINATE SYSTEM: CANADA LAMBERT CONFORMAL Aylmer UV Nepean Arnprior CONIC, DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN 1983 50 UnitedUnited StatesStates Cornwall

Carleton CLIENT Mississippi Place 416 Mills UV TRANSCANADA

Smiths 0 Falls Perth PROJECT Prescott V e r m o n t N e w NEW BUILD ENERGY EAST Brockville PHASE I GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ASSESSMENT O n t a r i o H a m p s h i r e TITLE St. Lawrence River N e w Y o r k N e w Y o r k PROJECT OVERVIEW 401

UV EAST PORTION IF THISMEASUREMENT DOES NOT MATCH WHATIS SHOWN, THE SHEET SIZEHAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM: Gananoque CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2014-07-21 1 in1 PREPARED DCH Kingston DESIGN DCH Deseronto REVIEW AMJ

APPROVED DOW PROJECT No. Rev. FIGURE 1400899 1

Path: G:\Trans_Canada\Energy_East\99_PROJECTS\1400899_Energy_East_Phase1_Geologic_Assessment\03_PRODUCTION\MXD\FIGURE\PhaseI_Report\Rev1\1400899_2000_003_Rev1_EnergyEast_Overview_East.mxd 2 Lake 0 Ontario CA PDF Page 76 of 110

KEY MAP Northwest LEGEND Yukon Territories 50 ! Kilometre Post and Number British Edmonton Columbia Energy East Centerline

Alberta Manitoba Ontario Peak Ground Acceleration Saskatchewan Québec (475-year return period)

Nova Scotia 0.01g- 0.05g Hisotrical Earthquake (Magnitude 4.0 or higher) A l b e r t a Magnitude !( 4.0 to 4.99

0

50 0.01g to 0.05g

100

150 Saskatchewan M a n i t o b a

200

250

280 0 30 60 120

1:3,000,000 KILOMETRE

NOTE 1. ALIGNMENT SEGMENTS RECEIVED FROM TRANSCANADA 01/30/2014

REFERENCES 1. SERVICE LAYER CREDITS: COPYRIGHT:© 2014 ESRI COPYRIGHT: ©2014 ESRI, DELORME, HERE 2. COORDINATE SYSTEM: CANADA LAMBERT CONFORMAL 50 CONIC, DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN 1983 3. SEE SECTIONS 7.1 AND 7.2 FOR TECHNICAL REFERENCES USED TO PREPARE THIS FIGURE

0

CLIENT TRANSCANADA C a n a d a C a n a d a PROJECT U n i t e d S t a t e s NEW BUILD ENERGY EAST PHASE I GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ASSESSMENT TITLE PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION AND

SELECTED HISTORICAL EARTHQUAKES - WEST PORTION IF THISMEASUREMENT DOES NOT MATCH WHATIS SHOWN, THE SHEET SIZEHAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM: CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2014-06-12 M o n t a n a in1 PREPARED DCH

DESIGN DCH North Dakota REVIEW AMJ APPROVED DOW PROJECT No. Rev. FIGURE 1400899 0

Path: G:\Trans_Canada\Energy_East\99_PROJECTS\1400899_Energy_East_Phase1_Geologic_Assessment\03_PRODUCTION\MXD\FIGURE\PhaseI_Report\Rev0\1400899_2000_006_Rev0_EnergyEast_Seismic_West.mxd 3 0 CA PDF Page 77 of 110

KEY MAP Northwest LEGEND Yukon Territories ! 50 Kilometre Post and Number

British Columbia Energy East Centerline

Alberta Peak Ground Acceleration Manitoba POntario r i n c e Saskatchewan E d w aQuébec r d (475-year return period) 0.01g- 0.05g II s s l l a a n n d d Nova Scotia 0.05g - 0.10g 0.10g - 0.15g 0.1g ? 0.15g - 0.20g 210 200 ? 0.20g - 0.25g 0 1982 M 5.7 0 30 110 50 0.15g 20 Miramichi 0.25g - 0.30g 100 ? 0.2g 1663 50 N e w 0.30g - 0.35g 0.25g M 7.0 100 0.3g Charlevoix B r u n s w i c k 150 B r u n s w i c k 0.35g - 0.40g 0.35g 0.5g

0.4g 150 0.40g - 0.45g

Q u é b e c 0.45g 200 250 300 ? 0.45g - 0.50g 100 ? 0.50g - 0.85g Charlevoix Fredericton Seismic Zone Peak Ground Acceleration Contour (g) 350 Hisotrical Earthquake (Magnitude 4.0 or higher) 50 Northern Appalachians Magnitude Québec 400 ? Seismic Zone Saint !( >6 10 0 0 John 360 (! 5.0 to 5.99 350 ? 0.1g !( 300 4.0 to 4.99 Seismic Zones 250 Charlevoix Seismic Zone (CSZ) ? N o v a Western Québec Seismic Zone (WQSZ) 200 S c o t i a Northern Appalachians Seismic Zone (NASZ) 0 30 60 120 ? Western Québec 150 M a i n e 1:3,000,000 KILOMETRE Seismic Zone 0.05g NOTE 1. ALIGNMENT SEGMENTS RECEIVED FROM TRANSCANADA 100 01/30/2014, 05/26/2014, AND 05/29/2014 0 ? 10 1732 M 5.8 Montréal50 Montreal REFERENCES 1. SERVICE LAYER CREDITS: COPYRIGHT:© 2014 ESRI COPYRIGHT: ©2014 ESRI, DELORME, HERE 0 ? 2. COORDINATE SYSTEM: CANADA LAMBERT CONFORMAL 100 CC a a n n a a d d a a CONIC, DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN 1983 3. SEE SECTIONS 7.1 AND 7.2 FOR TECHNICAL REFERENCES Ottawa ? USED TO PREPARE THIS FIGURE UnitedUnited StatesStates 50 Atlantic Ocean CLIENT 1944 M 5.6 TRANSCANADA 0 Cornwall ? PROJECT V e r m o n t NEW BUILD ENERGY EAST N e w ? PHASE I GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ASSESSMENT O n t a r i o TITLE H a m p s h i r e PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION, SEISMIC ZONES, AND

SELECTED HISTORICAL EARTHQUAKES - EAST PORTION IF THISMEASUREMENT DOES NOT MATCH WHATIS SHOWN, THE SHEET SIZEHAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM: CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2014-06-12 ? in1 PREPARED DCH N e w Y o r k DESIGN DCH 0.05g REVIEW AMJ

APPROVED DOW PROJECT No. Rev. FIGURE 1400899 0

Path: G:\Trans_Canada\Energy_East\99_PROJECTS\1400899_Energy_East_Phase1_Geologic_Assessment\03_PRODUCTION\MXD\FIGURE\PhaseI_Report\Rev0\1400899_2000_006_Rev0_EnergyEast_Seismic_East.mxd 4 0 0.05 CA PDF Page 78 of 110

KEY MAP Northwest LEGEND Yukon Territories 50 ! Kilometre Post and Number British Edmonton Columbia Energy East Centerline

Alberta Manitoba Ontario Potential Landslide Hazard Area Saskatchewan Québec Low

Nova Scotia

A l b e r t a

!

! 0 !

!

!

!

50 !

!

!

!

!

100 !

!

!

!

! 150 ! ! Saskatchewan ! M a n i t o b a

!

! 200 !

!

!

!

! ! 250 ! !

280

0 30 60 120

1:3,000,000 KILOMETRE NOTE Regina 1. ALIGNMENT SEGMENTS RECEIVED FROM TRANSCANADA 01/30/2014

REFERENCES 1. SERVICE LAYER CREDITS: COPYRIGHT:© 2014 ESRI COPYRIGHT: ©2014 ESRI, DELORME, HERE ! 50 2. COORDINATE SYSTEM: CANADA LAMBERT CONFORMAL ! CONIC, DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN 1983 ! 3. SEE SECTIONS 7.1 AND 7.2 FOR TECHNICAL REFERENCES !

! USED TO PREPARE THIS FIGURE ! 0

CLIENT TRANSCANADA

C a n a d a PROJECT U n i t e d S t a t e s NEW BUILD ENERGY EAST U n i t e d S t a t e s PHASE I GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ASSESSMENT TITLE POTENTIAL LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS

WEST PORTION IF THISMEASUREMENT DOES NOT MATCH WHATIS SHOWN, THE SHEET SIZEHAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM: CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2014-06-12 M o n t a n a in1 PREPARED DCH

DESIGN DCH North Dakota REVIEW AMJ APPROVED DOW PROJECT No. Rev. FIGURE 1400899 0

Path: G:\Trans_Canada\Energy_East\99_PROJECTS\1400899_Energy_East_Phase1_Geologic_Assessment\03_PRODUCTION\MXD\FIGURE\PhaseI_Report\Rev0\1400899_2000_007_Rev0_EnergyEast_Landslides_West.mxd 5 0 Chaleur CA PDF Page 79 of 110 Bay KEY MAP GulfNorthwest of St. LEGEND Yukon Territories Gulf of St Lawrence 50 Lawrence ! Kilometre Post and Number British Columbia Energy East Centerline

Alberta Manitoba POntario r i n c e Potential Landslide Hazard Area and ID Number Saskatchewan Québec E d w a r d High EE-LS-229 I s l a n d Nova I s l a n d Scotia Moderate (M3) Moderate (M2) EE-LS-303 Moderate (M1) 210

Lac St. !!! 200 ! ! ! ! Low ! ! Jean ! ! ! !! 0 ! 30 ! 0 ! ! ! ! ! N e w ! ! 110 N e w 20 ! ! 50 ! Extent of Québec Detail Map (Figure 7) !

100 ! ! 50 ! B r u n s w i c k ! Q u é b e c 100 !

! !

150 !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 150 ! ! ! 200 250 ! ! Maquapit 300 Lake ! ! 100 !

! Fredericton !

See Québec Detail Map (Figure 7) ! !

! !

350 !

!

!

! 50 !

! !

! 400 ! Québec ! ! Saint ! 10 ! 0 John ! 0 ! ! ! ! 360

! ! 350

! 300 !

!

!

! 250 ! ! M a i n e ! ! N o v a ! 200 ! S c o t i a !

!

! Fleuve St Laurent ! 150 0 30 60 120

!

! 1:3,000,000 KILOMETRE

! ! ! ! ! ! 100 NOTE 0 ! ! 1. ALIGNMENT SEGMENTS RECEIVED FROM TRANSCANADA 10 ! 01/30/2014, 05/26/2014, AND 05/29/2014 ! ! 50 Montréal !

! REFERENCES

! ! 1. SERVICE LAYER CREDITS: COPYRIGHT:© 2014 ESRI ! 0

! 100 COPYRIGHT: ©2014 ESRI, DELORME, HERE EE-LS-230 Atlantic Ocean ! CC a a n n a a d d a a 2. COORDINATE SYSTEM: CANADA LAMBERT CONFORMAL EE-LS-229 ! CONIC, DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN 1983

! Ottawa River 3. SEE SECTIONS 7.1 AND 7.2 FOR TECHNICAL REFERENCES ! USED TO PREPARE THIS FIGURE ! 50 UnitedUnited StatesStates

!

! CLIENT ! TRANSCANADA ! 0 PROJECT V e r m o n t NEW BUILD ENERGY EAST N e w PHASE I GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ASSESSMENT O n t a r i o TITLE St. Lawrence River H a m p s h i r e N e w Y o r k POTENTIAL LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS

EAST PORTION IF THISMEASUREMENT DOES NOT MATCH WHATIS SHOWN, THE SHEET SIZEHAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM: CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2014-06-12 1 in1 PREPARED DCH

DESIGN DCH REVIEW AMJ

APPROVED DOW PROJECT No. Rev. FIGURE 1400899 0

Path: G:\Trans_Canada\Energy_East\99_PROJECTS\1400899_Energy_East_Phase1_Geologic_Assessment\03_PRODUCTION\MXD\FIGURE\PhaseI_Report\Rev0\1400899_2000_007_Rev0_EnergyEast_Landslides_East.mxd 6 Lake 0 Ontario CA PDF Page 80 of 110 LEGEND 50 ! Kilometre Post and Number Energy East Centerline EE-LS-296 Potential Landslide Hazard Area and ID Number EE-LS-287 High Montmagny Beaupré Moderate (M3) Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupré 50 Moderate (M2) La Tuque Château-Richer Moderate (M1) Low

EE-LS-287 10 EE-LS-292

Saint-Raymond Québec 0 EE-LS-288 EE-LS-291 EE-LS-284 Pont-Rouge QQ u u é é b b e e c c 300 Lac-Etchemin EE-LS-272 350

Portneuf EE-LS-278 Sainte-Marie EE-LS-268 EE-LS-274 t n re Saint-Joseph-de-Beauce Saint-Tite u a L EE-LS-266 t Beauceville S e v 250 u Saint-Georges le Grand-Mère F EE-LS-267 EE-LS-260 EE-LS-265 EE-LS-258 Thetford EE-LS-261 Plessisville Mines EE-LS-257 Black EE-LS-256 Princeville Lake EE-LS-252 200 EE-LS-253 EE-LS-251 EE-LS-250 EE-LS-249 Victoriaville Disraeli 0 10 20 40 EE-LS-247 EE-LS-248 KILOMETRE EE-LS-245 1:1,100,000 Louiseville Warwick NOTE Saint-Gabriel 1. ALIGNMENT SEGMENTS RECEIVED FROM TRANSCANADA EE-LS-244 01/30/2014, 05/26/2014, AND 05/29/2014 EE-LS-243 Lac-Mégantic

150 REFERENCES Danville Asbestos 1. SERVICE LAYER CREDITS: COPYRIGHT:© 2014 ESRI Drummondville COPYRIGHT: ©2014 ESRI, DELORME, HERE Tracy 2. COORDINATE SYSTEM: CANADA LAMBERT CONFORMAL CONIC, DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN 1983 Joliette Richmond 3. SEE SECTIONS 7.1 AND 7.2 FOR TECHNICAL REFERENCES East USED TO PREPARE THIS FIGURE Angus Windsor Contrecoeur Acton Cookshire CLIENT Vale Bromptonville CC a a n n a a d d a a TRANSCANADA Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts 100 L'Épiphanie Fleurimont EE-LS-235 Sherbrooke Sainte-Adèle Valcourt Rock Lennoxville M a i n e PROJECT Saint-Hyacinthe Forest NEW BUILD ENERGY EAST 0 PHASE I GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ASSESSMENT EE-LS-236 UnitedUnited StatesStates TITLE Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines 10 Lafontaine Saint-Antoine Beloeil POTENTIAL LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS

Saint-Jérôme Otterburn Magog QUÉBEC DETAIL MAP IF THISMEASUREMENT DOES NOT MATCH WHATIS SHOWN, THE SHEET SIZEHAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM: Granby Waterloo Park CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2014-06-12 50 Coaticook in1 Longueuil Saint-Césaire PREPARED DCH Marieville N e w Laval Richelieu Montréal H a m p s h i r e DESIGN DCH Lachute REVIEW AMJ Saint-Luc Farnham APPROVED DOW L'Île-Bizard Cowansville 10 Iberville PROJECT No. Rev. FIGURE Hawkesbury Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu V e r m o n t 1400899 0

Path: G:\Trans_Canada\Energy_East\99_PROJECTS\1400899_Energy_East_Phase1_Geologic_Assessment\03_PRODUCTION\MXD\FIGURE\PhaseI_Report\Rev0\1400899_2000_008_Rev0_EnergyEast_Landslides_QuebecDetail.mxd 7 0 0 CA PDF Page 81 of 110

KEY MAP Northwest LEGEND Yukon Territories 50 ! Kilometre Post and Number British Columbia Energy East Centerline

Alberta Manitoba Ontario Liquefaction Hazard Areas Saskatchewan Québec Low

Nova Scotia

A l b e r t a

!

! 0 !

!

!

!

50 !

!

!

!

!

100 !

!

!

!

! 150 ! ! Saskatchewan ! M a n i t o b a

!

! 200 !

! 0 30 60 120

!

! 1:3,000,000 KILOMETRE ! ! 250 ! !

280 NOTE 1. ALIGNMENT SEGMENTS RECEIVED FROM TRANSCANADA TRANSCANADA 01/30/2014

REFERENCES 1. SERVICE LAYER CREDITS: COPYRIGHT:© 2014 ESRI COPYRIGHT: ©2014 ESRI, DELORME, HERE 2. COORDINATE SYSTEM: CANADA LAMBERT CONFORMAL CONIC, DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN 1983 3. SEE SECTIONS 7.1 AND 7.2 FOR TECHNICAL REFERENCES USED TO PREPARE THIS FIGURE

! 50

!

!

!

!

! 0

CLIENT TRANSCANADA C a n a d a C a n a d a PROJECT U n i t e d S t a t e s NEW BUILD ENERGY EAST PHASE I GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ASSESSMENT TITLE POTENTIAL LIQUEFACTION SUSCEPTIBLE SOIL AREAS -

WEST PORTION IF THISMEASUREMENT DOES NOT MATCH WHATIS SHOWN, THE SHEET SIZEHAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM: CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2014-06-12 M o n t a n a in1 PREPARED DCH

DESIGN DCH North Dakota REVIEW AMJ APPROVED DOW PROJECT No. Rev. FIGURE 1400899 0

Path: G:\Trans_Canada\Energy_East\99_PROJECTS\1400899_Energy_East_Phase1_Geologic_Assessment\03_PRODUCTION\MXD\FIGURE\PhaseI_Report\Rev0\1400899_2000_009_Rev0_EnergyEast_Liquefaction_West.mxd 8 0 Chaleur CA PDF Page 82 of 110 Bay KEY MAP GulfNorthwest of St. LEGEND Gulf of St Yukon Territories Lawrence 50 Lawrence ! Kilometre Post and Number British Columbia Energy East Centerline

Alberta Manitoba POntario r i n c e Liquefaction Hazard Areas Saskatchewan Québec E d w a r d High

I s l a n d Nova I s l a n d Scotia Moderate Low

210

Lac St. !!! 200 ! ! ! !! ! Jean ! ! ! !! 0 ! 30 ! 0 ! ! ! ! ! N e w ! ! 110 N e w 20 ! ! 50 ! !

100 ! ! 50 ! B r u n s w i c k !

100 !

! !

150 !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 150 ! ! ! Q u é b e c 250 ! Q u é b e c ! 200 Maquapit 300 Lake ! ! 100 !

! !

! !

! !

350 !

!

!

! 50 !

! !

! 400 ! !

!

! 10 ! 0 ! 0 ! ! ! ! 360

! ! 350

! 300 !

!

! 0 30 60 120

! 250

! ! M a i n e 1:3,000,000 KILOMETRE ! ! N o v a ! 200 ! S c o t i a NOTE ! 1. ALIGNMENT SEGMENTS RECEIVED FROM TRANSCANADA ! ON 01/30/2014, 05/26/2014, AND 05/29/14 ! Fleuve St Laurent ! 150

!

! REFERENCES

! ! ! ! 1. SERVICE LAYER CREDITS: COPYRIGHT:© 2014 ESRI ! ! 100 ! ! 0 COPYRIGHT: ©2014 ESRI, DELORME, HERE 10 ! 2. COORDINATE SYSTEM: CANADA LAMBERT CONFORMAL ! ! 50 CONIC, DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN 1983 !

! 3. SEE SECTIONS 7.1 AND 7.2 FOR TECHNICAL REFERENCES

! ! USED TO PREPARE THIS FIGURE ! 0 Atlantic Ocean ! 100

! Ottawa River CC a a n n a a d d a a !

!

! ! 50 UnitedUnited StatesStates

!

! CLIENT ! TRANSCANADA ! 0 PROJECT V e r m o n t NEW BUILD ENERGY EAST N e w PHASE I GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ASSESSMENT O n t a r i o TITLE St. Lawrence River H a m p s h i r e N e w Y o r k POTENTIAL LIQUEFACTION SUSCEPTIBLE SOIL AREAS -

EAST PORTION IF THISMEASUREMENT DOES NOT MATCH WHATIS SHOWN, THE SHEET SIZEHAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM: CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2014-06-12 1 in1 PREPARED DCH

DESIGN DCH REVIEW AMJ

APPROVED DOW PROJECT No. Rev. FIGURE 1400899 0

Path: G:\Trans_Canada\Energy_East\99_PROJECTS\1400899_Energy_East_Phase1_Geologic_Assessment\03_PRODUCTION\MXD\FIGURE\PhaseI_Report\Rev0\1400899_2000_009_Rev0_EnergyEast_Liquefaction_East.mxd 9 Lake 0 Ontario CA PDF Page 83 of 110

KEY MAP Northwest LEGEND Yukon Territories 50 ! Kilometre Post and Number British Columbia Energy East Centerline

Alberta Manitoba Ontario Collapsible/Expansive Soil Hazard Areas Saskatchewan Québec Moderate

Nova Scotia Underground Mining Hazard Areas High A l b e r t a Moderate Karst Hazard Areas Low

!

! 0 !

!

!

!

50 !

!

!

!

!

100 !

!

!

!

! 150 ! ! Saskatchewan ! M a n i t o b a

!

! 0 30 60 120 200 ! Moderate Collapsible/Expansive Soil Hazard Area ! 1:3,000,000 KILOMETRE

!

! NOTES ! ! 250 ! 1. ALIGNMENT SEGMENTS RECEIVED FROM TRANSCANADA ! 01/30/2014 280 2. LOW COLLAPSIBLE/EXPANSIVE SOIL HAZARD AREAS INCLUDE ALL PORTIONS OF THE ALIGNMENT NOT SHOWN AS A "MODERATE" TO COLLAPSIBLE/EXPANSIVE SOIL HAZARD AREA 3. FLUID WITHDRAWAL HAZARD AREAS SHOWIN ON FIGURE 12

REFERENCES 1. SERVICE LAYER CREDITS: COPYRIGHT:© 2014 ESRI COPYRIGHT: ©2014 ESRI, DELORME, HERE 2. COORDINATE SYSTEM: CANADA LAMBERT CONFORMAL CONIC, DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN 1983 3. SEE SECTIONS 7.1 AND 7.2 FOR TECHINCAL REFERENCES Manitoba Potash Mines USED TO PREPARE THIS FIGURE Along the Cromer Lateral (Moderate/High Underground Mining Hazard Area) ! 50 ! Low Karst Hazard Area !

!

!

! 0

CLIENT TRANSCANADA C a n a d a C a n a d a PROJECT U n i t e d S t a t e s NEW BUILD ENERGY EAST PHASE I GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ASSESSMENT TITLE POTENTIAL SUBSIDENCE HAZARD AREAS AND EXPANSIVE/COLLAPSIBLE SOILS - WEST PORTION IF IF THISMEASUREMENT DOES NOT MATCH WHATIS SHOWN, THE SHEET SIZEHAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM: CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2014-06-12 M o n t a n a in1 PREPARED DCH

DESIGN DCH North Dakota REVIEW AMJ APPROVED DOW PROJECT No. Rev. FIGURE 1400899 0

Path: G:\Trans_Canada\Energy_East\99_PROJECTS\1400899_Energy_East_Phase1_Geologic_Assessment\03_PRODUCTION\MXD\FIGURE\PhaseI_Report\Rev0\1400899_2000_005_Rev0_EnergyEast_Karst_UGMine_Soils_West.mxd 10 0 Chaleur CA PDF Page 84 of 110 Bay KEY MAP GulfNorthwest of St. LEGEND Gulf of St Yukon Territories Lawrence 50 Lawrence ! Kilometre Post and Number British Columbia Energy East Centerline

Alberta Manitoba POntario r i n c e Underground Mining Hazard Areas Saskatchewan Québec E d w a r d High

I s l a n d Nova I s l a n d Scotia Moderate Karst Hazard Areas Moderate 210

Lac St. !!! 200 ! ! ! Low !! ! Jean ! ! ! !! 0 ! 30 ! 0 ! ! ! ! ! N e w ! ! 110 N e w 20 ! ! 50 ! !

100 ! ! 50 ! B r u n s w i c k !

100 !

! Low Underground Mining Hazard Area !

150 !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 150 ! ! ! Q u é b e c 250 ! Q u é b e c ! 200 Maquapit 300 Lake ! ! 100 ! ! Moderate/High ! ! !

! Underground Mining Hazard Area ! 350 !

!

!

! 50 !

! !

! 400 ! !

!

! 10 ! 0 ! 0 ! ! ! ! 360

! ! 350

! 300 0 30 60 120 !

!

! 1:3,000,000 KILOMETRE

! 250 ! ! M a i n e ! NOTES ! N o v a 1. ALIGNMENT SEGMENTS RECEIVED FROM TRANSCANADA ! 200 01/30/2014, 05/26/2014, AND 05/29/2014 ! S c o t i a ! 2. LOW COLLAPSIBLE/EXPANSIVE SOIL HAZARD AREAS

! INCLUDE ALL PORTIONS OF THE ALIGNMENT NOT SHOWN AS A

! Fleuve St Laurent "MODERATE" TO COLLAPSIBLE/EXPANSIVE SOIL HAZARD AREA ! 150 3. FLUID WITHDRAWAL HAZARD AREAS SHOWIN ON FIGURE 12

!

! REFERENCES ! ! ! ! ! ! 100 1. SERVICE LAYER CREDITS: COPYRIGHT:© 2014 ESRI 0 ! ! 10 COPYRIGHT: ©2014 ESRI, DELORME, HERE !

! 2. COORDINATE SYSTEM: CANADA LAMBERT CONFORMAL ! 50 ! CONIC, DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN 1983 ! 3. SEE SECTIONS 7.1 AND 7.2 FOR TECHINCAL REFERENCES

! !

! USED TO PREPARE THIS FIGURE 0 Atlantic Ocean ! 100

! Ottawa River CC a a n n a a d d a a !

!

! ! 50 UnitedUnited StatesStates

!

! CLIENT ! TRANSCANADA ! Moderate Karst Hazard Area 0 PROJECT V e r m o n t NEW BUILD ENERGY EAST N e w PHASE I GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ASSESSMENT O n t a r i o TITLE St. Lawrence River H a m p s h i r e N e w Y o r k POTENTIAL SUBSIDENCE HAZARD AREAS AND EXPANSIVE/COLLAPSIBLE SOILS - EAST PORTION IF IF THISMEASUREMENT DOES NOT MATCH WHATIS SHOWN, THE SHEET SIZEHAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM: CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2014-06-12 1 in1 PREPARED DCH

DESIGN DCH REVIEW AMJ

APPROVED DOW PROJECT No. Rev. FIGURE 1400899 0

Path: G:\Trans_Canada\Energy_East\99_PROJECTS\1400899_Energy_East_Phase1_Geologic_Assessment\03_PRODUCTION\MXD\FIGURE\PhaseI_Report\Rev0\1400899_2000_005_Rev0_EnergyEast_Karst_UGMine_Soils_East.mxd 11 Lake 0 Ontario CA PDF Page 85 of 110

KEY MAP Northwest LEGEND Yukon Territories 50 ! Kilometre Post and Number British Columbia Energy East Centerline

Alberta Manitoba Ontario Fluid Withdrawal Hazard Areas Saskatchewan Québec Low

Nova Scotia

A l b e r t a

!

! 0 !

!

!

!

50 !

!

!

!

!

100 !

!

!

!

! 150 ! ! Saskatchewan ! M a n i t o b a

!

! 200 !

! 0 30 60 120

!

! 1:3,000,000 KILOMETRE ! ! 250 ! ! NOTES 280 1. ALIGNMENT SEGMENTS RECEIVED FROM TRANSCANADA 01/30/2014 2. NO FLUID WITHDRAWAL HAZARD AREAS ON EASTERN PORTION OF EE ALIGNMENT

REFERENCES 1. SERVICE LAYER CREDITS: COPYRIGHT:© 2014 ESRI COPYRIGHT: ©2014 ESRI, DELORME, HERE 2. COORDINATE SYSTEM: CANADA LAMBERT CONFORMAL CONIC, DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN 1983 3. SEE SECTIONS 7.1 AND 7.2 FOR TECHNICAL REFERENCES USED TO PREPARE THIS FIGURE

! 50

!

!

!

!

! 0

CLIENT TRANSCANADA C a n a d a C a n a d a PROJECT U n i t e d S t a t e s NEW BUILD ENERGY EAST PHASE I GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ASSESSMENT TITLE POTENTIAL FLUID WITHDRAWAL HAZARD AREAS - WEST PORTION IF IF THISMEASUREMENT DOES NOT MATCH WHATIS SHOWN, THE SHEET SIZEHAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM: CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2014-06-12 M o n t a n a in1 PREPARED DCH

DESIGN DCH North Dakota REVIEW AMJ APPROVED DOW PROJECT No. Rev. FIGURE 1400899 0

Path: G:\Trans_Canada\Energy_East\99_PROJECTS\1400899_Energy_East_Phase1_Geologic_Assessment\03_PRODUCTION\MXD\FIGURE\PhaseI_Report\Rev0\1400899_2000_004_Rev0_EnergyEast_FluidWithdrawal.mxd 12 0 CA PDF Page 86 of 110

APPENDIX A DETAILED LANDSLIDE STRIP MAPS CA PDF Page 87 of 110 LEGEND Potential Landslide Hazard Area and ID Number EE-LS-295 High Moderate (M3) Moderate (M2) Moderate (M1) Low 35 Kilometre Post and Number Energy East Centerline Alberta Centerline

WESTERN PORTION EASTERN PORTION

7 6 15 10 0 0.5 1 2 1 9 14 0 3 4 5 11 12 13 8 16 KILOMETRE 2 NOTES 1. ALIGNMENT SEGMENTS RECEIVED FROM TRANSCANADA TRANSCANADA 01/30/2014, 04/10/14, 05/26/2014, AND 05/29/2014 2. LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA BOUNDARIES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. POTENTIAL LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS MORE THAN 100 M FROM ALIGNMENT ARE GENERALLY NOT SHOWN; EXCEPTING LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS WHERE FORMATION OF A LARGE LANDSLIDE HAS THE POTENTIAL TO IMPACT THE PIPELINE. REFERENCE 1. ESRI: TOPOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND MAP SERVICE 2. COORDINATE SYSTEM: CANADA LAMBERT CONFORMAL CONIC, DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN 1983 3. SEE SECTIONS 7.1 AND 7.2 FOR TECHNICAL REFERENCES USED TO PREPARE THIS FIGURE

CLIENT TRANSCANADA

PROJECT NEW BUILD ENERGY EAST PHASE I GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ASSESSMENT

TITLE POTENTIAL LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS STRIP MAP IF IF THISMEASUREMENT DOES NOTMATCH WHATIS SHOWN, THE SHEET HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM:ANSI B CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2014-07-21 25mm PREPARED DCH

DESIGN DCH REVIEW AMJ APPROVED DOW

PROJECT No. Rev. FIGURE 1400899 1 Path: G:\Trans_Canada\Energy_East\99_PROJECTS\1400899_Energy_East_Phase1_Geologic_Assessment\03_PRODUCTION\MXD\FIGURE\PhaseI_Report\Rev1\1400899_2000_001_Rev1_LandslideMapBook.mxd

A-1 0 CA PDF Page 88 of 110 LEGEND Potential Landslide Hazard Area and ID Number EE-LS-295 High Moderate (M3) Moderate (M2) Moderate (M1) Low 35 Kilometre Post and Number Energy East Centerline Alberta Centerline

WESTERN PORTION EASTERN PORTION

16 17 15 29 18 30 26 27 28 0 0.5 1 2 19 21 25 22 23 24 20 KILOMETRE NOTES 1. ALIGNMENT SEGMENTS RECEIVED FROM TRANSCANADA TRANSCANADA 01/30/2014, 04/10/14, 05/26/2014, AND 05/29/2014 2. LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA BOUNDARIES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. POTENTIAL LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS MORE THAN 100 M FROM ALIGNMENT ARE GENERALLY NOT SHOWN; EXCEPTING LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS WHERE FORMATION OF A LARGE LANDSLIDE HAS THE POTENTIAL TO IMPACT THE PIPELINE. REFERENCE 1. ESRI: TOPOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND MAP SERVICE 2. COORDINATE SYSTEM: CANADA LAMBERT CONFORMAL CONIC, DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN 1983 3. SEE SECTIONS 7.1 AND 7.2 FOR TECHNICAL REFERENCES USED TO PREPARE THIS FIGURE

CLIENT TRANSCANADA

PROJECT NEW BUILD ENERGY EAST PHASE I GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ASSESSMENT

TITLE POTENTIAL LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS STRIP MAP IF IF THISMEASUREMENT DOES NOTMATCH WHATIS SHOWN, THE SHEET HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM:ANSI B CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2014-07-21 25mm PREPARED DCH

DESIGN DCH REVIEW AMJ APPROVED DOW

PROJECT No. Rev. FIGURE 1400899 1 Path: G:\Trans_Canada\Energy_East\99_PROJECTS\1400899_Energy_East_Phase1_Geologic_Assessment\03_PRODUCTION\MXD\FIGURE\PhaseI_Report\Rev1\1400899_2000_001_Rev1_LandslideMapBook.mxd

A-2 0 CA PDF Page 89 of 110 LEGEND Potential Landslide Hazard Area and ID Number EE-LS-295 High Moderate (M3) Moderate (M2) Moderate (M1) Low 35 Kilometre Post and Number Energy East Centerline Alberta Centerline

WESTERN PORTION EASTERN PORTION

36 37 38 39 35

40

34 0 0.5 1 2

KILOMETRE 29 45 46 NOTES 41 33 30 1. ALIGNMENT SEGMENTS RECEIVED FROM TRANSCANADA TRANSCANADA 01/30/2014, 04/10/14, 05/26/2014, AND 05/29/2014 31 42 32 43 44 47 2. LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA BOUNDARIES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. POTENTIAL LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS MORE THAN 100 M FROM ALIGNMENT ARE GENERALLY NOT SHOWN; EXCEPTING LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS WHERE FORMATION OF A LARGE LANDSLIDE HAS THE POTENTIAL TO IMPACT THE PIPELINE. REFERENCE 1. ESRI: TOPOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND MAP SERVICE 2. COORDINATE SYSTEM: CANADA LAMBERT CONFORMAL CONIC, DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN 1983 3. SEE SECTIONS 7.1 AND 7.2 FOR TECHNICAL REFERENCES USED TO PREPARE THIS FIGURE

CLIENT TRANSCANADA

PROJECT NEW BUILD ENERGY EAST PHASE I GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ASSESSMENT

TITLE POTENTIAL LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS STRIP MAP IF IF THISMEASUREMENT DOES NOTMATCH WHATIS SHOWN, THE SHEET HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM:ANSI B CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2014-07-21 25mm PREPARED DCH

DESIGN DCH REVIEW AMJ APPROVED DOW

PROJECT No. Rev. FIGURE 1400899 1 Path: G:\Trans_Canada\Energy_East\99_PROJECTS\1400899_Energy_East_Phase1_Geologic_Assessment\03_PRODUCTION\MXD\FIGURE\PhaseI_Report\Rev1\1400899_2000_001_Rev1_LandslideMapBook.mxd

A-3 0 CA PDF Page 90 of 110 LEGEND Potential Landslide Hazard Area and ID Number EE-LS-295 High Moderate (M3) Moderate (M2) Moderate (M1) Low 35 Kilometre Post and Number Energy East Centerline Alberta Centerline

WESTERN PORTION EASTERN PORTION

51

52 50 53 49 54 0 0.5 1 2

55 KILOMETRE 59 48 58 56 60 NOTES 46 61 57 1. ALIGNMENT SEGMENTS RECEIVED FROM TRANSCANADA 47 TRANSCANADA 01/30/2014, 04/10/14, 05/26/2014, AND 05/29/2014 2. LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA BOUNDARIES SHOWN ARE 45 APPROXIMATE. POTENTIAL LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS MORE THAN 100 M FROM ALIGNMENT ARE GENERALLY NOT SHOWN; EXCEPTING LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS WHERE FORMATION OF A LARGE LANDSLIDE HAS THE POTENTIAL TO IMPACT THE PIPELINE. REFERENCE 1. ESRI: TOPOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND MAP SERVICE 2. COORDINATE SYSTEM: CANADA LAMBERT CONFORMAL CONIC, DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN 1983 3. SEE SECTIONS 7.1 AND 7.2 FOR TECHNICAL REFERENCES USED TO PREPARE THIS FIGURE

CLIENT TRANSCANADA

PROJECT NEW BUILD ENERGY EAST PHASE I GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ASSESSMENT

TITLE POTENTIAL LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS STRIP MAP IF IF THISMEASUREMENT DOES NOTMATCH WHATIS SHOWN, THE SHEET HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM:ANSI B CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2014-07-21 25mm PREPARED DCH

DESIGN DCH REVIEW AMJ APPROVED DOW

PROJECT No. Rev. FIGURE 1400899 1 Path: G:\Trans_Canada\Energy_East\99_PROJECTS\1400899_Energy_East_Phase1_Geologic_Assessment\03_PRODUCTION\MXD\FIGURE\PhaseI_Report\Rev1\1400899_2000_001_Rev1_LandslideMapBook.mxd

A-4 0 CA PDF Page 91 of 110 LEGEND Potential Landslide Hazard Area and ID Number EE-LS-295 High Moderate (M3) Moderate (M2) Moderate (M1) Low 35 Kilometre Post and Number Energy East Centerline Alberta Centerline

WESTERN PORTION EASTERN PORTION

68 65 69 66 64 67 70 71 72 73 0 0.5 1 2 63 74 KILOMETRE 75 61 62 NOTES 76 1. ALIGNMENT SEGMENTS RECEIVED FROM TRANSCANADA TRANSCANADA 01/30/2014, 04/10/14, 05/26/2014, AND 05/29/2014 2. LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA BOUNDARIES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. POTENTIAL LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS MORE THAN 100 M FROM ALIGNMENT ARE GENERALLY NOT SHOWN; EXCEPTING LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS WHERE FORMATION OF A LARGE LANDSLIDE HAS THE POTENTIAL TO IMPACT THE PIPELINE. REFERENCE 1. ESRI: TOPOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND MAP SERVICE 2. COORDINATE SYSTEM: CANADA LAMBERT CONFORMAL CONIC, DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN 1983 3. SEE SECTIONS 7.1 AND 7.2 FOR TECHNICAL REFERENCES USED TO PREPARE THIS FIGURE

CLIENT TRANSCANADA

PROJECT NEW BUILD ENERGY EAST PHASE I GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ASSESSMENT

TITLE POTENTIAL LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS STRIP MAP IF IF THISMEASUREMENT DOES NOTMATCH WHATIS SHOWN, THE SHEET HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM:ANSI B CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2014-07-21 25mm PREPARED DCH

DESIGN DCH REVIEW AMJ APPROVED DOW

PROJECT No. Rev. FIGURE 1400899 1 Path: G:\Trans_Canada\Energy_East\99_PROJECTS\1400899_Energy_East_Phase1_Geologic_Assessment\03_PRODUCTION\MXD\FIGURE\PhaseI_Report\Rev1\1400899_2000_001_Rev1_LandslideMapBook.mxd

A-5 0 CA PDF Page 92 of 110 LEGEND Potential Landslide Hazard Area and ID Number EE-LS-295 High Moderate (M3) Moderate (M2) Moderate (M1) Low 35 Kilometre Post and Number Energy East Centerline Alberta Centerline

WESTERN PORTION EASTERN PORTION

89 91 75 77 90 76 78 88 85 86 0 0.5 1 2 79 80 83 84 87 81 82 KILOMETRE NOTES 1. ALIGNMENT SEGMENTS RECEIVED FROM TRANSCANADA TRANSCANADA 01/30/2014, 04/10/14, 05/26/2014, AND 05/29/2014 2. LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA BOUNDARIES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. POTENTIAL LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS MORE THAN 100 M FROM ALIGNMENT ARE GENERALLY NOT SHOWN; EXCEPTING LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS WHERE FORMATION OF A LARGE LANDSLIDE HAS THE POTENTIAL TO IMPACT THE PIPELINE. REFERENCE 1. ESRI: TOPOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND MAP SERVICE 2. COORDINATE SYSTEM: CANADA LAMBERT CONFORMAL CONIC, DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN 1983 3. SEE SECTIONS 7.1 AND 7.2 FOR TECHNICAL REFERENCES USED TO PREPARE THIS FIGURE

CLIENT TRANSCANADA

PROJECT NEW BUILD ENERGY EAST PHASE I GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ASSESSMENT

TITLE POTENTIAL LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS STRIP MAP IF IF THISMEASUREMENT DOES NOTMATCH WHATIS SHOWN, THE SHEET HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM:ANSI B CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2014-07-21 25mm PREPARED DCH

DESIGN DCH REVIEW AMJ APPROVED DOW

PROJECT No. Rev. FIGURE 1400899 1 Path: G:\Trans_Canada\Energy_East\99_PROJECTS\1400899_Energy_East_Phase1_Geologic_Assessment\03_PRODUCTION\MXD\FIGURE\PhaseI_Report\Rev1\1400899_2000_001_Rev1_LandslideMapBook.mxd

A-6 0 CA PDF Page 93 of 110 LEGEND Potential Landslide Hazard Area and ID Number EE-LS-295 High Moderate (M3) Moderate (M2) Moderate (M1) Low 35 Kilometre Post and Number Energy East Centerline Alberta Centerline

WESTERN PORTION EASTERN PORTION

98 99 100 97 101 96 0 0.5 1 2 95 105 104 KILOMETRE 90 91 94 103 92 93 102 NOTES 1. ALIGNMENT SEGMENTS RECEIVED FROM TRANSCANADA TRANSCANADA 01/30/2014, 04/10/14, 05/26/2014, AND 05/29/2014 2. LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA BOUNDARIES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. POTENTIAL LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS MORE THAN 100 M FROM ALIGNMENT ARE GENERALLY NOT SHOWN; EXCEPTING LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS WHERE FORMATION OF A LARGE LANDSLIDE HAS THE POTENTIAL TO IMPACT THE PIPELINE. REFERENCE 1. ESRI: TOPOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND MAP SERVICE 2. COORDINATE SYSTEM: CANADA LAMBERT CONFORMAL CONIC, DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN 1983 3. SEE SECTIONS 7.1 AND 7.2 FOR TECHNICAL REFERENCES USED TO PREPARE THIS FIGURE

CLIENT TRANSCANADA

PROJECT NEW BUILD ENERGY EAST PHASE I GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ASSESSMENT

TITLE POTENTIAL LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS STRIP MAP IF IF THISMEASUREMENT DOES NOTMATCH WHATIS SHOWN, THE SHEET HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM:ANSI B CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2014-07-21 25mm PREPARED DCH

DESIGN DCH REVIEW AMJ APPROVED DOW

PROJECT No. Rev. FIGURE 1400899 1 Path: G:\Trans_Canada\Energy_East\99_PROJECTS\1400899_Energy_East_Phase1_Geologic_Assessment\03_PRODUCTION\MXD\FIGURE\PhaseI_Report\Rev1\1400899_2000_001_Rev1_LandslideMapBook.mxd

A-7 0 CA PDF Page 94 of 110 LEGEND Potential Landslide Hazard Area and ID Number EE-LS-295 High Moderate (M3) Moderate (M2) Moderate (M1) Low 35 Kilometre Post and Number Energy East Centerline Alberta Centerline

WESTERN PORTION EASTERN PORTION

118 107 119 105 106 120 109 110 108 111 114 115 116 117 0 0.5 1 2 113 112 KILOMETRE NOTES 1. ALIGNMENT SEGMENTS RECEIVED FROM TRANSCANADA TRANSCANADA 01/30/2014, 04/10/14, 05/26/2014, AND 05/29/2014 2. LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA BOUNDARIES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. POTENTIAL LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS MORE THAN 100 M FROM ALIGNMENT ARE GENERALLY NOT SHOWN; EXCEPTING LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS WHERE FORMATION OF A LARGE LANDSLIDE HAS THE POTENTIAL TO IMPACT THE PIPELINE. REFERENCE 1. ESRI: TOPOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND MAP SERVICE 2. COORDINATE SYSTEM: CANADA LAMBERT CONFORMAL CONIC, DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN 1983 3. SEE SECTIONS 7.1 AND 7.2 FOR TECHNICAL REFERENCES USED TO PREPARE THIS FIGURE

CLIENT TRANSCANADA

PROJECT NEW BUILD ENERGY EAST PHASE I GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ASSESSMENT

TITLE POTENTIAL LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS STRIP MAP IF IF THISMEASUREMENT DOES NOTMATCH WHATIS SHOWN, THE SHEET HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM:ANSI B CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2014-07-21 25mm PREPARED DCH

DESIGN DCH REVIEW AMJ APPROVED DOW

PROJECT No. Rev. FIGURE 1400899 1 Path: G:\Trans_Canada\Energy_East\99_PROJECTS\1400899_Energy_East_Phase1_Geologic_Assessment\03_PRODUCTION\MXD\FIGURE\PhaseI_Report\Rev1\1400899_2000_001_Rev1_LandslideMapBook.mxd

A-8 0 CA PDF Page 95 of 110 LEGEND Potential Landslide Hazard Area and ID Number EE-LS-295 High Moderate (M3) Moderate (M2) Moderate (M1) Low 35 Kilometre Post and Number Energy East Centerline Alberta Centerline

WESTERN PORTION EASTERN PORTION

123 135 122 125 130 131 132 121 124 133 0 0.5 1 2 126 127 129 134 128 120 KILOMETRE NOTES 1. ALIGNMENT SEGMENTS RECEIVED FROM TRANSCANADA TRANSCANADA 01/30/2014, 04/10/14, 05/26/2014, AND 05/29/2014 2. LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA BOUNDARIES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. POTENTIAL LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS MORE THAN 100 M FROM ALIGNMENT ARE GENERALLY NOT SHOWN; EXCEPTING LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS WHERE FORMATION OF A LARGE LANDSLIDE HAS THE POTENTIAL TO IMPACT THE PIPELINE. REFERENCE 1. ESRI: TOPOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND MAP SERVICE 2. COORDINATE SYSTEM: CANADA LAMBERT CONFORMAL CONIC, DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN 1983 3. SEE SECTIONS 7.1 AND 7.2 FOR TECHNICAL REFERENCES USED TO PREPARE THIS FIGURE

CLIENT TRANSCANADA

PROJECT NEW BUILD ENERGY EAST PHASE I GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ASSESSMENT

TITLE POTENTIAL LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS STRIP MAP IF IF THISMEASUREMENT DOES NOTMATCH WHATIS SHOWN, THE SHEET HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM:ANSI B CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2014-07-21 25mm PREPARED DCH

DESIGN DCH REVIEW AMJ APPROVED DOW

PROJECT No. Rev. FIGURE 1400899 1 Path: G:\Trans_Canada\Energy_East\99_PROJECTS\1400899_Energy_East_Phase1_Geologic_Assessment\03_PRODUCTION\MXD\FIGURE\PhaseI_Report\Rev1\1400899_2000_001_Rev1_LandslideMapBook.mxd

A-9 0 CA PDF Page 96 of 110 LEGEND Potential Landslide Hazard Area and ID Number EE-LS-295 High Moderate (M3) Moderate (M2) Moderate (M1) Low 35 Kilometre Post and Number Energy East Centerline Alberta Centerline

WESTERN PORTION EASTERN PORTION

149 135 136 137 138 140 148 134 139 141 142 143 0 0.5 1 2 144 147 145 146 KILOMETRE NOTES 1. ALIGNMENT SEGMENTS RECEIVED FROM TRANSCANADA TRANSCANADA 01/30/2014, 04/10/14, 05/26/2014, AND 05/29/2014 2. LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA BOUNDARIES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. POTENTIAL LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS MORE THAN 100 M FROM ALIGNMENT ARE GENERALLY NOT SHOWN; EXCEPTING LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS WHERE FORMATION OF A LARGE LANDSLIDE HAS THE POTENTIAL TO IMPACT THE PIPELINE. REFERENCE 1. ESRI: TOPOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND MAP SERVICE 2. COORDINATE SYSTEM: CANADA LAMBERT CONFORMAL CONIC, DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN 1983 3. SEE SECTIONS 7.1 AND 7.2 FOR TECHNICAL REFERENCES USED TO PREPARE THIS FIGURE

CLIENT TRANSCANADA

PROJECT NEW BUILD ENERGY EAST PHASE I GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ASSESSMENT

TITLE POTENTIAL LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS STRIP MAP IF IF THISMEASUREMENT DOES NOTMATCH WHATIS SHOWN, THE SHEET HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM:ANSI B CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2014-07-21 25mm PREPARED DCH

DESIGN DCH REVIEW AMJ APPROVED DOW

PROJECT No. Rev. FIGURE 1400899 1 Path: G:\Trans_Canada\Energy_East\99_PROJECTS\1400899_Energy_East_Phase1_Geologic_Assessment\03_PRODUCTION\MXD\FIGURE\PhaseI_Report\Rev1\1400899_2000_001_Rev1_LandslideMapBook.mxd

A-10 0 CA PDF Page 97 of 110 LEGEND Potential Landslide Hazard Area and ID Number EE-LS-295 High Moderate (M3) Moderate (M2) Moderate (M1) Low 35 Kilometre Post and Number Energy East Centerline Alberta Centerline

WESTERN PORTION EASTERN PORTION

149 163 161 150 159 160 162 148 151 158 0 0.5 1 2 157 KILOMETRE 152 153 154 155 156 NOTES 1. ALIGNMENT SEGMENTS RECEIVED FROM TRANSCANADA TRANSCANADA 01/30/2014, 04/10/14, 05/26/2014, AND 05/29/2014 2. LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA BOUNDARIES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. POTENTIAL LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS MORE THAN 100 M FROM ALIGNMENT ARE GENERALLY NOT SHOWN; EXCEPTING LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS WHERE FORMATION OF A LARGE LANDSLIDE HAS THE POTENTIAL TO IMPACT THE PIPELINE. REFERENCE 1. ESRI: TOPOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND MAP SERVICE 2. COORDINATE SYSTEM: CANADA LAMBERT CONFORMAL CONIC, DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN 1983 3. SEE SECTIONS 7.1 AND 7.2 FOR TECHNICAL REFERENCES USED TO PREPARE THIS FIGURE

CLIENT TRANSCANADA

PROJECT NEW BUILD ENERGY EAST PHASE I GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ASSESSMENT

TITLE POTENTIAL LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS STRIP MAP IF IF THISMEASUREMENT DOES NOTMATCH WHATIS SHOWN, THE SHEET HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM:ANSI B CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2014-07-21 25mm PREPARED DCH

DESIGN DCH REVIEW AMJ APPROVED DOW

PROJECT No. Rev. FIGURE 1400899 1 Path: G:\Trans_Canada\Energy_East\99_PROJECTS\1400899_Energy_East_Phase1_Geologic_Assessment\03_PRODUCTION\MXD\FIGURE\PhaseI_Report\Rev1\1400899_2000_001_Rev1_LandslideMapBook.mxd

A-11 0 CA PDF Page 98 of 110 LEGEND Potential Landslide Hazard Area and ID Number EE-LS-295 High Moderate (M3) Moderate (M2) Moderate (M1) Low 35 Kilometre Post and Number Energy East Centerline Alberta Centerline

WESTERN PORTION EASTERN PORTION

169 172 175 176 177 178 168 170 171 166 167 163 164 165 173 0 0.5 1 2 174 KILOMETRE NOTES 1. ALIGNMENT SEGMENTS RECEIVED FROM TRANSCANADA TRANSCANADA 01/30/2014, 04/10/14, 05/26/2014, AND 05/29/2014 2. LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA BOUNDARIES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. POTENTIAL LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS MORE THAN 100 M FROM ALIGNMENT ARE GENERALLY NOT SHOWN; EXCEPTING LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS WHERE FORMATION OF A LARGE LANDSLIDE HAS THE POTENTIAL TO IMPACT THE PIPELINE. REFERENCE 1. ESRI: TOPOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND MAP SERVICE 2. COORDINATE SYSTEM: CANADA LAMBERT CONFORMAL CONIC, DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN 1983 3. SEE SECTIONS 7.1 AND 7.2 FOR TECHNICAL REFERENCES USED TO PREPARE THIS FIGURE

CLIENT TRANSCANADA

PROJECT NEW BUILD ENERGY EAST PHASE I GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ASSESSMENT

TITLE POTENTIAL LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS STRIP MAP IF IF THISMEASUREMENT DOES NOTMATCH WHATIS SHOWN, THE SHEET HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM:ANSI B CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2014-07-21 25mm PREPARED DCH

DESIGN DCH REVIEW AMJ APPROVED DOW

PROJECT No. Rev. FIGURE 1400899 1 Path: G:\Trans_Canada\Energy_East\99_PROJECTS\1400899_Energy_East_Phase1_Geologic_Assessment\03_PRODUCTION\MXD\FIGURE\PhaseI_Report\Rev1\1400899_2000_001_Rev1_LandslideMapBook.mxd

A-12 0 CA PDF Page 99 of 110 LEGEND Potential Landslide Hazard Area and ID Number EE-LS-295 High Moderate (M3) Moderate (M2) Moderate (M1) Low 35 Kilometre Post and Number Energy East Centerline Alberta Centerline

WESTERN PORTION EASTERN PORTION

192 179 184 185 186 187 177 178 180 188 183 189 190 191 0 0.5 1 2 181 182 KILOMETRE NOTES 1. ALIGNMENT SEGMENTS RECEIVED FROM TRANSCANADA TRANSCANADA 01/30/2014, 04/10/14, 05/26/2014, AND 05/29/2014 2. LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA BOUNDARIES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. POTENTIAL LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS MORE THAN 100 M FROM ALIGNMENT ARE GENERALLY NOT SHOWN; EXCEPTING LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS WHERE FORMATION OF A LARGE LANDSLIDE HAS THE POTENTIAL TO IMPACT THE PIPELINE. REFERENCE 1. ESRI: TOPOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND MAP SERVICE 2. COORDINATE SYSTEM: CANADA LAMBERT CONFORMAL CONIC, DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN 1983 3. SEE SECTIONS 7.1 AND 7.2 FOR TECHNICAL REFERENCES USED TO PREPARE THIS FIGURE

CLIENT TRANSCANADA

PROJECT NEW BUILD ENERGY EAST PHASE I GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ASSESSMENT

TITLE POTENTIAL LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS STRIP MAP IF IF THISMEASUREMENT DOES NOTMATCH WHATIS SHOWN, THE SHEET HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM:ANSI B CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2014-07-21 25mm PREPARED DCH

DESIGN DCH REVIEW AMJ APPROVED DOW

PROJECT No. Rev. FIGURE 1400899 1 Path: G:\Trans_Canada\Energy_East\99_PROJECTS\1400899_Energy_East_Phase1_Geologic_Assessment\03_PRODUCTION\MXD\FIGURE\PhaseI_Report\Rev1\1400899_2000_001_Rev1_LandslideMapBook.mxd

A-13 0 CA PDF Page 100 of 110 LEGEND Potential Landslide Hazard Area and ID Number EE-LS-295 High Moderate (M3) Moderate (M2) Moderate (M1) Low 35 Kilometre Post and Number Energy East Centerline Alberta Centerline

WESTERN PORTION EASTERN PORTION

192 206 204 205 191 193 201 202 203 197 0 0.5 1 2 194 196 200 198 195 199 KILOMETRE NOTES 1. ALIGNMENT SEGMENTS RECEIVED FROM TRANSCANADA TRANSCANADA 01/30/2014, 04/10/14, 05/26/2014, AND 05/29/2014 2. LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA BOUNDARIES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. POTENTIAL LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS MORE THAN 100 M FROM ALIGNMENT ARE GENERALLY NOT SHOWN; EXCEPTING LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS WHERE FORMATION OF A LARGE LANDSLIDE HAS THE POTENTIAL TO IMPACT THE PIPELINE. REFERENCE 1. ESRI: TOPOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND MAP SERVICE 2. COORDINATE SYSTEM: CANADA LAMBERT CONFORMAL CONIC, DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN 1983 3. SEE SECTIONS 7.1 AND 7.2 FOR TECHNICAL REFERENCES USED TO PREPARE THIS FIGURE

CLIENT TRANSCANADA

PROJECT NEW BUILD ENERGY EAST PHASE I GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ASSESSMENT

TITLE POTENTIAL LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS STRIP MAP IF IF THISMEASUREMENT DOES NOTMATCH WHATIS SHOWN, THE SHEET HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM:ANSI B CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2014-07-21 25mm PREPARED DCH

DESIGN DCH REVIEW AMJ APPROVED DOW

PROJECT No. Rev. FIGURE 1400899 1 Path: G:\Trans_Canada\Energy_East\99_PROJECTS\1400899_Energy_East_Phase1_Geologic_Assessment\03_PRODUCTION\MXD\FIGURE\PhaseI_Report\Rev1\1400899_2000_001_Rev1_LandslideMapBook.mxd

A-14 0 CA PDF Page 101 of 110 LEGEND Potential Landslide Hazard Area and ID Number EE-LS-295 High Moderate (M3) Moderate (M2) Moderate (M1) Low 35 Kilometre Post and Number Energy East Centerline Alberta Centerline

WESTERN PORTION EASTERN PORTION

211 212 209 210 208 213 215 216 0 0.5 1 2 207 214 217 206 218 219 220 KILOMETRE NOTES 1. ALIGNMENT SEGMENTS RECEIVED FROM TRANSCANADA TRANSCANADA 01/30/2014, 04/10/14, 05/26/2014, AND 05/29/2014 2. LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA BOUNDARIES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. POTENTIAL LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS MORE THAN 100 M FROM ALIGNMENT ARE GENERALLY NOT SHOWN; EXCEPTING LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS WHERE FORMATION OF A LARGE LANDSLIDE HAS THE POTENTIAL TO IMPACT THE PIPELINE. REFERENCE 1. ESRI: TOPOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND MAP SERVICE 2. COORDINATE SYSTEM: CANADA LAMBERT CONFORMAL CONIC, DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN 1983 3. SEE SECTIONS 7.1 AND 7.2 FOR TECHNICAL REFERENCES USED TO PREPARE THIS FIGURE

CLIENT TRANSCANADA

PROJECT NEW BUILD ENERGY EAST PHASE I GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ASSESSMENT

TITLE POTENTIAL LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS STRIP MAP IF IF THISMEASUREMENT DOES NOTMATCH WHATIS SHOWN, THE SHEET HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM:ANSI B CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2014-07-21 25mm PREPARED DCH

DESIGN DCH REVIEW AMJ APPROVED DOW

PROJECT No. Rev. FIGURE 1400899 1 Path: G:\Trans_Canada\Energy_East\99_PROJECTS\1400899_Energy_East_Phase1_Geologic_Assessment\03_PRODUCTION\MXD\FIGURE\PhaseI_Report\Rev1\1400899_2000_001_Rev1_LandslideMapBook.mxd

A-15 0 CA PDF Page 102 of 110 LEGEND Potential Landslide Hazard Area and ID Number EE-LS-295 High Moderate (M3) Moderate (M2) Moderate (M1) Low 35 Kilometre Post and Number Energy East Centerline Alberta Centerline

WESTERN PORTION EASTERN PORTION

231 232

230 233

229 234 0 0.5 1 2

KILOMETRE NOTES 228 EE-LS-304 220 221 235 1. ALIGNMENT SEGMENTS RECEIVED FROM TRANSCANADA 222 TRANSCANADA 01/30/2014, 04/10/14, 05/26/2014, AND 05/29/2014 223 2. LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA BOUNDARIES SHOWN ARE 224 226 227 APPROXIMATE. POTENTIAL LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS MORE 236 THAN 100 M FROM ALIGNMENT ARE GENERALLY NOT SHOWN; 225 237 EXCEPTING LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS WHERE FORMATION OF A LARGE LANDSLIDE HAS THE POTENTIAL TO IMPACT THE PIPELINE. REFERENCE 1. ESRI: TOPOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND MAP SERVICE 2. COORDINATE SYSTEM: CANADA LAMBERT CONFORMAL CONIC, DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN 1983 3. SEE SECTIONS 7.1 AND 7.2 FOR TECHNICAL REFERENCES USED TO PREPARE THIS FIGURE

CLIENT TRANSCANADA

PROJECT NEW BUILD ENERGY EAST PHASE I GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ASSESSMENT

TITLE POTENTIAL LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS STRIP MAP IF IF THISMEASUREMENT DOES NOTMATCH WHATIS SHOWN, THE SHEET HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM:ANSI B CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2014-07-21 25mm PREPARED DCH

DESIGN DCH REVIEW AMJ APPROVED DOW

PROJECT No. Rev. FIGURE 1400899 1 Path: G:\Trans_Canada\Energy_East\99_PROJECTS\1400899_Energy_East_Phase1_Geologic_Assessment\03_PRODUCTION\MXD\FIGURE\PhaseI_Report\Rev1\1400899_2000_001_Rev1_LandslideMapBook.mxd

A-16 0 CA PDF Page 103 of 110 LEGEND Potential Landslide Hazard Area and ID Number EE-LS-295 High Moderate (M3) Moderate (M2) Moderate (M1) Low 35 Kilometre Post and Number Energy East Centerline Alberta Centerline

253

WESTERN PORTION EASTERN PORTION

252

236 237 238 251 239 240 241 242 243 244 0 0.5 1 2 245 246 247 248 249 250 KILOMETRE NOTES 1. ALIGNMENT SEGMENTS RECEIVED FROM TRANSCANADA TRANSCANADA 01/30/2014, 04/10/14, 05/26/2014, AND 05/29/2014 2. LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA BOUNDARIES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. POTENTIAL LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS MORE THAN 100 M FROM ALIGNMENT ARE GENERALLY NOT SHOWN; EXCEPTING LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS WHERE FORMATION OF A LARGE LANDSLIDE HAS THE POTENTIAL TO IMPACT THE PIPELINE. REFERENCE 1. ESRI: TOPOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND MAP SERVICE 2. COORDINATE SYSTEM: CANADA LAMBERT CONFORMAL CONIC, DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN 1983 3. SEE SECTIONS 7.1 AND 7.2 FOR TECHNICAL REFERENCES USED TO PREPARE THIS FIGURE

CLIENT TRANSCANADA

PROJECT NEW BUILD ENERGY EAST PHASE I GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ASSESSMENT

TITLE POTENTIAL LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS STRIP MAP IF IF THISMEASUREMENT DOES NOTMATCH WHATIS SHOWN, THE SHEET HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM:ANSI B CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2014-07-21 25mm PREPARED DCH

DESIGN DCH REVIEW AMJ APPROVED DOW

PROJECT No. Rev. FIGURE 1400899 1 Path: G:\Trans_Canada\Energy_East\99_PROJECTS\1400899_Energy_East_Phase1_Geologic_Assessment\03_PRODUCTION\MXD\FIGURE\PhaseI_Report\Rev1\1400899_2000_001_Rev1_LandslideMapBook.mxd

A-17 0 CA PDF Page 104 of 110 LEGEND Potential Landslide Hazard Area and ID Number EE-LS-295 High Moderate (M3) Moderate (M2) Moderate (M1) Low 35 Kilometre Post and Number Energy East Centerline Alberta Centerline

WESTERN PORTION EASTERN PORTION

249

261 250 260 259 262 258 257 256 263 0 0.5 1 2 255 264 254 253 251 252 KILOMETRE 265 NOTES 1. ALIGNMENT SEGMENTS RECEIVED FROM TRANSCANADA 266 TRANSCANADA 01/30/2014, 04/10/14, 05/26/2014, AND 05/29/2014 2. LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA BOUNDARIES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. POTENTIAL LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS MORE THAN 100 M FROM ALIGNMENT ARE GENERALLY NOT SHOWN; EXCEPTING LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS WHERE FORMATION OF A LARGE LANDSLIDE HAS THE POTENTIAL TO IMPACT THE PIPELINE. REFERENCE 1. ESRI: TOPOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND MAP SERVICE 2. COORDINATE SYSTEM: CANADA LAMBERT CONFORMAL CONIC, DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN 1983 3. SEE SECTIONS 7.1 AND 7.2 FOR TECHNICAL REFERENCES USED TO PREPARE THIS FIGURE

CLIENT TRANSCANADA

PROJECT NEW BUILD ENERGY EAST PHASE I GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ASSESSMENT

TITLE POTENTIAL LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS STRIP MAP IF IF THISMEASUREMENT DOES NOTMATCH WHATIS SHOWN, THE SHEET HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM:ANSI B CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2014-07-21 25mm PREPARED DCH

DESIGN DCH REVIEW AMJ APPROVED DOW

PROJECT No. Rev. FIGURE 1400899 1 Path: G:\Trans_Canada\Energy_East\99_PROJECTS\1400899_Energy_East_Phase1_Geologic_Assessment\03_PRODUCTION\MXD\FIGURE\PhaseI_Report\Rev1\1400899_2000_001_Rev1_LandslideMapBook.mxd

A-18 0 CA PDF Page 105 of 110 LEGEND Potential Landslide Hazard Area and ID Number EE-LS-295 High Moderate (M3) Moderate (M2) Moderate (M1) Low 35 Kilometre Post and Number Energy East Centerline Alberta Centerline

WESTERN PORTION EASTERN PORTION

265 EE-LS-226 276 277 278 273 274 275 266 271 272 279 0 0.5 1 2 267 270 268 269 KILOMETRE NOTES 1. ALIGNMENT SEGMENTS RECEIVED FROM TRANSCANADA TRANSCANADA 01/30/2014, 04/10/14, 05/26/2014, AND 05/29/2014 2. LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA BOUNDARIES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. POTENTIAL LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS MORE THAN 100 M FROM ALIGNMENT ARE GENERALLY NOT SHOWN; EXCEPTING LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS WHERE FORMATION OF A LARGE LANDSLIDE HAS THE POTENTIAL TO IMPACT THE PIPELINE. REFERENCE 1. ESRI: TOPOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND MAP SERVICE 2. COORDINATE SYSTEM: CANADA LAMBERT CONFORMAL CONIC, DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN 1983 3. SEE SECTIONS 7.1 AND 7.2 FOR TECHNICAL REFERENCES USED TO PREPARE THIS FIGURE

CLIENT TRANSCANADA

PROJECT NEW BUILD ENERGY EAST PHASE I GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ASSESSMENT

TITLE POTENTIAL LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS STRIP MAP IF IF THISMEASUREMENT DOES NOTMATCH WHATIS SHOWN, THE SHEET HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM:ANSI B CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2014-07-21 25mm PREPARED DCH

DESIGN DCH REVIEW AMJ APPROVED DOW

PROJECT No. Rev. FIGURE 1400899 1 Path: G:\Trans_Canada\Energy_East\99_PROJECTS\1400899_Energy_East_Phase1_Geologic_Assessment\03_PRODUCTION\MXD\FIGURE\PhaseI_Report\Rev1\1400899_2000_001_Rev1_LandslideMapBook.mxd

A-19 0 CA PDF Page 106 of 110 LEGEND Potential Landslide Hazard Area and ID Number EE-LS-295 High Moderate (M3) Moderate (M2) Moderate (M1) Low 35 Kilometre Post and Number Energy East Centerline Alberta Centerline

WESTERN PORTION EASTERN PORTION

279 284 282 283 280 0 0.5 1 2

281 KILOMETRE NOTES 1. ALIGNMENT SEGMENTS RECEIVED FROM TRANSCANADA TRANSCANADA 01/30/2014, 04/10/14, 05/26/2014, AND 05/29/2014 2. LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA BOUNDARIES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. POTENTIAL LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS MORE THAN 100 M FROM ALIGNMENT ARE GENERALLY NOT SHOWN; EXCEPTING LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS WHERE FORMATION OF A LARGE LANDSLIDE HAS THE POTENTIAL TO IMPACT THE PIPELINE. REFERENCE 1. ESRI: TOPOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND MAP SERVICE 2. COORDINATE SYSTEM: CANADA LAMBERT CONFORMAL CONIC, DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN 1983 3. SEE SECTIONS 7.1 AND 7.2 FOR TECHNICAL REFERENCES USED TO PREPARE THIS FIGURE

CLIENT TRANSCANADA

PROJECT NEW BUILD ENERGY EAST PHASE I GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ASSESSMENT

TITLE POTENTIAL LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS STRIP MAP IF IF THISMEASUREMENT DOES NOTMATCH WHATIS SHOWN, THE SHEET HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM:ANSI B CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2014-07-21 25mm PREPARED DCH

DESIGN DCH REVIEW AMJ APPROVED DOW

PROJECT No. Rev. FIGURE 1400899 1 Path: G:\Trans_Canada\Energy_East\99_PROJECTS\1400899_Energy_East_Phase1_Geologic_Assessment\03_PRODUCTION\MXD\FIGURE\PhaseI_Report\Rev1\1400899_2000_001_Rev1_LandslideMapBook.mxd

A-20 0 CA PDF Page 107 of 110 LEGEND Potential Landslide Hazard Area and ID Number EE-LS-295 High Moderate (M3) Moderate (M2) Moderate (M1) Low 35 Kilometre Post and Number Energy East Centerline Cromer Lateral Centerline

WESTERN PORTION EASTERN PORTION

12 0 11

1 10

2 9 0 0.5 1 2 3 8 KILOMETRE NOTES 4 7 1. ALIGNMENT SEGMENTS RECEIVED FROM TRANSCANADA 5 TRANSCANADA 01/30/2014, 04/10/14, 05/26/2014, AND 05/29/2014 2. LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA BOUNDARIES SHOWN ARE 6 APPROXIMATE. POTENTIAL LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS MORE THAN 100 M FROM ALIGNMENT ARE GENERALLY NOT SHOWN; EXCEPTING LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS WHERE FORMATION OF A LARGE LANDSLIDE HAS THE POTENTIAL TO IMPACT THE PIPELINE. REFERENCE 1. ESRI: TOPOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND MAP SERVICE 2. COORDINATE SYSTEM: CANADA LAMBERT CONFORMAL CONIC, DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN 1983 3. SEE SECTIONS 7.1 AND 7.2 FOR TECHNICAL REFERENCES USED TO PREPARE THIS FIGURE

CLIENT TRANSCANADA

PROJECT NEW BUILD ENERGY EAST PHASE I GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ASSESSMENT

TITLE POTENTIAL LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS STRIP MAP IF IF THISMEASUREMENT DOES NOTMATCH WHATIS SHOWN, THE SHEET HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM:ANSI B CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2014-07-21 25mm PREPARED DCH

DESIGN DCH REVIEW AMJ APPROVED DOW

PROJECT No. Rev. FIGURE 1400899 1 Path: G:\Trans_Canada\Energy_East\99_PROJECTS\1400899_Energy_East_Phase1_Geologic_Assessment\03_PRODUCTION\MXD\FIGURE\PhaseI_Report\Rev1\1400899_2000_001_Rev1_LandslideMapBook.mxd

A-21 0 CA PDF Page 108 of 110 LEGEND Potential Landslide Hazard Area and ID Number EE-LS-295 High Moderate (M3) Moderate (M2) Moderate (M1) Low 35 Kilometre Post and Number Energy East Centerline Cromer Lateral Centerline

WESTERN PORTION EASTERN PORTION

28

14 13 27 25 26 12 15 24 11 23 16 0 0.5 1 2 22 KILOMETRE NOTES 21 20 1. ALIGNMENT SEGMENTS RECEIVED FROM TRANSCANADA 19 17 TRANSCANADA 01/30/2014, 04/10/14, 05/26/2014, AND 05/29/2014 18 2. LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA BOUNDARIES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. POTENTIAL LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS MORE THAN 100 M FROM ALIGNMENT ARE GENERALLY NOT SHOWN; EXCEPTING LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS WHERE FORMATION OF A LARGE LANDSLIDE HAS THE POTENTIAL TO IMPACT THE PIPELINE. REFERENCE 1. ESRI: TOPOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND MAP SERVICE 2. COORDINATE SYSTEM: CANADA LAMBERT CONFORMAL CONIC, DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN 1983 3. SEE SECTIONS 7.1 AND 7.2 FOR TECHNICAL REFERENCES USED TO PREPARE THIS FIGURE

CLIENT TRANSCANADA

PROJECT NEW BUILD ENERGY EAST PHASE I GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ASSESSMENT

TITLE POTENTIAL LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS STRIP MAP IF IF THISMEASUREMENT DOES NOTMATCH WHATIS SHOWN, THE SHEET HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM:ANSI B CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2014-07-21 25mm PREPARED DCH

DESIGN DCH REVIEW AMJ APPROVED DOW

PROJECT No. Rev. FIGURE 1400899 1 Path: G:\Trans_Canada\Energy_East\99_PROJECTS\1400899_Energy_East_Phase1_Geologic_Assessment\03_PRODUCTION\MXD\FIGURE\PhaseI_Report\Rev1\1400899_2000_001_Rev1_LandslideMapBook.mxd

A-22 0 CA PDF Page 109 of 110 LEGEND Potential Landslide Hazard Area and ID Number EE-LS-295 High Moderate (M3) Moderate (M2) Moderate (M1) Low 35 Kilometre Post and Number Energy East Centerline Cromer Lateral Centerline

WESTERN PORTION EASTERN PORTION

35 34 33 44 32

43 36 31

42 30 0 0.5 1 2

37 KILOMETRE 41 29 NOTES 1. ALIGNMENT SEGMENTS RECEIVED FROM TRANSCANADA 40 38 28 TRANSCANADA 01/30/2014, 04/10/14, 05/26/2014, AND 05/29/2014 2. LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA BOUNDARIES SHOWN ARE 39 APPROXIMATE. POTENTIAL LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS MORE 27 THAN 100 M FROM ALIGNMENT ARE GENERALLY NOT SHOWN; EXCEPTING LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS WHERE FORMATION OF A LARGE LANDSLIDE HAS THE POTENTIAL TO IMPACT THE PIPELINE. REFERENCE 1. ESRI: TOPOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND MAP SERVICE 2. COORDINATE SYSTEM: CANADA LAMBERT CONFORMAL CONIC, DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN 1983 3. SEE SECTIONS 7.1 AND 7.2 FOR TECHNICAL REFERENCES USED TO PREPARE THIS FIGURE

CLIENT TRANSCANADA

PROJECT NEW BUILD ENERGY EAST PHASE I GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ASSESSMENT

TITLE POTENTIAL LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS STRIP MAP IF IF THISMEASUREMENT DOES NOTMATCH WHATIS SHOWN, THE SHEET HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM:ANSI B CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2014-07-21 25mm PREPARED DCH

DESIGN DCH REVIEW AMJ APPROVED DOW

PROJECT No. Rev. FIGURE 1400899 1 Path: G:\Trans_Canada\Energy_East\99_PROJECTS\1400899_Energy_East_Phase1_Geologic_Assessment\03_PRODUCTION\MXD\FIGURE\PhaseI_Report\Rev1\1400899_2000_001_Rev1_LandslideMapBook.mxd

A-23 0 CA PDF Page 110 of 110 LEGEND Potential Landslide Hazard Area and ID Number EE-LS-295 High Moderate (M3) Moderate (M2) Moderate (M1) Low 35 Kilometre Post and Number Energy East Centerline Cromer Lateral Centerline

WESTERN PORTION EASTERN PORTION

57 56 55

54 53 58 52 51 50 0 0.5 1 2 49 KILOMETRE 48 47 59 NOTES 45 46 1. ALIGNMENT SEGMENTS RECEIVED FROM TRANSCANADA 44 TRANSCANADA 01/30/2014, 04/10/14, 05/26/2014, AND 05/29/2014 43 2. LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA BOUNDARIES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. POTENTIAL LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS MORE THAN 100 M FROM ALIGNMENT ARE GENERALLY NOT SHOWN; EXCEPTING LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS WHERE FORMATION OF A LARGE LANDSLIDE HAS THE POTENTIAL TO IMPACT THE PIPELINE. REFERENCE 1. ESRI: TOPOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND MAP SERVICE 2. COORDINATE SYSTEM: CANADA LAMBERT CONFORMAL CONIC, DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN 1983 3. SEE SECTIONS 7.1 AND 7.2 FOR TECHNICAL REFERENCES USED TO PREPARE THIS FIGURE

CLIENT TRANSCANADA

PROJECT NEW BUILD ENERGY EAST PHASE I GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ASSESSMENT

TITLE POTENTIAL LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS STRIP MAP IF IF THISMEASUREMENT DOES NOTMATCH WHATIS SHOWN, THE SHEET HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM:ANSI B CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2014-07-21 25mm PREPARED DCH

DESIGN DCH REVIEW AMJ APPROVED DOW

PROJECT No. Rev. FIGURE 1400899 1 Path: G:\Trans_Canada\Energy_East\99_PROJECTS\1400899_Energy_East_Phase1_Geologic_Assessment\03_PRODUCTION\MXD\FIGURE\PhaseI_Report\Rev1\1400899_2000_001_Rev1_LandslideMapBook.mxd

A-24 0